The contest at sea is never as simple as whether a cruise ship docks in Hong Kong or not. Shipbuilding, shipping and ports are a "maritime artery" that runs through industry, trade and military strength. The civilian shipbuilding industry in the United States has been weak for many years, and there are only seven existing civilian shipyards. It has to rely on Chinese-made parts to maintain shipbuilding capabilities. Under this kind of industrial chassis, the United States wants to rely on rules to suppress China, and this time China chooses to counter it with port fees, which is telling the other party: you don't have the final say on maritime rules.
China's initiative is not a bloodshed, but a planned, rhythmic counter route. The last round was rare-earth, this time it was port charges, the goal is to hit from the resource side to the transport chain and to formulate rules. And the policy is not "one knife", but "step" charges: from 2025 per net ton 400 yuan, up to 2028 to 1120 yuan / net ton; a maximum of five times a year, more than a number of times no longer repeat charges; all "Ship Built in China" exempt from special port charges. Even if the ship is registered in the name of American enterprises, as long as it is made in China, can be exempt. This design, on the one hand, accurately fighting opponents, while supporting the Chinese shipbuilding industry, is very
The reason for this step was because the United States took the lead. In April this year, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative launched a "301 investigation" into China's shipbuilding, logistics and maritime industries; on October 14, the United States officially announced the imposition of high port service fees on ships owned, built or operated by China on the grounds of "ensuring supply chain security and maintaining fair competition." China responded on the same day, announcing the imposition of special port fees on US-related ships, and the Ministry of Transport of China will issue specific implementation rules. This is not an emotional operation, but the principle of reciprocity: I will return as much as you add.
The first apparent “reverse effect” soon appeared.On October 17, the luxury cruise ship “RIVIERA” of Norwegian Cruise Company had planned to stop at the Shanghai port, temporarily canceling the suspension and changing Busan due to the refusal to pay a special port fee of up to RMB 11,67 million.
To know, this is not who gambles without relying on the port, but clearly calculated the real account RIVIERA" net tonnage of about 2.9 thousand tons, according to the current charges standard, a single port will be 11.67 million yuan. If the maximum of five charges is calculated per year, the year is 58.35 million yuan; until 2028, the ladder fee increased to 1120 yuan / net ton, 5 times is 1.63 billion yuan. and the cruise ticket net profit is also 200 to 3 million yuan, relying on one loss once, relying on five losses a year. the losses are also blamed by passengers, enterprises can only withdraw.
The chain reaction after the departure of the port was even more evident. The flight was blocked by more than a thousand passengers, with more than 800 complaints; the company not only had to compensate, refund, but also to bear the cost of adjusting the route and pressure of public opinion. The three major U.S. cruise giants – Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian – were caught up in the same difficulty: paying money and being costly undermined by global competitiveness; not giving, abandoned the Chinese market.
And the market is never empty waiting for people. American cruise ships left, and Chinese-funded cruise ships (such as "Gulangyu Island") and European cruise ships quickly filled their seats. The original route demand was directly filled, and the booking volume of some routes even increased. China's cruise market has more than 3 million passengers a year. Such a market does not mean that you can easily come back if you don't want it.
This game of port expenses is essentially an industrial chain and rule-making dispute.The United States attempts to force the shipping industry chain to flow back into the country through the "charge barriers", but its shipbuilding industry foundation has long collapsed, and also relies on Chinese components.When the industrial reality and policy ambitions collide, it turns into "take a stone and kick your feet."
However, China did not slam the door this time. The policy sets up ladder time differences, upper limits on the number of charges, and exemption clauses (such as maintenance at the port can be waived), which essentially leaves a window for subsequent negotiations.
So how should we ultimately go, not in China, but in the United States. either continue to hard-top protectionism, to rebuild the port walls higher, but the own industrial chain can not bear first; or sit down and acknowledge the reality, re-establish cooperation mechanism in the shipping and shipbuilding industry.