The Hormuz fee fight still lacks the only object that can settle it: public text. The paper's May 30 article on the missing Hormuz protocol said sanctions relief did not create a usable passage rule. Monday's RTHK report keeps the same defect in view. Trump says no tolls. Fars-linked sources say no such clause exists. An Iranian lawmaker suggests administrative-fee management language may go to parliament. [1]

Those are three different claims, and none is a published protocol. A toll is not the same as a fee. A fee is not the same as sovereignty management. A parliamentary review is not the same as a shipping instruction. The language matters because ships, insurers, refiners, and importers cannot route through a semantic compromise. They need to know who may charge, who may stop, who may inspect, and who may guarantee passage. [1]

The Globe and Mail's AP explainer shows why the wording is not a technicality. Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for global energy flows. When route rules change, or appear to change, the consequence moves through cargoes, insurance, freight rates, and consumer prices. A political statement that says "no tolls" may reassure markets for an afternoon. It does not tell a tanker captain what document governs the transit. [2]

The X argument will be louder than the file. One camp will call any payment a shakedown. Another will call any U.S. objection a sovereignty violation. The paper's job is less exciting: ask for the clause. If the agreement bans tolls, publish the line. If it allows administrative fees, publish the line. If parliament must vote, publish the bill. [1]

This is where diplomacy becomes accounting. The disputed word may decide whether a charge is treated as a sovereign port-style fee, a sanctioned toll, a temporary administrative measure, or an unenforceable talking point. Those categories sound bloodless until a vessel's insurer or charterer has to price them. [2]

The absence of text also protects readers from a false binary. RTHK's account lets the paper say that competing descriptions exist around tolls, fees, management, and parliament. It does not let the paper choose the winning description. The Globe and Mail's chokepoint explanation shows why that uncertainty matters beyond the negotiating room: a vague clause at Hormuz can become a cost in freight, insurance, and fuel. [1] [2]

The supported conclusion is narrow. RTHK shows live disagreement over what Hormuz language exists. The Globe and Mail shows why the passage matters. Neither source supplies the final clause. Until a public text appears, every confident sentence about tolls, fees, and sovereignty is premature. [1] [2]

-- HENDRIK VAN DER BERG, Brussels