US expands maritime militarisation in global chokepoints, escalating geopolitical tensions under guise of counter-piracy

Indigenous coastal communities, particularly in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Yemen, have long relied on traditional maritime governance systems that predate colonial naval laws. These systems often resolve disputes through customary practices, contrasting sharply with the militarised enforcement of international maritime law. The US seizures disrupt these systems, replacing them with a framework that prioritises corporate shipping interests over local ecological and cultural preservation. Indigenous leaders argue that these operations violate their right to self-determination over coastal waters, as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The US military’s expansion into international waters follows a long history of maritime interventions, from the 19th-century 'gunboat diplomacy' to the 2003 Iraq War’s seizure of ships under the guise of enforcing UN sanctions. The 1980s Tanker War in the Persian Gulf, where the US reflagged Kuwaiti tankers to protect them from Iranian attacks, set a precedent for treating commercial vessels as military assets. These patterns reveal a consistent strategy: using ambiguous legal frameworks to justify military control over critical trade routes, often under the banner of 'freedom of navigation.'

In China, maritime seizures are framed as provocations designed to contain its economic rise, with state media drawing parallels to historical Western imperialism in Asia. African nations, particularly those in the Gulf of Guinea, view these operations as part of a broader pattern of external military presence that undermines regional sovereignty. In Latin America, where the US has a history of intervening in maritime disputes (e.g., the 1989 invasion of Panama to seize Noriega’s yacht), these seizures are seen as extensions of Monroe Doctrine-era policies. Each region interprets these actions through the lens of historical grievances and contemporary power struggles.

Maritime law experts argue that the legal basis for these seizures is tenuous, relying on interpretations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that are contested by many nations. The Pentagon’s video release suggests a performative aspect to these operations, designed to signal deterrence rather than address concrete security threats. Studies on maritime piracy show that most incidents occur in territorial waters near failed states, not in international waters where these seizures occur. The focus on 'counter-piracy' obscures the fact that these operations are more likely targeting non-state actors or commercial vessels aligned with geopolitical rivals.

Artists and poets in coastal communities often depict maritime militarisation as a violation of the sea’s sacredness, framing ships as symbols of both life and exploitation. In Pacific Islander traditions, the ocean is a living entity with its own agency, and military seizures are seen as disrespectful interventions that disrupt natural balances. The Pentagon’s video release, with its dramatic helicopter descents, echoes colonial-era 'spectacle of power,' where force is displayed not just for deterrence but for psychological dominance over global trade routes.

If this trend continues, we may see a bifurcation of maritime governance, where Global North nations enforce 'rules-based order' through military means while Global South nations develop alternative trade alliances (e.g., BRICS maritime initiatives). The militarisation of shipping lanes could trigger a new arms race in naval drones and AI-driven patrol systems, further destabilising already fragile regions. Future scenarios include China expanding its 'String of Pearls' strategy to counter US dominance, or non-state actors (e.g., private maritime militias) exploiting the power vacuum in contested waters.

Seafarers, particularly those from the Philippines and Indonesia—who make up 30% of the global maritime workforce—are disproportionately affected by these seizures, facing arbitrary detentions and loss of livelihoods. Women in coastal communities, who often rely on fishing for subsistence, report increased harassment by naval patrols, exacerbating gender inequalities. The narrative also excludes the voices of port workers in Yemen or Sudan, where US seizures have disrupted aid deliveries, framing them as 'collateral damage' in a broader geopolitical struggle.