Towards a European Ports Strategy: competitiveness and strategic autonomy begin at the quay

Europe can no longer afford to treat its ports as purely commercial infrastructure. As China expands its footprint across key maritime hubs, questions of ownership, control and dependency are moving to the centre of the European agenda. Ports are gateways to our economy, and increasingly to our strategic autonomy. Europe therefore needs a coherent, forward-looking Ports Strategy, one that matches openness with resilience and competitiveness with security.

For decades, European ports were treated primarily as commercial gateways. Today, they are something far more consequential: they sit at the intersection of trade, energy, security and geopolitics. And that changes everything.

In July 2025, the European Commission announced its intention to present an EU Port Strategy, expected to be launched in early 2026. The timing is not accidental. Maritime trade has become a frontline in systemic competition – not through military confrontation, but through ownership structures, infrastructure control and economic leverage.

Recent reporting in Brussels has shown how several member states are tightening scrutiny over foreign bids in ports and rail infrastructure. The concern is tangible. Chinese state-linked entities have acquired stakes in multiple European terminals over the past decade, embedding themselves in critical nodes of our logistics networks.

From Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port and a key gateway for industrial supply chains in the North Sea, to Piraeus in the Mediterranean – now majority-owned by Chinese interests – our ports are not neutral assets but nodes that illustrate both the scale and sensitivity of Europe’s maritime network.

From logistics hubs to geopolitical leverage

China’s global port investments are part of a deliberate long-term strategy. Through state-backed companies, Beijing has secured operational control or ownership stakes in ports worldwide. In Europe, these investments were initially welcomed as capital inflows during years of financial constraint, but what once looked pragmatic now raises legitimate questions.

Ports are dual-use infrastructure. They underpin supply chains, military mobility, energy imports and industrial resilience. When foreign actors gain significant influence over such assets, dependencies can emerge, gradually and often unnoticed.

European intelligence and security services have repeatedly warned about risks linked to foreign ownership in critical maritime infrastructure. Cyberattacks, organised crime and hybrid threats exploit weaknesses in coordination between customs, law enforcement and port authorities. The vulnerability is multidimensional.

The upcoming EU Port Strategy of the European Commission must therefore go beyond competitiveness and logistics efficiency. It must integrate resilience, security and strategic autonomy in a coherent framework.

A fragmented response is not enough

Several member states have already tightened their national foreign direct investment screening mechanisms. Some have restricted port acquisitions; others are reassessing long-standing agreements. But national approaches alone are, though necessary, insufficient.

The reality is that supply chains are European. Maritime corridors cross borders connecting multiple jurisdictions, and security gaps in one port can affect the entire internal market. A patchwork of national rules risks arbitrages rather than genuine resilience.

A European approach is therefore essential.

In this context, the European Port Alliance provides a platform for operational coordination, particularly against organised crime and cyber threats. It is a real opportunity for us to set a political direction and to reinforce the resilience, integrity and long-term competitiveness of Europe’s ports, not only as logistics hubs, but as strategic assets at the heart of our economic security.

What ownership structures are acceptable for high-tonnage ports? How should dual-use infrastructure be treated? How do we ensure transparency in concession agreements? And fundamentally, what level of third-country ownership are we prepared to allow in Europe’s most critical maritime infrastructure?

These are governance questions. Questions that will shape our maritime competitiveness for decades.

Competitiveness and security are not opposites

European ports are also powerful economic engines. They handle approximately 74% of the EU’s external trade and 37% of intra-EU trade, making them indispensable to the Single Market. They serve as gateways for industrial inputs, export platforms for European manufacturers and increasingly as hubs for the energy transition – hydrogen terminals, renewable fuel imports, electricity interconnections and CO₂ infrastructure.

They also operate in a highly competitive global environment. State-backed actors benefit from massive financial support and long-term strategic planning. The geopolitical dimension of ports is becoming explicit. For example, from October 2025, Chinese-built vessels will face significant docking fees in US ports, illustrating how maritime infrastructure is increasingly framed within economic security policy.

In this context, investment needs are substantial: digitalisation, green infrastructure, cybersecurity systems and workforce training. If Europe wants its ports to remain competitive, it must provide enabling conditions, regulatory clarity, coordinated investment frameworks and predictable rules.

Several political parties in the European Parliament follow this issue closely. There is a clear understanding that ports are central to Europe’s industrial base. Openness must not translate into vulnerability.

A forward-looking Port Strategy must therefore rest on three pillars:

• First, resilience and security. Enhanced coordination between customs, law enforcement and port authorities; stronger cybersecurity requirements; systematic assessment of foreign ownership in critical terminals.
• Second, competitiveness and scale. Ports need access to financing for green and digital transformation. Fragmentation within the Single Market should not limit their ability to operate efficiently across borders.
• Third, strategic clarity. Europe must define what “open strategic autonomy” means in the maritime domain. Not isolationism. Not protectionism. But reciprocity, transparency and risk-awareness.

Choosing strategic maturity

The debate on ports reflects a broader evolution in Europe’s mindset. For too long, infrastructure policy was treated as technocratic and apolitical. But in an era of systemic rivalry, infrastructure is power.

The question is not whether Europe should engage with China. Trade and interdependence will remain. The real question is whether Europe can distinguish between healthy economic engagement and structural dependency.

A European Ports Strategy is not about closing doors. It is about ensuring that the most strategic gateways of our continent remain aligned with Europe’s long-term economic and security interests.

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.