Many people think that China and the United States pay for port charges, China loses, because the United States basically does not build ships, and China makes more ships.
Starting today, which is October 14, 2025, the two sides will formally charge each other a fee called "port charges" or "special port charges".The United States is the first to launch ships owned, operated or built by China, while China has announced reciprocal countermeasures almost at the same time.
China, as the world’s first shipbuilder, more than half of the world’s ships are built in China, while the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry can almost be ignored.
Many people think roughly that China will lose, like a transportation company with many vehicles and an opponent with only a few cars will charge each other for roads, obviously the former will pay much more money.
If you think so, it’s too small to look at China’s strategic wisdom.
The cleverness of China's counter-measures lies in the identification criteria of "American ships". We didn't simply focus on "American-made" ships, because there were really few. China has extended the standard to ships controlled or deeply influenced by American capital.
Specifically, as long as a shipping company holds a quarter or more of the shares of American funds, or there are American executives on the board of directors of the company, then the ships owned by this company have to pay additional fees when entering Chinese ports.
This trick, which could amount to four or two thousand kilograms, instantly expanded the target of the sanctions from a handful of U.S.-made ships to the large fleet of major shipping companies around the world.
In today's high level of globalization, large international shipping companies such as Mediterranean Shipping, Maersk, Dauphine, etc., it is difficult to completely exclude the image of U.S. investment institutions in their list of shareholders, and there are often American executives in the board of directors.
The United States wanted to take advantage of the development of China's shipbuilding industry, and did not think that China cleverly circumvented the hard clutter of the shipbuilding industry, using the funds and talent links of global shipping companies, putting the pressure back to the United States.
It’s like playing chess and the other side wants to eat your car, but you in turn have a troop and hit you.
China's countermeasures are not only precise, but also full of wisdom. The charging plan is gradually increased over four years. In the first year, the charging will be RMB 400 per net ton and gradually increase to 1120 yuan by 2028.
This stepped design not only demonstrates China's resolute counter-attitude, but also leaves a valuable time window for the two sides to negotiate and resolve problems. It can be said to be "promoting peace through war."
More importantly, China has made it clear that the same ship can only charge fees up to five times a year, and when the same voyage calls at multiple Chinese ports, the fees will only be paid at the first port.
These rules are clear, give clear expectations to the shipping market, and demonstrate China’s professionalism and restraint when formulating the rules.
In contrast, the U.S. measures appear to be somewhat simple and rough: they charge ships owned, operated or built in China, and even ships built in China, additional charges per container.
The result of this practice has not only hit Chinese shipowners, but also misled international shipping companies that use a large number of Chinese-made ships.
The Global Shipping Council condemned this behavior as a "pirate", but Washington has a "I am like it."
This unilateral protectionist approach, rather than revitalizing the U.S. shipbuilding industry, is “buriing mines” on the global supply chain, and the ultimate result is likely to move the stone to kick your feet.
The impact of this port wave is far more than just a billing between shipping companies, and it has already produced a chain reaction. U.S. farmers may be the first to feel pressure because increased transportation costs of agricultural products will directly erode their profits.
Some shipping companies are reluctant to say that the small Chinese ship they ship bananas, one stop in the U.S. port may cost more than the value of the whole ship bananas.
The more far-reaching impact is that it may force global shipping companies to rethink their capital structures and executive teams. In order to avoid costs, some companies may consider reducing the proportion of U.S. capital or adjusting board members, which may, to a certain extent, promote the trend of "de-Americanization" of global shipping capital.
This Chinese game, which seems to be a passive response, is proactively arranged, turning the capital advantage of the United States into its strategic weakness.
Therefore, when we look back at the phrase “China and the United States pay port charges, China loses,” we find it too one-sided. China did not fall into the scenario set by the United States, but re-wrote the drama in a more noble way.
This contest around port fees is not only a trade friction, but also a strategic game about the right to make rules and the right to control the lifeline of global logistics.
