Is it feasible to use "defensive measures" to open the Strait of Hormuz?

Amid heightened tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, the UN Security Council recently held a discussion. According to multiple media reports, a draft resolution proposed by Bahrain initially called for the Security Council to authorize “all necessary measures” to ensure the free flow of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The report said that, due to a lack of consensus, the draft was revised several times and ultimately added wording on “defensive measures,” but the date for the vote was repeatedly postponed. This discussion raises a very serious question: in the face of the shipping problem in the Strait of Hormuz, how should the international community act, and how should the Security Council play its role?

Since late February, when the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran, normal shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and security have been severely affected, with a drop of up to 95% in the number of vessels transiting. One fifth of the world’s oil shipments has been disrupted, oil prices have surged, and the global supply chain faces a severe test. Infrastructure in the GCC states has been frequently targeted, causing casualties and property losses.

Supporters of the draft resolution said the draft is intended to address the current situation in which passage through the strait has been obstructed, and will help safeguard the interests of regional countries. However, even “defensive measures” still include a use-of-force option. Therefore, the crux of the issue is: can using force truly open up the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz sits at a critical chokepoint between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. In this highly sensitive conflict zone, authorizing “all necessary measures” is vague in definition and difficult to control; once it is exploited by forces outside the region, it is all too likely to escalate into a large-scale military conflict. At that point, the Strait of Hormuz would no longer be merely a problem of blocked shipping; it could instead become a battlefield altogether, with the world’s energy lifeline genuinely cut off—directly contradicting the original intention of maintaining safe navigation. In the end, regional countries would not only fail to secure safe shipping lanes, but would be drawn into deeper flames of war.

This is precisely the core position repeatedly emphasized by China: the actions of the UN Security Council should help ease tensions, stop the fighting, and reopen negotiations—not provide endorsements for unlawful acts of war, and certainly not pour fuel on the fire. China does not agree with attacks on GCC states. China supports efforts by the international community to facilitate shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, but the key lies in how to achieve smooth passage. In the current situation, authorizing member states to use force is tantamount to legitimizing unlawful abuse of force, inevitably leading to further escalation of the situation and causing serious consequences. According to reports, the three permanent members of the Security Council—China, Russia, and France—have expressed different views on the draft, and there are also disagreements within the non-permanent members, which in practice reflects the common concern of the international community about the risk of escalation.

The issue of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is a spillover manifestation of the war involving Iran. The root of the problem is that the U.S. and Israel launched use of force against Iran without authorization from the Security Council. If the “root” of the war is not addressed and only the “symptom” of shipping through the strait is targeted, it is no different from trying to bail out the water after the roof has already leaked. The fundamental way to prevent the situation from worsening is for the U.S. and Israel to stop military actions. Only by truly halting hostilities and ending the war can the dark clouds of war hanging over the Strait of Hormuz possibly dissipate, and only then can shipping safety be fundamentally guaranteed.

Someone may ask: how easy is it to stop the fighting and negotiate? But precisely because it is difficult, the international community needs to gather consensus and pool strength. As a traditional mediator among the United States, Israel, and Iran, the GCC states have unique advantages in understanding the root causes of regional conflicts. The Security Council shoulders the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and should take an objective, fair, and impartial stance—strengthening communication with the GCC states and, to the greatest extent possible, consolidating political will for a peaceful resolution.

Force cannot open up shipping lanes, nor can it bring peace. A political solution is the fundamental path. China is a long-term, reliable strategic partner of Middle Eastern countries and has been working to cool the situation. Recently, China and Pakistan jointly put forward a five-point proposal, precisely with a view to solving the problem from the root: stop hostile actions, open negotiations as soon as possible, and ensure the safety of non-military targets, the safety of shipping lanes, and the primary position of the UN Charter. These five points are open, and we call on more countries and international organizations to respond and participate. Only by putting out the flames of war can the shipping lanes be illuminated; only by choosing peace can prosperity be safeguarded. This is a principle repeatedly proven by history, and it is the only right way to resolve the current predicament of the Strait of Hormuz.

This article is a Global Times editorial.

Review | Lu Changyin

Editor | Xu Xuan

Endless information, precise interpretation—available on the Sina Finance APP

Responsible editor | Guo Jian