The Strait of Hormuz is vital for the global economy, the longer it stays closed the higher the risks. Yet, returning to normal will be difficult.
In my most recent commentary, published with Global Observatory, I look at mid-term scenarios. A UN Security Council mandate, or even a maritime UN Peacekeeping mission, could be key. Leadership from the EU will be needed.
In a new commentary, written with Jane Chan, we investigate what options are available for opening the Strait of Hormuz while the war rages on. We argue that increased multi-lateral and diplomatic efforts are urgently needed. Read the commentary here.
Continuing the discussion on the Strait of Hormuz, I spoke to CNBC about the importance of the Strait and the options for re-opening it. Military solutions will be limited, and diplomatic negotiations are urgent, which include the shipping industry.
In a new article published with the ISA journal Global Studies Quarterly, I investigate international naval symposia. Starting out from the observation that these forms of multi-national military gatherings are proliferating, I show what happens at these events and why it matters.
Trying to combine my work as a maritime security expert with the spirit of an ethnographic observer, I draw on my experience of participating in 15 naval symposia around the world. My argument is that these events are sites of ritualized practices and share common elements, such as gift exchanges, which create social bonds among military leaders.
Southeast Asia has long been a region of maritime security innovation. A key driver was the maritime piracy crisis in the late 2000s.
A key regional governance mechanism originating from that time is the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) and its associated Information Sharing Centre (ISC). ReCAAP is one of the few legally binding and well institutionalized regional maritime security frameworks that has served as a role model for arrangements such as the Djibouti Code of Conduct in the Western Indian Ocean and the Yaoundé Code of Conduct in the Gulf of Guinea.
On Friday, 13.3., I had the pleasure to participate in the symposium celebrating the 20th anniversary of ReCAAP as a panel moderator. This provided a great opportunity to revisit a comprehensive study on maritime domain awareness in Southeast Asia that I conducted in 2015. Most of the observations continue to be valid:
ReCAAP’s main function is to provide a clearing house for piracy-related information and to analyze available incident data. It’s key strength is to ensure high level of awareness and understanding of piracy in the region, even if threat levels are low. The centre’s work is moreover important in capacity building and the exchange of lessons across global ocean regions.
Held annually in the first week of March the EU Ocean Days are the EU’s spectacle showcasing its work related to the sea. It is, moreover, an opportunity for the EU institutions to engage in stakeholder dialogues.
My visit to the 2026 edition confirmed: the attention to the oceans by the various EU institutions is impressive. Yet, the focus is multi-directional. As we have discussed in a recent book chapter, the flurry of initiatives risks fragmentation. Indeed, the thicket of programs, policies, and strategies is nearly impossible to navigate. It is hard to imagine that anyone has a complete picture.
Particularly encouraging was the emphasis on data collection, sharing, and fusion for ocean health, the blue economy, and maritime security. The announcement of significant funding for the OceanEye initiative was a clear highlight. For the first time the event also featured sessions on maritime security, led by by the dedicated team in DG Mare.
As part of the week, I organized a side event together with Paul Trautendorfer of JPI Oceans. Continuing my work on information sharing, at this stakeholder dialogue event we investigated how the EU’s approach to ocean observation and maritime domain awareness can be better harmonized and streamlined. Our background paper showed that more than 15 platforms are currently funded by the EU.
The discussion highlighted the need for stronger efforts in
It was a pleasure to contribute to an innovative EU-Indonesia track 1.5 dialogue this week.
Track 1.5 dialogues are a conventional tool in diplomacy. In Southeast Asia they are even one of the main modes of diplomatic negotiations – known as the ‘ASEAN way’. Mixing participants from ministries of foreign affairs, governmental research organizations and independent think tanks, their primarily objective is usually trust and confidence building, developing interpersonal networks, but also epistemic alignments: open exchanges on problem interpretation, current and planned policies, recent developments and plans. Chatham house rules are usually applied and participants are asked to make frank remarks or ask critical questions, which could otherwise violate diplomatic conventions. If and how such events are effective and trickle down to formal track 1.0 diplomatic negotiations is often debated, but in the end very difficult to measure.
This week I participated in the EU-Indonesia track 1.5 dialogue. Mainly concerned about the implications of the recent comprehensive trade treaty, the event was noteworthy as the EU tried out a new format: strategic foresight. In what might be described as “foresight diplomacy”, the focus of the event was on exchanges on foresight expertise.
Strategic foresight is a planning approach that has become increasingly popular in the defense sector, economic policy making, but also the commercial sector. As a methodology it is focused on the management of risk by identifying mega trends and scenarios. Contrary to forecasting, multiple futures are anticipated and evaluated for their plausibility in participative processes. The goal of planning is preparedness and resilience. Both the OECD and NATO have developed important guidelines for carrying out such analyses and the EU and Indonesia, but also many others, have developed foresight capacities in their diplomatic services.
Foresight diplomacy is focused on the systematic exchange not only of experience, but also the outcomes of foresight exercises. Comparisons between meta trends, scenarios and resulting gaps and planning priorities serve as the basis for not only epistemic alignment, but also identifying common interests and collective action space.
According to the organizers the event that I attended was one of the first in which the EU, led by the foresight unit in the European External Action Service and its partner – Forward Global –, tested this approach. While there’s a risk that foresight diplomacy dialogues become methods driven and technocratic, they might be extremely useful to overcome the short-termism and news focus that too often prevails at track 1.5 dialogues. I look forward to following how the EU continues to advance this innovative form of diplomacy.
Professional news: I have joined the Mauritius based Charles Telfair Centre as an Associate Fellow from February this year. The Center is one of the leading cross-cutting think tanks in the Western Indian Ocean working on the challenges of Small Island Developing States and regional governance issues.
In my role, I will support the center’s ambitions in the area of regional ocean governance and maritime security. We will focus in particular on how maritime security governance structures in the region can be strengthened, persistent blue crimes and safety risks can be encountered, and increasing geopolitical risks can be mitigated. One focus area will also be the future governance of the Chagos archipelago. We also hope to form relevant expert networks within and beyond the region.
Do not hesitate to get in touch if you want to discuss opportunities for collaboration.
Time for a brief look back at 2025. Here is what made this year special:
To everyone I had the privilege of meeting in 2025: thank you for making it extraordinary. Excited to see what 2026 brings…