India must stand up for its seafarers

ON July 19, four Indian seafarers were among 10 crew members killed when Russian cruise missiles struck a Guinea-Bissau-flagged cargo vessel navigating Ukraine’s maritime corridor. Earlier, an Indian national was killed when a merchant ship was attacked while transiting Russian waters in the Black Sea. Since April, the Black Sea has seen five Indian seafarers killed in attacks on merchant ships.

This follows an even more volatile spell in the Persian Gulf, where seven Indian seafarers have been killed in the Strait of Hormuz — three in US Navy missile strikes and four in Iranian attacks. Today, over 3,00,000 Indian nationals are serving in the merchant marine globally; all of them are at risk.

The targeting of neutral merchant shipping and its crews raises questions of morality, not linked to merits of the ongoing conflicts which now seem open-ended and whose “casus belli” has become obscure. The laws of armed conflict, as reflected in the San Remo Manual, draw a clear line. While permitting belligerents to interdict, board and arrest enemy merchant vessels or those carrying contraband to the enemy, a merchant vessel, flying a neutral flag, crewed by third-country nationals, carrying civilian cargo, is protected against attack by international law.

Attacking a merchant ship with missiles, with or without warning, is very hard to justify under the twin principles of “distinction” between combatants and civilians and “proportionality” that guide every aspect of the laws of war. Sanctions authorised by a state’s domestic legal system (rather than the UN) do not have any “locus standi” under international law. Therefore, attacking and killing merchant seafarers cannot be passed off as collateral damage.

Such reprehensible acts are compounded by the seafarers’ total lack of agency in foreign waters, often without consular help. Once neutral shipping in a conflict zone becomes fair game as a target, the world can bid goodbye to “freedom of navigation”, a foundational public good of the international system, on which food security, energy supply and global trade and economy depend. Every strike on a neutral merchant ship normalises and justifies the riposte against the next ship.

So, what diplomatic or legal tools do India and the international community have at their disposal to counter and reverse this potentially disastrous trend?

First, issuing strong demarches and publicly conveying displeasure in the strongest possible terms should be sustained and intensified. Diplomatic pressure must be applied even-handedly to participants in the Russia-Ukraine as well as US/Israel-Iran conflicts so that there are no accusations of selective outrage.

Second, India must campaign for and press the International Maritime Organisation for the issuance of real-time “no-strike” notifications and demarcation of safe corridors for merchant shipping carrying vital food or energy supplies. Such mechanisms, already in place for Black Sea grain exports, must be replicated in other conflict zones and enforced rigorously with independent monitoring.

Third, there must be a push for a binding UN Security Council resolution explicitly reaffirming that neutral, civilian-crewed commercial vessels are protected under the laws of naval warfare, and that arbitrary attacks would be treated as war crimes and investigated.

Fourth, India as a “preferred security partner” must collaborate with other nations whose seafarers are at risk to create a rapid-response and evacuation capability. Under this scheme, naval or coast guard units can be pre-positioned near known flashpoints (Hormuz, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, Black Sea approaches) for undertaking rescue and medical evacuation of affected seafarers.

Lastly, government agencies must insist that seafarers are informed by ship owners in advance of the war risk on a voyage and given the right to decline duty in conflict zones without loss of employment. Those volunteering to sign on must be provided hazard disclosure and war-risk insurance.

The distress of merchant seafarers is merely a symptom of a far greater malaise: the open disregard for customary norms and international law by powerful nations. For far too long, the international community has shown timidity in confronting leaders who act as though they are above the law — a collective failure that threatens to undo centuries of diplomatic evolution.

Since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia established state sovereignty and non-interference as the foundation of international relations, states have steadily codified the rules of engagement. The Hague Conventions established rules on the conduct of war; the Geneva Conventions extended protection to civilians, the wounded and prisoners of war; and the San Remo Manual extended these protections to naval warfare. Finally, the UN Charter created a collective security framework through the Security Council and General Assembly to hold aggression, genocide and war crimes as cognisable and punishable offences.

There were many indications that this painstakingly built architecture was rapidly crumbling. First came Russia’s peremptory occupation of Crimea in 2014, citing specious irredentist arguments and ignoring condemnation of the breach of Ukrainian sovereignty. The timid response of the international community undoubtedly encouraged Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Then followed Israel’s war, waged ostensibly against Hamas and Hezbollah. It inflicted heavy casualties on the civilian population of Gaza and was seen as a genocidal campaign. As the international community watched passively, the US-Israel axis launched an unprovoked and massive campaign on February 28 this year, targeting Iran with nearly 900 strikes within the first 12 hours. Civilian infrastructure, including schools, was targeted; Iran’s theological and political leaders were assassinated by military means; and then both the US and Iran proceeded to attack neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf.

In 2022, PM Narendra Modi told Russian President Vladimir Putin that “today’s era is not an era of war.” Wars break out when powerful nations disregard historic and customary international laws. In the conflicts raging today, India has so far walked a prudent but thin line of neutrality.

As a leader of the Global South — and as a self-proclaimed Vishwaguru — India must now convey in a firm and candid manner to all belligerents: their obduracy is inflicting suffering on the global community, and its patience is running out fast.