Anti-War Protests Spread Across Global Ports as Dockworkers Target Arms Trade

On October 30, dockworkers in 113 ports across 22 countries joined a coordinated campaign called “Dockworkers Don’t Work for War.” Their actions opposed arms shipments to Israel and the use of commercial ports for military logistics. Participation ranged from 24-hour strikes to brief stoppages and demonstrations, so not every port experienced cargo disruption.

The largest actions were in France, Italy, Greece and Türkiye, where unions called full-day strikes. Workers also acted in Morocco and Cyprus. In Greece, about 3,000 workers walked out at the Port of Piraeus, disrupting cargo operations and ferry services. Italy also held a general strike.

The campaign extended beyond Europe and the Mediterranean. Actions took place in India, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay and the United States. In the United States, ILWU Local 10 joined events in Oakland and San Francisco. Major listed ports included Valencia, Algeciras, Barcelona, Hamburg, Genoa and Tangier Med.

A dockworkers’ strike happens when port workers collectively stop or limit their work. That can include loading and unloading containers, moving cargo through terminals or supporting vessel operations. Workers may strike for a full day, stop briefly or demonstrate outside gates. In this campaign, participation varied by location.

The basic mechanism is simple: when essential port tasks stop, ships cannot move cargo through the terminal normally. Containers may remain on vessels, in storage yards or awaiting onward transport. Ferry services can also be disrupted when port workers are unavailable. At Greece’s Port of Piraeus, a walkout by about 3,000 workers disrupted both cargo operations and ferry services.

The effects depend on the action’s length and the port’s role. Some participating ports had no cargo disruption. Others faced delays or operational interruptions. Organizers estimated that 52,000 containers could be delayed, though the article notes that this figure was not independently verified.

The action was large by both geographic and organizational measures. More than 25 unions across five continents participated, covering 113 ports in 22 countries. Organizers described it as the largest coordinated port action of its kind. The campaign included full-day strikes, shorter stoppages and demonstrations, meaning its intensity varied from port to port.

The clearest worker figure comes from Greece, where approximately 3,000 people joined the walkout at the Port of Piraeus. Organizers estimated that about 52,000 containers carrying $2.8 billion in cargo could be delayed. That estimate describes potential exposure, not confirmed losses or permanently disrupted cargo.

Organizers put the direct economic cost at $57 million. The article stresses that the container, cargo-value and cost estimates were not independently verified. The action also expanded from an earlier February 6 event involving 20 ports in seven countries, showing a substantial increase in reach.

When a major port stops handling cargo, commercial shipping loses a crucial transfer point. Containers may remain aboard ships, wait in terminal yards or miss planned connections to rail, trucks or other vessels. Ferry services can also be interrupted. The result is not always a total shutdown, but even short stoppages can disturb tightly timed cargo movements.

The article gives a direct example at Piraeus, where about 3,000 workers disrupted cargo operations and ferry services. Organizers estimated that 52,000 containers could be delayed across the campaign. Shipping companies may seek other terminals, but that can move pressure elsewhere and create further scheduling problems. Seafarers may experience longer waits, changed port calls and uncertain sailing schedules.

The immediate effect depends on the port and the action. Some sites held demonstrations without cargo disruption, while others called 24-hour strikes. The broader implication is that coordinated stoppages can affect supply chains across several routes, rather than producing only one local delay.

Participating unions oppose military cargo moving through civilian ports because they say commercial infrastructure should not support weapons shipments connected to violations of international humanitarian law. Their campaign specifically challenges arms shipments to Israel and the use of civilian ports for military logistics. They also connect the issue to a wider concern about militarization and workers’ rights.

The International Transport Workers’ Federation supports the action. It called on governments and employers to respect workers who refuse military cargo without retaliation. ITF General Secretary Stephen Cotton said governments should stop the flow of arms used to violate international humanitarian law. The Istanbul Declaration later formalized opposition to weapons, ammunition, military equipment and troops moving through civilian facilities.

The unions’ demands are not limited to military cargo. The ITF said workers also seek better wages, improved working conditions and protection from increasing automation. ITF President Paddy Crumlin criticized rising military spending while workers face insecure jobs, squeezed wages and technological pressure.

Earlier dockworker actions focused on particular shipments in Greece, France, Italy and Morocco. The article also describes an international day of action on February 6 involving 20 ports in seven countries. Those efforts provided a base for the October 30 campaign, which organizers expanded into a coordinated action across five continents.

More than 25 unions now participate, including Germany’s ver.di, Sweden’s Svenska Hamnarbetarförbundet, Denmark’s 3F, the Maritime Union of Australia and ILWU Local 10 in the United States. Their tactics range from full-day strikes to short stoppages and solidarity demonstrations. The shared target is military cargo moving through civilian commercial networks.

The ITF has strengthened the campaign’s international reach. Its 2024 Congress resolutions supported a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and measures against arms transfers linked to humanitarian-law violations. In May 2026, the Istanbul Declaration brought together unions representing more than 35 ports to formalize opposition to military cargo through civilian facilities.

Modern commercial ports are shared gateways for many kinds of cargo. The campaign argues that civilian shipping networks also carry military equipment, components and supplies. Research cited by No Harbour for Genocide identified 315 shipments of components for Israeli defense manufacturer Elbit Systems through 56 commercial ports in 29 countries. It also tracked about 3,400 shipments supplying U.S. military bases through 67 ports in 42 countries.

The key mechanism is network dependence. A military shipment moving through a commercial system may pass through several ports, terminals and shipping routes. If workers at one site refuse it, a company might try another terminal. Organizers argue that simultaneous action across many ports makes those alternatives harder to use.

This is why the October 30 campaign spans multiple regions rather than focusing on one port. Actions occurred in Europe, the Mediterranean, Asia, Australia and the Americas. Participation still varied, and some ports saw no cargo disruption, but broader coordination could make military logistics more difficult to shift around.