After multiple rounds of confrontation in areas such as chips, tariffs, and technology export controls, the strategic competition between China and the United States has officially extended to the global shipping and shipbuilding industries. Beijing's countermeasures against the U.S. levying maritime fees mark a new phase in this "great power game" with broader global implications. The struggle over the lifelines of maritime trade is not only about economic interests but also a "national destiny" level contest involving both sides' industrial foundations and strategic resilience. This raises an important question: who will ultimately come out on top between China and the United States?
Let's first look at how bad the U.S. is. The U.S. Trade Representative's office cited the results of the Section 301 investigation, starting from October 14, to impose high fees on ships owned or operated by China that enter U.S. ports, and to implement differentiated charges for Chinese-built and foreign-owned vessels. The proposed fees are extremely high, with a single stop at a U.S. port for a 50,000 gross ton Chinese bulk carrier potentially facing a fee of up to $2.5 million. This is undoubtedly a strong blow to China's global commercial base.
Now let's see how tough China is. In response, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Transport quickly took countermeasures. China began imposing special port fees of 400 RMB per net ton on container ships connected to the U.S., with plans to gradually increase the fees annually, aiming to offset the impact of the U.S. charges on an equal basis.
At the same time, China demonstrated a precise strike strategy by sanctioning five U.S.-related subsidiaries of South Korea's Hanwha Ocean. The Chinese government clearly accused these entities of assisting the U.S. in conducting the "Section 301 investigation" against China's maritime and shipbuilding industries, thus precisely undermining the U.S. plan to revitalize its domestic shipbuilding industry through external forces.
The spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce responded with wording that was firm yet left room for maneuver: "If we have to fight, we will fight. If the U.S. wants dialogue, our doors are open." This clearly outlines China's basic strategy of "fighting to promote dialogue," while also emphasizing that the U.S. must correct its erroneous actions, such as the abuse of export controls, before any dialogue can take place.
Evidently, both China and the U.S. have taken actions that are advantageous to themselves. However, the true determinant of the outcome lies in the strengths of each side, essentially a confrontation between industrial foundations and financial hegemony. This shipping battle is essentially a comparison of both sides' positions in the global supply chain and their strategic resilience.
The U.S. advantage mainly lies in its global financial hegemony and rule-making authority. The U.S. controls the international dollar settlement system and the global financial network, enabling it to exert significant pressure on multinational companies involved in sanctions. Its unilateral sanctions have extraterritorial jurisdiction globally. Additionally, the U.S. and its allies hold dominant roles in setting rules for international trade and maritime security, allowing them to limit China's expansion in global maritime trade through international cooperation frameworks and maintain leverage in key technologies such as high-end information technology and navigation systems.
However, China's strength lies in its irreplaceable industrial clusters, logistics hubs, and vast market size. China is one of the world's largest trading nations, with the busiest port groups and world-class logistics infrastructure, serving as the "heart" of the global supply chain. More importantly, China is the leader in the global shipbuilding industry, controlling critical links in the global supply chain, including rare earths, ship steel, and essential equipment.
The sanctions against Hanwha Ocean by China utilize its control over key resources like rare earths, effectively undermining the U.S. attempt to revive its shipbuilding industry. This control over core industries enables China to raise the costs of its opponents through supply chain retaliation.
In China's recent countermeasures, the provision targeting vessels with 25% or more ownership by the U.S. is seen as a real "game-changer," aimed at expanding the impact globally and forcing multinational shipping companies to re-evaluate their cooperation with the U.S., avoiding becoming "accomplices" in targeting specific countries. The direction of this shipping battle will be a spiral of escalation where both sides suffer mutual damage, but ultimately may lead to a "partial decoupling under dynamic balance."
In the short term, shipping companies and cargo owners will be direct victims. To avoid high port fees from both sides, shipping companies will have to reroute ships and routes, inevitably causing short-term disruptions in the global supply chain and surging freight rates. Companies affected by the sanctions (such as Hanwha Ocean) will face rising construction costs and supply chain disruptions, and the U.S. plan to revitalize its shipbuilding industry will surely face setbacks in the short term.
By the medium term, the global supply chain will accelerate into a "dual-track system." To avoid sanction risks, shipping companies may establish two operating systems, one serving the U.S. market and another serving China and other markets. This will intensify regionalization and groupification in the global shipping and shipbuilding industries, significantly increasing the inefficiency of trade.
As for who will ultimately come out on top? The outcome will not be a complete victory for one side, but rather both sides being forced back to the negotiation table due to significant economic costs, leading to an "unstable equilibrium." Given China's irreplaceability in the global shipbuilding industry and logistics hubs, as well as its control over key resources, the U.S. plan to comprehensively block China is "almost impossible to achieve." Ultimately, the operational costs of China-U.S. trade in global shipping will permanently increase, some supply chains will experience "decoupling," but the nature of the global shipping industry ensures that a complete "closing of the door" is unsustainable.
This strategic confrontation will ultimately test each side's strategic resilience, negotiation skills, and ability to endure self-harm.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7561394887619265078/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes you to express your attitude by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.