Maritime trade and security in times of geopolitical crises
Reporting from the World Trade Dialogue 2026, Hamburg
The waters of global commerce have fundamentally darkened. For decades, the European Union’s economic model relied on a simple premise: a rules-based order where maritime trade flows unhindered and cheaply across the globe. But at the World Trade Dialogue 2026, hosted today at the Hapag-Lloyd headquarters, security and logistics experts delivered a sobering reality check: the era of uncontested, cost-free maritime trade is definitively over.
The maritime safety panel (featuring Nico Lange of the IRIS Institute, Silke Lehmköster of Hapag-Lloyd, and Prof. Dr. Moritz Schularick of the Kiel Institute) painted a picture of a global supply chain moving “from one crisis to the next crisis”. From the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, to Houthi disruptions in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and escalating threats in the Persian Gulf, the shocks are no longer anomalies; they are the new normal.
The Shifting Economics of Defense
At the heart of the crisis is a radical shift in the “economics of defense”. Aggressors, including both state and non-state actors, are now deploying cheap, asymmetric technologies to paralyze global logistics. As Prof. Schularick bluntly explained, the threat often comes from highly destructive drones that resemble “flying mopeds”. Because these offensive weapons cost a fraction of the highly expensive defensive countermeasures required to stop them, the baseline cost of global trade is destined to rise.
This physical threat to shipping leaves the rules-based order in a precarious state. As the United States increasingly views the traditional rules-based system as disproportionately benefiting its strategic rivals, its willingness to act as the global maritime hegemon is declining.
Who Protects the Seas?
If the US steps back, the question of who physically enforces the rules-based order becomes urgent. Nico Lange emphasized a hard truth for European policymakers: “Free trade is not for free”. He argued that if a nation wants to maintain a rules-based trading system, it must possess the military power to enforce those rules.
For the maritime industry, militarizing its own fleets is a red line. When asked about arming commercial vessels, Hapag-Lloyd’s Fleet Managing Director Silke Lehmköster firmly rejected the idea: “Not comfortable at all”. She stressed that multinational civilian seafarers (nationals from the Philippines to Nigeria) cannot be dragged into state warfare. “Why would I want to have a commercial vessel suddenly militarized? That is not the idea of world trade,” Lehmköster stated.
Options for Business and Policymakers
This leaves a distinct division of labor for the future of global trade. For business leaders, the immediate imperative is to “balance efficiency and resilience”. While the industry continues to rely on the standardized container to drive down logistics costs, shipping lines must accept that maintaining resilience against geopolitical shocks will require significant contingency planning and a shift away from pure cost-reduction models. Furthermore, green transitions take time; although Hapag-Lloyd is ordering dual-fuel vessels, these will not be delivered until 2027 to 2029, meaning the industry must bridge the gap with existing technologies.
For European policymakers, the demands are far more structural. Lange criticized the traditional German approach of ignoring conflicts and hoping they simply “go away,” arguing that European governments must be willing to act and “create facts that others have to deal with”.
Schularick identified Europe’s fragmented defense as the most critical vulnerability. He pointed out the “absurd fragmentation” of spending $550 billion across 50 different defense ministries and armies in Europe, achieving only a fraction of US capabilities. Taking concrete steps toward a unified European army is not just a security necessity, but an economic one.
Furthermore, Europe must learn to play the geopolitical game. “The biggest chip we have is access to the European market,” Schularick noted, urging the bloc to use this leverage to build coalitions and secure its interests.
Conclusion
The overarching consensus was that we are entering a “security first, efficiency second world”. Yet, the panel ended on a note of defiant optimism. Schularick summarized the required European mindset in three words: Security, Opportunity, and Europe. While the risks are multiplying, a united “Team Europe” still holds massive, untapped degrees of freedom to actively shape the new rules of global trade, if it finally chooses to wield them.
