Calling it 'collateral damage' won't do

US military Central Command (Centcom) carried out a precision strike on Settebello, a tanker bearing the flag of Pacific island-nation Palau with 24 Indian sailors on board, as it transited the Gulf of Oman on Wednesday. Three sailors have been confirmed to be killed, while the rest were rescued by the Omani navy. The US claimed that the crew failed to comply with instructions. But what is undeniable is that the strike was conducted in neutral territory (Oman) of a neutral country's vessel (Palau) manned by sailors from another neutral country (India). There was no casus belli.

The US-Israel war on Iran has expanded into commercial maritime spaces beyond the Strait of Hormuz. The existing legal framework governing blockades was designed for traditional inter-state naval warfare, not hybrid conflicts like the current one. New conditions require new protocols. Even though the US is sure to veto it, UNSC must support a resolution on maritime civilian protection. Passing off the attack on Settebello as 'collateral damage' will not do.

The 176 member states of UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO) must push to improve maritime civilian protection. Actualising these measures will require middle powers, India included, to revisit the doctrine of 'strategic autonomy'. Current fragmented geopolitics has pushed multipolarity as a default setting to the detriment of multilateralism. Ensuring the safety of international shipping and seafarers requires a rules-based order. The alternative is more 'collateral damage', something that India - the latest victim of an attack by a country whose head of state publicly wished its head of government 'many years of greatness and success' on the very day of the attack - must not tolerate.