The Sino-US port fee war officially started yesterday, but unexpectedly, on the first day of the competition, clues appeared! Many people think this is a close trade war, but they are wrong! The truth is that when China came up with the "scalpel" precise counter-measure rules, the U.S. customs was shut down because of the government.
Please click "Follow" in the upper right corner of the officials. It will not only facilitate your discussion and sharing, but also give you a different sense of participation. Thank you for your support!
The announcement issued by China's Ministry of Transport on October 10 demonstrated the determination and ability of the China government to accurately respond. The announcement clearly listed various charging policies for US ships, including US domestic ships, ships with the US controlling more than 25%, ships flying the US flag, and US-made ships.
It is particularly noteworthy that ships registered in the Marshall Islands, as long as they have U.S. capital behind them, are also included in the scope of charges. This measure has undoubtedly dealt a major blow to the U.S. shipping industry.
Under the new policy, U.S. shipowners will face costs of up to 400 yuan per net tonne, which is expected to rise to 1120 yuan by 2028.
This means that a 70,000-ton cargo ship will have to pay 28 million yuan in the first year, and four years later this cost will reach 78.4 million yuan, which is undoubtedly a burden for the U.S. shipowners.
This Chinese game, simply a precise "surgical knife" type of strike, can both bring heavy economic pressure to the US side, but also attract global shipowners to turn orders to China through the market, further consolidating China's leadership in the global shipping field.
What's even more ingenious is that China has left room for countermeasures. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, it has adopted an annual fee ceiling and exemption clause.
Each ship can only pay its fees at most five times within a year, which allows US shipowners to still see room for negotiation when making payments. This strategy not only demonstrates China's "wisdom and courage", but also leaves a step for the United States, avoids completely intensifying conflicts, maintains a relatively "tolerant" attitude, thus winning more understanding and support from the international community.
In the face of China's precise countermeasures, the United States 'countermeasures took effect on the first day. The United States originally planned to carry out reciprocal countermeasures against China's port charges, charging a fee of US$50 per ton, and planned to gradually increase it within four years.
The counter-measures have been severely hampered as soon as they have begun – customs failed to work properly because of the U.S. government’s shutdowns, making the counter-measures that had been initially enacted impossible.
To make matters worse, the United States shifted the payment responsibility to shipowners and asked them to declare themselves. As a result, global shipping giants such as Mediterranean Shipping and Maersk Group were forced to become payment objects because part of their shares were held by American companies. The chaos of the whole process exposed the extremely limited control of the United States over global shipping, showing the seriousness of its institutional decline.
In addition, despite U.S. attempts to weaken China’s lead in the global shipbuilding market by supporting South Korea’s shipbuilding industry, the global share of the U.S. shipbuilding industry is only 0.1% and the annual shipbuilding volume is less than zero in China.
This made it impossible for the United States to effectively challenge China's dominance in the port war, instead falling into a passive situation, China's shipbuilding industry not only occupies a significant share of the global market, but also continues to lead in technological innovation and production capacity, which has left the US's efforts to counter by other means almost futile.
Another major impact of the port fee war was its profound impact on the global shipping market, with the high-cost policies of Chinese ports coming into effect, and many of the goods that were originally dependent on U.S. shipping began to turn to ships in China and elsewhere, including ships in countries such as Russia and Southeast Asia.
This has led to a sharp decline in the U.S. share of the global shipping market, while prices of U.S. imports have also begun to rise, inflationary pressures are gradually increasing, and Americans have to bear higher cost of living, which undoubtedly increases public dissatisfaction and may affect the U.S. government’s political stability.
From a strategic point of view, China’s countermeasures can be called “book-level operations”, which not only accurately combated the weaknesses of the United States, but also established a new order in global shipping rules.
Through this action, China not only demonstrated its influence in global trade, but also effectively challenged U.S. hegemonism. At the same time, the U.S. countermeasures exposed its institutional problems-although the Trump administration tried to reverse the situation through the port fee policy, its implementation plan could not proceed smoothly due to domestic political instability and customs shutdown.
The United States 'means such as "adding tariffs" and "collecting tolls" have gradually exposed its limitations in its inability to adapt to the development of globalization and changes in international rules.
Through this China-US port fee war, we can see China's wisdom and resilience in the face of external pressure, China not only succeeded in counteracting the United States through precise policy measures, but also re-shaped the rules in the global shipping field, highlighting its position as a global economic power.
Although the United States tried to suppress China through trade means, due to the intertwined internal and external problems, the United States could only fall into its own predicament in the end. This is not only a game of port fees, but also a manifestation of the balance of power between China and the United States in the global economic order.
In the context of globalization, the construction of the international economic order depends not only on hard power, but also on the rules of the game and innovation of countries.
