An Update on the Outlaw US Empire's Shipping War with China: "Last year, the United States had less than 10 ships, and China had more than 1,000 ships!

The U.S. government's curbing of China's shipbuilding industry has been in vain

It appears the best place to find out what’s happening in this sphere if you’re not a specialist is Guancha. The Gym reported on this issue several months ago at the beginning of Trump’s term when this action began. This article updates the situation and provides the important aspect of the background. Perhaps the greatest falloff in its previous industrial might is the sinking of the shipbuilding industry—commercial and military. Trump has instituted a hairbrained scheme to rebuild Outlaw US Empire shipbuilding by taxing Chinese made or owned vessels with a port fee, which the article explains, has the goal of making those corporations that order ships to cease buying Chinese and buy American from shipyards that don’t exist. The numbers difference tells its own story. Northeast Asia is where most shipping is born—China, South Korea, Russia, and Japan. Once upon a time, America had serious shipyards. Here are two photos of the Kaiser shipyard that shared the Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon traversing Colombia River to construct ships beside during WW2:

It’s that way no longer. Here’s the dirt compiled by Liu Chenghui:

Last year, the United States had less than 10 ships, and China had more than 1,000 ships! The U.S. government’s curbing of China’s shipbuilding industry has been in vain

The Trump administration’s crackdown on China’s shipbuilding industry is ambitious, and there are few responders after all. According to a Reuters report on September 25, a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a U.S. think tank, shows that despite the United States imposing so-called port “service fees” on Chinese ships in an attempt to curb China’s maritime dominance, global shipping companies are still ordering merchant ships from Chinese shipyards at full speed.

According to CSIS’ analysis of S&P Global data, in the first eight months of this year, Chinese shipyards won 53% of the world’s shipbuilding orders by tonnage.

CSIS said this percentage was the same as for the whole of 2023, a year in which the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) had not yet launched a maritime investigation into the imposition of port “service fees” on Chinese shipbuilding.

“Shipping companies are still largely doing business as usual,” said Brian Hart, a researcher at CSIS’s China Power Project and one of the report’s authors.”

In 2024, China’s share of global shipbuilding orders climbed to 73%, indicating that shipowners were locking in contracts in response to possible USTR restrictions.

Starting October 14, ships built in China, or operated or owned by Chinese entities, will be subject to fees when they first enter U.S. ports. Analysts estimate that this fee could cost more than $1 million for container ships carrying more than 10,000 TEUs, and plans to increase it year by year until 2028.

The port fee for China-linked vessels is part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to revitalize the domestic shipbuilding industry and weaken China’s growing maritime power.

But the report admits that it will not be easy to catch up with the state-backed Chinese shipyards. Military and industry analysts say that less than 10 merchant ships were built at US shipyards last year, while China built more than 1,000.

Over the past two decades, China has become the world’s number one shipbuilder, with its largest shipyards undertaking both commercial and military projects. At the same time, the U.S. Navy’s fiscal year 2025 plan said the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry was almost “completely collapsed” and called for a long-term revitalization plan to support naval shipbuilding.

The CSIS report pointed out that since the USTR announced the port fee increase in April this year, Mediterranean Shipping (MSC), the world’s largest container ship operator, has placed orders to build 12 new ships in China.

Swiss-based MSC, along with Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and CMA CGM, has moved China-linked vessels off U.S. trade lanes to limit or avoid the new fee altogether.

As early as July, Silvia Ding, president of Maersk Greater China, said that Maersk will consider a variety of factors, including cost and technical requirements, when ordering new ships, but will not increase customer prices due to US port fees, nor will it exclude Chinese shipyards, which reflects “continued confidence and commitment to the Chinese market”.

Hong Kong’s English-language media South China Morning Post analyzed that the Trump administration’s policy of imposing high port fees on Chinese-made or operated ships has made the shipping industry face a difficult choice: either remove Chinese ships from the fleet or bear sharply rising costs. Maersk’s statement further raises questions about whether the United States can curb China’s dominance in shipbuilding.