Never compromise with the United States!China is actively fighting the provocation of the White House, who will suffer more in the naval war?
Starting today, which is October 14, 2025, the two sides will formally charge each other a fee called "port charges" or "special port charges".The United States is the first to launch ships owned, operated or built by China, while China has announced reciprocal countermeasures almost at the same time.
China, as the world’s first shipbuilder, more than half of the world’s ships are built in China, while the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry can almost be ignored.
Many people think roughly that China will lose, like a transportation company with many vehicles and an opponent with only a few cars will charge each other for roads, obviously the former will pay much more money.
If you think so, it’s too small to look at China’s strategic wisdom.
The cleverness of China's counter-measures lies in the identification criteria of "American ships". We didn't simply focus on "American-made" ships, because there were really few. China has extended the standard to ships controlled or deeply influenced by American capital.
Specifically, as long as a shipping company holds a quarter or more of the shares of American funds, or there are American executives on the board of directors of the company, then the ships owned by this company have to pay additional fees when entering Chinese ports.
This trick, which could amount to four or two thousand kilograms, instantly expanded the target of the sanctions from a handful of U.S.-made ships to the large fleet of major shipping companies around the world.
In today's high level of globalization, large international shipping companies such as Mediterranean Shipping, Maersk, Dauphine, etc., it is difficult to completely exclude the image of U.S. investment institutions in their list of shareholders, and there are often American executives in the board of directors.
The United States wanted to take advantage of the development of China's shipbuilding industry, and did not think that China cleverly circumvented the hard clutter of the shipbuilding industry, using the funds and talent links of global shipping companies, putting the pressure back to the United States.
It’s like playing chess and the other side wants to eat your car, but you in turn have a troop and hit you.
China's countermeasures are not only precise, but also full of wisdom. The charging plan is gradually increased over four years. In the first year, the charging will be RMB 400 per net ton and gradually increase to 1120 yuan by 2028.
This stepped design not only demonstrates China's resolute counter-attitude, but also leaves a valuable time window for the two sides to negotiate and resolve problems. It can be said to be "promoting peace through war."
More importantly, China has made it clear that the same ship can only charge fees up to five times a year, and when the same voyage calls at multiple Chinese ports, the fees will only be paid at the first port.
These rules are clear, give clear expectations to the shipping market, and demonstrate China’s professionalism and restraint when formulating the rules.
In contrast, the U.S. measures appear to be somewhat simple and rough: they charge ships owned, operated or built in China, and even ships built in China, additional charges per container.
The result of this practice has not only hit Chinese shipowners, but also misled international shipping companies that use a large number of Chinese-made ships.
The Global Shipping Council condemned this behavior as a "pirate", but Washington has a "I am like it."
This unilateral protectionist approach, rather than revitalizing the U.S. shipbuilding industry, is “buriing mines” on the global supply chain, and the ultimate result is likely to move the stone to kick your feet.
The impact of this port wave is far more than just a billing between shipping companies, and it has already produced a chain reaction. U.S. farmers may be the first to feel pressure because increased transportation costs of agricultural products will directly erode their profits.
Some shipping companies are reluctant to say that the small Chinese ship they ship bananas, one stop in the U.S. port may cost more than the value of the whole ship bananas.
The more far-reaching impact is that it may force global shipping companies to rethink their capital structures and executive teams. In order to avoid costs, some companies may consider reducing the proportion of U.S. capital or adjusting board members, which may, to a certain extent, promote the trend of "de-Americanization" of global shipping capital.
This Chinese game, which seems to be a passive response, is proactively arranged, turning the capital advantage of the United States into its strategic weakness.
Therefore, when we look back at the phrase “China and the United States pay port charges, China loses,” we find it too one-sided. China did not fall into the scenario set by the United States, but re-wrote the drama in a more noble way.
This contest around port fees is not only a trade friction, but also a strategic game about the right to make rules and the right to control the lifeline of global logistics.
Never compromise with the United States!China is actively fighting the provocation of the White House, who will suffer more in the naval war?