By Ashok Ayers
NEW YORK: The press conference was supposed to be about ships, sailors and the increasingly dangerous waters through which the world’s commerce moves. Instead, in a few seconds, it became another public India-Pakistan confrontation at the United Nations.
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Liberian Foreign Minister Sara Beysolow Nyanti had come together on the eve of Jaishankar’s address to the 81st United Nations General Assembly to announce a new international initiative: the Group of Friends on Safety and Security of Shipping and Seafarers.
Its subject could hardly have been more consequential. Nearly 80 percent of global trade moves by sea. Jaishankar put the value of world trade at about $35 trillion last year and noted that nearly two million seafarers operate the world’s merchant fleet. Yet commercial shipping is increasingly navigating not merely rough seas but geopolitical conflict — from the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf to the Red Sea and the Black Sea.
India and Liberia bring complementary strengths to the initiative. India is a major source of seafarers, while Liberia operates the world’s largest shipping registry by tonnage. Their decision to jointly lead the Group of Friends therefore reflects a practical maritime partnership rather than simply another diplomatic grouping.
Jaishankar’s message was deliberately broad. Attacks on commercial vessels and merchant mariners, he said, were “legally and morally indefensible”. He argued that the international community could not remain a spectator — or become a victim — of violence that threatens shipping. The initiative is intended to be inclusive, voluntary and action-oriented, with participating countries exchanging information and experience and pursuing practical cooperation through existing multilateral institutions, particularly the International Maritime Organization and International Labour Organization. Twenty-five countries participated in the group’s first meeting, according to Jaishankar.
For Liberia, the issue is equally fundamental. Nyanti described shipping as the mechanism through which food, energy and other essential goods reach the world, while emphasising three priorities: the safety of ships, the security of sea lanes and the protection of the human beings who crew those vessels. The timing was significant. The security of maritime routes has become inseparable from the wider crisis of international supply chains. Attacks or threats in one strategic waterway can raise insurance costs, force vessels to take longer routes, delay energy and commodity shipments and expose seafarers to prolonged periods in conflict zones.
For India, there is an additional human dimension. Indian nationals constitute a substantial part of the global maritime workforce, meaning that attacks on ships in conflict-affected waters can quickly become an Indian diplomatic and humanitarian concern.
That was the substantive story of the press conference. Then came the interruption.
The event had been announced as a remarks-only briefing, with no provision for questions because of the ministers’ subsequent engagements. Nevertheless, a Pakistani journalist interrupted and asked Jaishankar when the Indian government would stop “sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan”. The minister’s response was only seven words: “A terrorist country is asking me that question? Come on.” The exchange lasted seconds. But it immediately overwhelmed the larger maritime-security story on social media and in Indian news coverage. It went viral across the world on all news wires.
Jaishankar did not enter into a lengthy rebuttal, did not raise his voice and did not attempt to turn the event into a bilateral India-Pakistan argument. Instead, he delivered a terse counter-charge and moved on. India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Harish Parvathaneni, subsequently told the journalist that he had heard the minister’s response.
The episode illustrates something increasingly familiar at multilateral forums: even when countries attempt to build coalitions around issues affecting the entire international community, geopolitical disputes can quickly intrude. The journalist’s question was framed around allegations that India sponsors terrorism in Pakistan. The publicly recorded exchange itself, however, did not establish the additional claims sometimes attached to the incident about India’s external intelligence agency, RAW, and developments in Baluchistan. Those are allegations and should not be presented as established facts without independent evidence.
What can be established is that Pakistan and India continue to accuse each other over terrorism and security. India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of permitting terrorist groups to operate from its territory, while Pakistan has made counter-allegations against India. The competing claims remain part of the deeply contested India-Pakistan diplomatic narrative.
Jaishankar’s larger message at the press conference, however, went beyond Pakistan. His reference to the world’s “four Fs” — food, fuel, fertilizer and finance — placed maritime security within a much larger global economic framework. Conflict at sea is not merely a naval or security problem. It can become an inflation problem, an energy problem, a food-security problem and ultimately a development problem.
That is why the India-Liberia initiative could prove more significant than the viral exchange that followed it. The world’s merchant fleet cannot function if commercial vessels become collateral damage in conflicts between states or non-state actors. Nor can the global economy assume that seafarers will continue to accept dangerous assignments without stronger guarantees of safety, medical assistance, crew rotation and repatriation.
Nyanti’s emphasis on seafarers was particularly notable. The people operating ships are often invisible in discussions about globalisation. Containers, oil tankers and bulk carriers are discussed in terms of commodities and trade statistics; the men and women aboard them tend to disappear from the equation.
The new Group of Friends attempts to put them back at the centre. It also reflects a changing character of multilateral diplomacy. Instead of waiting for a single grand international agreement, countries with specific interests are increasingly forming smaller coalitions around concrete problems and then using existing institutions to amplify their concerns.
India’s partnership with Liberia fits that model neatly: the world’s largest shipping registry joining hands with one of the world’s major sources of seafarers. The irony of the New York press conference was therefore hard to miss.
It began with a call for countries to protect the arteries of global commerce from violence and confrontation. It ended with a reminder that even at the United Nations — the world’s principal forum for international cooperation — old geopolitical conflicts remain capable of hijacking the conversation.
But the maritime initiative itself carries a message that extends beyond the India-Pakistan confrontation. Ships do not recognise political rivalries. Neither do supply chains. A missile, mine, drone or armed attack that disrupts a shipping lane can affect consumers thousands of miles away. A seafarer caught in a conflict zone does not become less vulnerable because his ship is registered in another country.
That is the challenge India and Liberia have placed before the UN community: maritime security is no longer simply a matter for navies and shipping companies. It is increasingly a question of protecting the global economy — and the people who keep it moving. And that, rather than the brief verbal clash that followed, was the real substance of Jaishankar’s final major press engagement before India took its message to the UN General Assembly. (IPA Service)
