Global shadow, think the tension in China and the United States has taken a turn?
When Trump’s turnaround suddenly softened, and U.S. Defense Secretary Hughes cried out not seeking conflict, a deeper, more crippling “consumption war” against China was underway.
The U.S. has given up on the hot war, but has turned its strategic ramifications to finance, law, and public opinion, trying to dismantle China’s global port network from the inside.
This is not good intention, but a well-planned “defeat strike” with ambitions far beyond imagination.
Pressure is so simple.
The wind seems to have changed.Trump’s opening of the door in public appears to have softened, repeatedly emphasizing the stability of the Sino-American relationship.
Just recently, the defense ministers of the two countries also telephoned, and the defense minister of the United States clearly stated that they do not seek a conflict with China.
However, under the surface and the wind and rain, a deeper game has long been unleashed.
U.S. policymakers have almost completely abandoned the idea of a direct military conflict with China, as both sides knew that it would be an unbearable price.
But giving up the hot war is not giving up the confrontation.The strategic focus of the United States is shifting from public screaming to a more hidden, more systematic form of containment.
The core of this shift is driven by the common anxiety of the two parties: to contain China.This consensus is unusually strong, and in the years to come, I am afraid, will not change due to the change of the owner of the White House.
Thus, a new model called “permanent war” and “consumption war” quietly became the core of the U.S. strategy against China.
This new style of play of the United States is not so much a diplomatic strategy as a "mixed toolbox" integrating finance, law and public opinion. It aims at the global network of Chinese-funded ports in an attempt to fundamentally disintegrate it.
The financial level is the bottom salary.
This is much more than a verbal threat, but rather a “soft-acquisition” by using Western strong capital advantages, for example, capital giants like Bellad expressed their intention to acquire port assets in Yangtze and Yangtze Group in 23 countries around the world.
This operation method is extremely sophisticated, and through the operation of capital such as holding shares, it can be achieved without causing huge movements, the transfer of "immovable" control over the port.
At the level of laws and fees, it is to reshape the rules of the game.
The U.S. plans to introduce a new law on ships owned or operated by Chinese companies from October this year. Shipping service chargeThe new tariff, starting at $50 per net tonne, is also planned to rise to $140 in three years.
This is essentially a disguised trade barrier.At the same time, the White House also issued an executive order demanding a roadmap for the rejuvenation of the local shipbuilding industry and considering the establishment of a new ship registry in the U.S. Virgin Islands to use rules to compete for the dominance of international shipping.
At the level of diplomacy and public opinion, it goes hand in hand, aiming at worsening the living environment of Chinese enterprises.
The U.S. government frequently puts pressure on countries where ports are located, especially those that are relatively weak. Panama has already felt the pressure, while Jamaica is facing a double diplomatic and economic squeeze from Washington to reduce port cooperation with China.
For Spain, the U.S. has expressed its so-called “preoccupation” with the franchise rights of long-distance and medium-range shipping.
Meanwhile, U.S. think tanks such as the Center for Research on Strategic and International Issues have continuously issued reports showing that Chinese port investments in places such as Kingston, Jamaica, pose “significant security risks” and create the basis for public opinion for official actions.
The wisdom of small nations.
This competition around ports has pushed many small and medium-sized countries to an unusually embarrassing position, where they have to make difficult strategic choices in the seam of the game of great powers.
Take the example of the Greek port of Pireus, which holds a 67% stake in its port administration, and this once-depleted port revives, becoming a glowing pearl of the Mediterranean.
On the other hand, there is enormous political and economic pressure from the United States, which is enough to shake down any small country.
Faced with this dilemma, the response of these countries is very subtle. When asked whether it had received pressure from the United States, the Greek government publicly stated that it had not received any relevant change plans.
The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs also said it did not receive any formal communications or concerns from the United States.The Jamaican Foreign Trade Ministry in the Caribbean responded publicly, saying it did not receive any formal requests from the United States.
This well-defined “not yet formally notified” official statement reflects both the careful preservation of their country’s diplomatic sovereignty and the reality of their cautious march between the two great powers.
This is a survival wisdom, but how long this vague zone can last, nobody can say.
In the future, countries in different regions, such as the Mediterranean and the Caribbean, are likely to make very different choices because of their varying levels of dependence on the U.S. economy, which could lead to the risk of “camping” and even “fragmentation” of the global port network.
Unstoppable network resistance.
In the face of such a precise targeted strike by the United States, China's response strategy is not the same. Its core lies in the pursuit of "decentralization" and "network resilience".
Simply put, not putting the eggs in one basket, is the risk of being attacked by building a more resilient network of multilateral cooperation.
China's idea is to shift from operating "based points" to weaving "networks".Through deepening Belt and Road cooperation, China is actively strengthening cooperation with non-Western-led global hubs such as the Singapore Port Authority and the UAE Harbour of Halifa. Its purpose is to build a distributed port network that is not easily affected by a single country.
The direct consequence of American policy is pushing risks and costs to the world.
Organizations such as the International Shipping Association have issued warnings that measures such as the "shipping service fee" of the United States will inevitably push up global transportation costs and increase corporate operational risks.
This account will ultimately be shared by consumers and enterprises all over the world.
This game around the port is destined to be a protracted war.
The consensus of the two parties in the United States determines its long-term nature. It will continue to test China's ability to safeguard its global interests, and at the same time force all countries involved in global trade to reassess the security and cost of their own supply chains.
conclusion
The competition between China and the United States around global ports has long exceeded the simple competition between the two countries, it is more like a preview of the future form of globalization.
It clearly proclaims the end of an era — an age of naïve thinking that economic cooperation can be completely disconnected from geopolitical considerations — which has gone.
In the future, whether a global supply chain is stable or not will depend not only on market efficiency, but also on the wisdom and determination shown by various roles on the chessboard in the game of great powers.
Port, an ancient facility with hundreds of years of trade history, is being endowed with a brand-new strategic connotation, and it has become the best window for us to observe how the global order changes in the 21st century.