Strategic Communication as a Geopolitical Tool in Maritime Security: The Case of RMSA and the DCoC-JA in Western Indian Ocean

CRITERIA	DETAILS
*Communication orientation*	Whether communication is primarily inward-facing, supporting cohesion, trust and coordination among members or outward-facing, supporting legitimacy, donor alignment and external recognition. This dimension captures the balance between internal coordination and external positioning.
*Narrative framing*	The main narratives through which threats, roles and ownership are constructed, particularly the balance between the “African solutions to African problems” register and the depoliticized shared-threat register. It examines how these narratives are communicated and reflected across framework outputs and by member states and partners.
*Institutional anchoring*	How communication is embedded in institutional structures, mandates, plans and resources, or treated as a secondary function. This indicates the extent to which communication is institutionally supported and linked to legitimacy.
*Observable Coordination outcomes*	Practical coordination effects associated with communication, including agreements, MoUs, liaison arrangements, joint exercises and operations, and sustained participation. These provide a counterweight to institutional self-description.

Table 2

Comparative Analysis Table of RMSA and DCoC-JA.

PARAMETERS	RMSA (REGIONAL MARITIME SECURITY ARCHITECTURE)	DCoC-JA (DJIBOUTI CODE OF CONDUCT/JEDDAH AMENDMENT)
Foundational purpose	A holistic, multi-dimensional framework designed to detect, deter, and respond to a broad range of illicit maritime activities and crimes across the WIO through coordinated information sharing, joint operations and African-led regional cooperation.	A regional framework designed to address piracy and a broad range of transnational maritime crimes across the WIO, GoA, and Red Sea through information sharing, capacity building, coordinated responses, and regional cooperation.
Geographical scope and membership	WIO (island and coastal states); seven signatory states with provision for expansion	WIO, GoA, and Red Sea: 21 signatory states (as of late 2025) across 3 sub-regions
Institutional anchor	IOC as implementer, Secretariat of the RMSA Steering Committee and normative anchor	IMO as Secretariat and normative anchor
Legal status/Institutional basis	Two binding regional agreements on information sharing and joint operations	Non-legally binding political commitment
Operational coordination mechanisms	RMIFC and RCOC, national maritime centres and ILOs	National Focal Points, Information Sharing Network, Capacity-Building Matrix, Working Groups
External support and partnerships	EU (primary donor), EU NAVFOR, IFC-IOR, IFC Singapore, UNODC, Interpol, IMO… bilateral partners (UK, India, United States, etc.).	EU, United States, Denmark, India, UNODC, UNITAR, industry actors and other international organisations.
Donor structure	Highly concentrated (primarily EU-funded).	Diversified support from EU, United States, Denmark, India, UNODC, UNITAR, industry and other partners.
Strategic communication orientation	Predominantly inward-facing: operational communication, trust-building and shared regional understanding, complemented by selective external communication.	Outward-facing and multi-level: internal consensus-building combined with external engagement, visibility and partner mobilization.
Communication modalities	Operational information exchange, exercises, workshops, ministerial conferences and reports; limited public communication through IOC/RMIFC channels.	Communiqués, engagement strategies, working groups, high-level meetings, donor forums, Communication and Visibility Plan, and digital communication.
Contribution to regional agency and legitimacy	Reinforces African agency through operational coordination and the central role of coastal and island States, while integrating external support without displacing regional leadership.	Balances regional ownership with international engagement, enabling diverse members to articulate shared priorities and engage collectively with external partners.
Internal/external communication	Internal communication builds trust, coordination and shared operational understanding; external communication projects African-led regional priorities and strengthens partnerships.	Developed communication architecture but comparatively weaker operational consolidation.
Communication and operations relationships	Strong operational coupling but limited external visibility.	Communication architecture more developed than operational implementation.
Overall equilibrium/Vulnerability	Relatively stable but fragile: rooted in operational practice, but constrained by fragmented communication and concentrated donor dependence.	More narratively robust but operationally fragile: supported by broad legitimacy and partnerships, but vulnerable to uneven implementation.