A recent sponsored article by Jonathan Borg, Ambassador (non-resident) of Malta to Panama and strategic adviser in maritime affairs, maritime policy and diplomacy (Times of Malta online, December 24, Sunday Times of Malta, December 28) affirms that ‘blue diplomacy’ is “Malta’s next step in maritime leadership” and implies that it is a new doctrine.
Academic literature defines diplomacy as the art and practice of managing international relations through negotiation, communication and tact to build relationships, resolve conflicts and promote national interests. Modern forms of diplomacy focus on different actors and goals, and use various tools such as military power in the case of military or gunboat diplomacy, or scientific exchange in the case of scientific diplomacy. Blue diplomacy is no different, and it is thus not a new concept. It is essentially the use of diplomacy in the maritime sphere.
Blue diplomacy, in its larger context, is the use of ocean governance, maritime policy and marine resources as instruments of foreign policy and international cooperation. It moves beyond viewing oceans solely as domains for trade or security, framing them as critical areas for geopolitical influence, economic development and environmental stewardship.
Underpinning any effort for blue diplomacy is maritime cooperation which involves collaboration on sea trade, security and resource management.
Blue diplomacy, underpinning our international efforts in the maritime sector, has been used by successive Maltese governments and diplomats involved in international maritime negotiations.
Malta’s initiative and proposal to the United Nations General Assembly in 1967 that the seabed constitutes part of the common heritage of mankind and which culminated in the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 and the establishment in Malta of the IMO/UNEP Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC) in 1976 and the IMO International Maritime Law Institute (IMLI) in 1988 are clear examples that blue diplomacy has long supported Malta’s diplomatic efforts in the maritime domain.
Our influence on the international maritime stage is, among other things, the result of our long-standing active engagement in relevant international fora, particularly at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), an organisation we joined in 1966. Our active engagement was and continues to be directed by constructive contributions to the development of international maritime policy, including the formulation of international maritime standards and our active engagement with all stakeholders. The respect that Malta enjoys at the global maritime level is the result of arduous work put in by both the public and private sectors alike.
Democratic governance ensures that stakeholders can freely express their views and advance proposals, regardless of their popularity with government authorities. While such input critically shapes maritime policy, the decision-making power ultimately rests with the government. However, Ambassador Borg’s assertion that industry’s proposals “must remain aligned” with the government’s set direction not only seems prescriptive but also seems at odds with his own later assertion that policy must serve the entire maritime ecosystem.
Truly comprehensive policymaking is an inclusive endeavour, demanding collaboration across sectors and institutions, including the public and private sectors, industry bodies and NGOs – a necessity for any successful long-term national strategy.
We understand that following the insistence of the Malta Maritime Forum (MMF), a consultative process led by the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Public Works is currently under way to develop such a strategy for adoption by the government.
Blue diplomacy is not a new concept. It is essentially the use of diplomacy in the maritime sphere
One expects that the formulation of this strategy would align with the Malta Vision 2050 and be the result of a wide consultative process involving all maritime stakeholders, including both public and private sectors, as well as the wider political spectrum and civil society. Only in this manner can the adopted strategy ultimately provide a long-term future vision for Malta’s maritime sector to be followed by successive government administrations in the future. The fact that there is (and there has been for quite a long time) political convergence on the maritime sector should eventually facilitate the implementation of this strategy.
Towards the end of his article, Ambassador Borg takes Panama as an example, which “shares our values of stability, neutrality and professionalism” and states that Malta and Panama can cooperate on a number of issues in the maritime sector.
While Malta and Panama are both leading maritime nations and indeed each has skilfully employed blue diplomacy − leveraging maritime policy for strategic influence − to capitalise on unique advantages and become central to international shipping, their global roles are distinct.
Panama’s status derives from the Panama Canal, a geographic linchpin. This critical waterway, handling about 6% of world trade, makes Panama indispensable to global supply chains. Its blue diplomacy is fundamentally linked to managing this vital transit route and promoting its massive ship registry, which covers roughly 16% of the world’s fleet.
In contrast, Malta has built its reputation and diplomatic influence on regulatory quality and its strategic EU position in the Mediterranean. Its blue diplomacy focuses on championing high safety and environmental standards, making it the EU’s largest and a top global registry. Moreover, Malta extends its influence through a comprehensive range of maritime services, from a main container transhipment hub and a major port of call and home port for cruise liners to a yachting hub and ship and yacht repair facilities.
Malta’s and Panama’s ship registry models reflect different diplomatic goals: Panama’s “open registry” emphasises flexibility and global reach, while Malta’s quality-focused model builds credibility and reinforces its role as a reliable EU partner. Economically, Panama’s blue diplomacy secures revenue from canal fees and ship registry volume, whereas Malta’s fosters a broader, service-based maritime cluster.
Ultimately, Panama’s blue diplomacy is anchored in geographic necessity and scale, while Malta’s is an active project of regulatory reputation and integration.
Perhaps nothing illustrates the contrast more starkly than the two countries’ quite different votes at the last session of IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), when the crucial amendments to address carbon emissions from international shipping were put forward for adoption.
In conclusion, while the term ‘blue diplomacy’ may represent a fresh articulation of Malta’s maritime priorities, it would be more accurate to describe it as a contemporary framework that builds upon the country’s well-established maritime legacy rather than an entirely novel approach.
The rebranding of these enduring priorities under the unified conceptual umbrella of ‘blue diplomacy’ may enhance coherence and visibility, but the substance of Malta’s maritime diplomacy has been carefully crafted and cultivated through generations of dedicated engagement with the international community.
Stefan Micallef is former assistant secretary-general and director, Marine Environment Division of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Jonathan Pace is former deputy director, Technical Cooperation Division, IMO.