China has not only demonstrated its position in the global economy by accurately counteracting U.S. trade means, but also demonstrated that in the face of external pressure, it needs not only to have a strong economic base, but also to have a high strategic vision and execution power.
Please click "Follow" in the upper right corner of the officials. It will not only facilitate your discussion and sharing, but also give you a different sense of participation. Thank you for your support!
The announcement issued by China's Ministry of Transport on October 10 demonstrated the determination and ability of the China government to accurately respond. The announcement clearly listed various charging policies for US ships, including US domestic ships, ships with the US controlling more than 25%, ships flying the US flag, and US-made ships.
It is particularly noteworthy that ships registered in the Marshall Islands, as long as they have U.S. capital behind them, are also included in the scope of charges. This measure has undoubtedly dealt a major blow to the U.S. shipping industry.
Under the new policy, U.S. shipowners will face costs of up to 400 yuan per net tonne, which is expected to rise to 1120 yuan by 2028.
This means that a 70,000-ton cargo ship will have to pay 28 million yuan in the first year, and four years later this cost will reach 78.4 million yuan, which is undoubtedly a burden for the U.S. shipowners.
This Chinese game, simply a precise "surgical knife" type of strike, can both bring heavy economic pressure to the US side, but also attract global shipowners to turn orders to China through the market, further consolidating China's leadership in the global shipping field.
What's even more ingenious is that China has left room for countermeasures. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, it has adopted an annual fee ceiling and exemption clause.
Each ship can only pay its fees at most five times within a year, which allows US shipowners to still see room for negotiation when making payments. This strategy not only demonstrates China's "wisdom and courage", but also leaves a step for the United States, avoids completely intensifying conflicts, maintains a relatively "tolerant" attitude, thus winning more understanding and support from the international community.
In the face of China's precise countermeasures, the United States 'countermeasures took effect on the first day. The United States originally planned to carry out reciprocal countermeasures against China's port charges, charging a fee of US$50 per ton, and planned to gradually increase it within four years.
The counter-measures have been severely hampered as soon as they have begun – customs failed to work properly because of the U.S. government’s shutdowns, making the counter-measures that had been initially enacted impossible.
To make matters worse, the United States shifted the payment responsibility to shipowners and asked them to declare themselves. As a result, global shipping giants such as Mediterranean Shipping and Maersk Group were forced to become payment objects because part of their shares were held by American companies. The chaos of the whole process exposed the extremely limited control of the United States over global shipping, showing the seriousness of its institutional decline.
In addition, despite U.S. attempts to weaken China’s lead in the global shipbuilding market by supporting South Korea’s shipbuilding industry, the global share of the U.S. shipbuilding industry is only 0.1% and the annual shipbuilding volume is less than zero in China.
This made it impossible for the United States to effectively challenge China's dominance in the port war, instead falling into a passive situation, China's shipbuilding industry not only occupies a significant share of the global market, but also continues to lead in technological innovation and production capacity, which has left the US's efforts to counter by other means almost futile.
Another major impact of the port fee war was its profound impact on the global shipping market, with the high-cost policies of Chinese ports coming into effect, and many of the goods that were originally dependent on U.S. shipping began to turn to ships in China and elsewhere, including ships in countries such as Russia and Southeast Asia.
This has led to a sharp decline in the U.S. share of the global shipping market, while prices of U.S. imports have also begun to rise, inflationary pressures are gradually increasing, and Americans have to bear higher cost of living, which undoubtedly increases public dissatisfaction and may affect the U.S. government’s political stability.
From a strategic point of view, China’s countermeasures can be called “book-level operations”, which not only accurately combated the weaknesses of the United States, but also established a new order in global shipping rules.
Through this action, China not only demonstrated its influence in global trade, but also effectively challenged U.S. hegemonism. At the same time, the U.S. countermeasures exposed its institutional problems-although the Trump administration tried to reverse the situation through the port fee policy, its implementation plan could not proceed smoothly due to domestic political instability and customs shutdown.
The United States 'means such as "adding tariffs" and "collecting tolls" have gradually exposed its limitations in its inability to adapt to the development of globalization and changes in international rules.
Through this China-US port fee war, we can see China's wisdom and resilience in the face of external pressure, China not only succeeded in counteracting the United States through precise policy measures, but also re-shaped the rules in the global shipping field, highlighting its position as a global economic power.
Although the United States tried to suppress China through trade means, due to the intertwined internal and external problems, the United States could only fall into its own predicament in the end. This is not only a game of port fees, but also a manifestation of the balance of power between China and the United States in the global economic order.
In the context of globalization, the construction of the international economic order depends not only on hard power, but also on the rules of the game and innovation of countries.
China has not only demonstrated its position in the global economy by accurately counteracting U.S. trade means, but also demonstrated that in the face of external pressure, it needs not only to have a strong economic base, but also to have a high strategic vision and execution power.