The analysis also said that judging from Ding Zejuan’s statement, the port fee policy, which will take effect in October, may not have as much impact as some initially envisioned.

MSC also said at the time that thanks to the new East-West route network launched in February, the company was able to cope with market turmoil. MSC said the network is no longer an alliance model, but is operated independently by the company, which is highly flexible and allows the company to respond quickly to market changes.

Marie-Caroline Laurent, senior vice president of MSC, pointed out in June that China has the technology and capabilities, and even if the United States is determined to challenge China’s dominance in the global shipbuilding industry, its port fees will not be a deterrent for shipowners to order more new ships from China.

In February, the USTR proposed charging for Chinese-made ships entering U.S. ports. In April, the USTR issued a Federal Register declaring that all ships built by China and owned by China will be charged according to the amount of cargo they carry as long as they call at U.S. ports. The relevant charging measures will be officially implemented after 180 days and will be implemented in two phases.

According to the charging rules published in the communiqué, in the first phase, starting from October 14 this year, the United States will charge the so-called “maritime service fee” to any ship operated by a Chinese operator or owned by a Chinese entity based on the standard of $50 per net tonnage of the ship. This amount will be increased by $30 per year over three years to $140 per net tonnage by 2028.

Some analysts pointed out that the U.S. government is trying to force companies to build ships in the United States and stop using Chinese ships by imposing port fees and a package of tariffs on Chinese-made equipment, but it is still unclear whether these measures will be effective in practice.

It is worth mentioning that since the announcement of the port fee plan in February, U.S. officials have made several changes to the proposal due to strong opposition from shipping companies and industry bodies.

A marketing leader of a shipping company said that in view of the recent series of policies of the US government, there are still doubts about how port fees are enforced in the industry. He said the company’s customers are now more worried about U.S. tariffs than port fees, which pose a more immediate threat to businesses.

Regarding the US suppression of China’s shipbuilding, China clearly emphasized that the development of China’s shipbuilding industry is the result of technological innovation and active participation in market competition, and has made important contributions to the development of global trade and the stable and safe operation of global supply chains. The hegemonic approach of the United States of unilateralism and protectionism is unpopular, which will only push up global shipping costs, disrupt the stability of the global production and supply chain, cause damage to the interests of all countries in the world, and ultimately fail to revitalize the US shipbuilding industry. [My Emphasis]

The 1000 to 10 ships built wasn’t hyperbole as it!? Think of all the factors that would need to be supplied and accomplished for the Empire to get to 200 ships per year, which would be a 20-fold increase. Note what was mentioned above that the fees are aimed at supporting “naval shipbuilding” not commercial. Thus, one can assume and conclude that the fees will go to producing warships not peaceful commerce vessels. Let’s see how far behind is the USN’s submarine building program and what about that now obsolete billion-dollar aircraft carrier? According to Yandex AI:

Columbia-class nuclear submarine. The first submarine is planned to be available for operations in 2030, but construction is delayed by at least a year.

Virginia attack-class submarine. It is two years behind schedule.

Aircraft carrier Enterprise. It is 18 to 26 months late.

The reasons given are comical, although #1 is serious:

Workforce shortages. Shipbuilders struggle to recruit and retain staff, especially those with the skills needed to do the work.

And Trump wants to build more ships, but with what workforce? The immigrants he’s kicking out are the sort of workers who staff those jobs. Now, if we were to talk about pleasure craft for the public, we’d be seeing some numbers despite the economic times.

In closing, an unnoted datapoint: Outlaw US Empire trade with the world is now just 14% dollar-wise not tonnage-wise meaning it ought to be easy to use non-China built vessels—and there are many—for shipping the rather small amount of trade the Empire imports. Exporters will not want to pay an “importation tariff” which is what the port fees are in reality. As the author concludes, I must echo: Trump’s veiled extortion plan is unlikely to generate much tribute and will fail to revive the Empire’s deindustrialized shipbuilding industry.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!