just The U.S. is also making final preparations for the port fee policy of October 14.At that time, China had taken the lead in showing its trump cards.
On September 30, the State Council of China issued a decision to amend the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on International Maritime TransportThis seemingly technical adjustment actually provides a sufficient legal basis for China’s counter-action.
The revised regulations add two important sections.
Changes in regulation are quite obvious, international shipping trading platforms have been formally incorporated into the scope of regulation, relevant enterprises must fulfill their information reporting obligations, and violators will face clear legal responsibilities and punitive mechanisms.
What is more striking is the counter-measure clause part.
China has prepared four response plans:
the first set is to charge special charges directly to the vessels of the country of destination;This trick can be said to be "repaying the other body with the other way";
The second set is more severe, direct prohibition of entering Chinese ports by targeted country vessels;
Third approach to obtaining information Prohibiting or restricting target countries from obtaining information related to China's international shipping;
The fourth is the most complete. Prohibiting or restricting target countries from operating international shipping and auxiliary businesses in China.
The latest report released by the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies shows that despite the continued heating up of trade frictions between China and the United States, global shipping companies 'orders for commercial ships from China shipyards still maintain a strong momentum.
This phenomenon reflects a reality that cannot be overlooked: China’s technological and cost advantage in the global shipbuilding industry has not disappeared due to political factors.
In the face of the upcoming U.S. port fee collection policy, some Chinese shipping companies have begun to adjust their strategies.
They are optimizing the existing route configuration. More efforts will be invested in ports in Asia, Africa and countries along the Belt and Road.
This adjustment of the route seems passive and could actually open up new growth spaces for China’s shipping industry.
From the perspective of global trade flows, the impact of this change is gradually becoming apparent.
Traditional trans-Pacific routes may lose some of their appeal due to rising costs, and the importance of intraregional trade and South-South trade will further increase.
The port fee policy initiated by the Trump administration was initially intended to undermine the competitiveness of China’s shipbuilding industry.
The actual effect may be counterproductive.
The first problem lies at the technical level.
After years of development, China's shipbuilding industry has reached the world's leading level in certain ship types and technical fields.
Purely charging will not change the technology dependence of global shipping companies on China shipyards.
Especially in terms of high-end ships such as large container ships and liquefied natural gas transport vessels, the orders of Chinese shipyards are still endless.
The second issue concerns America’s own economic interests.
Additional port charges will eventually be passed on to the cost of transporting goods, which in turn drives up the prices of U.S. imports.
In the context of inflationary pressures still existing, this practice is undoubtedly accelerating.
U.S. consumers will bear an additional cost burden for this policy.
The third issue is related to the long-term development of U.S. ports.
If Chinese shipping companies significantly reduce the frequency of using U.S. ports, the business volume of major U.S. ports will decline significantly.
Important ports on the west coast, such as Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, may be the first to hit.
The reduction in port business volume not only affects the revenue of port operators, but also affects related logistics, warehousing, transportation and other supporting services.
On October 14, the U.S. port fee collection policy will officially take effect on this day, and China's countermeasures have also completed legal preparations.
Both sides are waiting for each other’s final decision.
In terms of time, China chose to announce countermeasures on September 30, leaving the United States with two weeks to consider it.
This approach shows both China’s determination and leaves room for possible negotiations.
The industry generally believes, If the United States persists in implementing the tariff policy, China’s countermeasures are likely to follow immediately.
At that time, the global shipping market will face a new round of adjustment and clearance.
This dispute around port costs is actually a concrete reflection of the trade friction in the shipping sector.
Unlike previous tariff disputes, this time the focus is on shipping services and infrastructure access rights.
The Chinese side stressed that if the United States carries out relevant policies, China will let the United States "pay four times the price".
Although this statement does not specifically describe the calculation method, it clearly conveys a tough attitude.
From the four countermeasures that have already been announced, China’s countermeasures cover several levels such as fee collection, port access, information acquisition and business operations.
The shipping industry is an important link in global trade, and any restrictions on this industry may have a ripple effect.
If the current dispute continues to escalate, it will not only affect trade exchanges between China and the United States, but may also impact the stability of global supply chains.
After watching this whole incident, I feel that the United States is really a bit impatient in this move.
In the era of globalization, the shipping industry has long been the pattern of having me in you and you in me. The use of policy measures to change the choice of the market is often the opposite.
The four countermeasures cover mostly all aspects of the shipping industry, and if fully implemented, the impact on U.S. shipping companies could be greater than expected.
In fact, this tit-for-tat approach is not good for both sides.
The shipping industry itself is a highly international industry, and artificially creating barriers will only increase the cost of global trade. It is consumers and related enterprises who ultimately pay the bill.
Of course, from another perspective, this also reflects the complexity of current international economic and trade relations.
Against the background of intensified competition among great powers, there may be more and more "non-traditional" forms of disputes.
How to avoid excessive impacts on the global economy while safeguarding their own interests is a question that all major economies need to think about.
Source of information:
The State Council of the People's Republic of China has issued an authoritative official document on the decision to amend the International Maritime Regulations.
U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Report - Global Shipping Company China Shipyard Order Data Analysis
Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China-the competent authority for the formulation and regulatory implementation of international maritime policies
U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) -Specific implementation agency for port fee collection policies
International Maritime Organization (IMO) Official Document-Global Shipping Industry Rulemaking and Policy Harmonization Platform
China Maritime Administration Policy Notice - Specific Implementation Measures for Port Management and Ship Supervision
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Statement-Official Statement on Trade Policies and Sanctions against China