ED Trump threatens global maritime order

Vehicles drive past an anti-U.S. billboard depicting U.S. President Donald Trump and the Strait of Hormuz in Tehran, May 30. Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump's latest proposal regarding the Strait of Hormuz marks a breathtaking departure from the very principles the United States has long claimed to defend.

By announcing the restoration of a naval blockade against Iran while declaring that the U.S. will impose a 20 percent toll on cargo transiting one of the world's most vital waterways, the U.S. president has crossed a line that should alarm adversaries and allies alike.

For decades, Washington has argued that the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway where freedom of navigation must be preserved against any attempt by Iran to exert unilateral control. Successive U.S. administrations have condemned Tehran whenever it threatened to interfere with commercial shipping or sought to leverage the strait for political or economic gain. Trump's proposal turns that position on its head.

If the U.S. can charge ships for exercising the internationally recognized right of transit passage simply because its navy patrols the region, on what legal or moral grounds can it continue to criticize Iran — or any other coastal state — for doing the same? The contradiction is impossible to ignore. A principle that applies only when convenient is no principle at all.

The implications extend far beyond the Gulf. International maritime commerce depends not merely on naval security but on a universally accepted legal order. Strategic waterways — from the Strait of Malacca to the Bab el-Mandeb, from the Turkish Straits to the Panama Canal and beyond — are governed by well-established international rules precisely because global trade cannot function if every nation imposes arbitrary charges or political conditions on transit.

Trump's proposal threatens to shatter that consensus. Should the world's strongest naval power claim the right to levy a 20 percent fee on commercial shipping through an international strait, other countries would inevitably be tempted to follow suit. Governments controlling similarly strategic chokepoints could justify their own transit tolls in the name of security, sovereignty or military expenditure. What begins as an exceptional measure in the Persian Gulf could quickly become an international precedent.

The consequences would be severe. Shipping companies would face overlapping tolls, unpredictable costs and mounting political risks. Insurance premiums would surge. Supply chains already strained by geopolitical instability would become even more fragile. Energy prices would remain vulnerable to political brinkmanship, while consumers around the world would ultimately bear the burden through higher prices. Most damaging of all, the established international maritime order — built over decades through painstaking diplomacy and legal consensus — would likely unravel.

Nor is there any credible legal basis for the U.S. to unilaterally impose such a charge on vessels exercising transit passage through an international strait. Freedom of navigation is not a commercial service sold by whichever navy happens to patrol nearby. It is a cornerstone of international law that has enabled unprecedented growth in global trade and economic prosperity. Transforming that principle into a revenue-generating enterprise would erode confidence in the rules-based order that Washington itself has repeatedly championed.

At a moment when tensions with Iran are already dangerously high, introducing an unprecedented toll risks further militarizing one of the world's most sensitive waterways. Instead of reducing instability, it invites retaliation, escalates confrontation and increases the likelihood of miscalculation. Economic coercion layered atop military escalation is a recipe for wider conflict, not lasting security.

The U.S. has every right to protect its forces, defend its allies and ensure the safety of international shipping against unlawful attacks. Those objectives, however, cannot justify rewriting the rules governing the global commons. A nation cannot simultaneously proclaim itself the guardian of freedom of navigation while demanding payment for its exercise.

The international community should reject this dangerous precedent before it takes root. America's allies, many of which rely heavily on uninterrupted maritime commerce, should make clear that they support secure sea lanes, not their commercialization. If Washington wishes to preserve its credibility as a defender of the international order, it must uphold the rules rather than redefine them for short-term political or financial advantage.

Trump should immediately withdraw his proposal. The world's oceans are not toll roads, and freedom of navigation is not for sale.