Singapore's Straight Talking on Strait Blockade
Singapore’s Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has outlined to the parliament in Singapore why his country strongly supports the global status quo position that nations bordering straits should not hamper transit passage even through territorial waters, nor charge transit fees.
In a particularly powerful speech, given Singapore’s respected and even-handed position globally, he noted that more oil and containers passed through the Strait of Malacca than through the Strait of Hormuz. At its narrowest, the Strait of Malacca is only 2 nautical miles wide. But even so, it was not in Singapore’s interest to capitalize on this geography; this would backfire, and it was in Singapore’s interest, as an entrepôt, that the international consensus on the matter be maintained. Otherwise, reprisal and reciprocal tolls and transit frees would disrupt global shipping, on which the world heavily depends for everyday survivability and prosperity. If one nation started charging tolls, others would follow suit – at Gibraltar, the English Channel, the Øresund, the Kuril chain, the Magellan passage – and there would be no end to where tolls could be charged. Toll gates would be further and further widened, and in the end the whole world would suffer by the limitations on free movement of goods.
Minister Balakrishnan observed that freedom of transit passage was guaranteed by Article 44 of UNCLOS, and could not be suspended for any reason, even in wartime. Even if states had not ratified UNCLOS, freedom of transit passage was historically well-established and part of customary international law.
that matters most
Get the latest maritime news delivered to your inbox daily.
The minister also reported to parliament that he had been in contact with his opposite number in Iran, and had told him that there were to be no bilateral discussions on the subject of restricting innocent passage movements. Singapore would not enter into or be part of any negotiation in which the question of charging tolls for transit passage was considered, and strongly supported the International Maritime Organization position on the subject.
If Singapore’s position based on principles were translated to the Strait of Hormuz, then Iranian action in recent weeks certainly contravenes Article 44 of UNCLOS. But an American plan to interdict Iranian ships and ports would not contradict Article 44 provided it was achieved by means other than blocking the Strait of Hormuz – for example, by intercepting Iranians ships on the high seas, where other provisions of UNCLOS might well apply.
Content Original Link:
" target="_blank">
