Holding back economic advance has been one of Washington’s major policy goals since US President first term.
But a proposal to counter Chinese dominance in shipbuilding — backed by huge state subsidies — isn’t a Trump idea, it was petitioned for by five labor unions under the Biden administration.
Last month, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), which was tasked with investigating the issue, proposed a $1.5 million (€1.42 million) fee for any Chinese-made ship docking at a US port. The fee is justified, USTR said, to counteract what it sees as unfair advantages gained by China in shipbuilding that “burden or restrict US commerce.”
Subsidies help China take the lead
Over the past three decades, China has become the dominant global force in ship production. In 2023, China’s share of shipbuilding tonnage crossed the 50% mark, up from just 5% in 1999. Beijing has backstopped the sector to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars while pushing out foreign competitors.
Despite China’s incredible advance, Albert Veenstra, professor of trade and logistics at Erasmus University Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, criticized the false idea that the Asian giant has undermined the once-thriving US shipbuilding industry.
“The reasoning is that China has wronged us by creating a shipbuilding industry. As a result, we don’t have a shipbuilding industry anymore. But this is a strange idea,” Veenstra told DW.
The decline of US shipbuilding is well documented. Once the leading shipbuilding nation, priorities shifted after World War II and the industry stagnated. The last major growth spurt was in the mid-1970s and the US’s share of the shipbuilding market has been negligible ever since. It’s and that have lost out to China. Both countries have seen their combined market share fall from 60% to 45% over the past decade, according to data from UN Trade Development (UNCTAD).
Heavy industry not returning anytime soon
“Shipbuilding capacity shifted to Asia in the 1960s and later to China,” Veenstra explained, adding that the US “will never compete again because, to do that you need a viable steel-making industry, which in the US, has also been dying for 25-30 years.”
Peter Sand, chief analyst at Copenhagen-based analytics firm Xeneta. also believes it is “extremely late” to call out China, adding, however, that the proposal “does align with the Trump administration’s target to limit Chinese dominance here, there, and everywhere, especially where it relates to American business.”
Last week, Trump doubled the entering the US to 20%, while imposing on imports from neighboring and . The Republican president has vowed new tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and is even considering so-called , where Washington matches the varying import tariffs levied on US products by other countries.
Another measure likely to cause price hikes
The proposed port docking fee is expected to significantly impact the cost of shipping goods to the US. Even if it is reduced to $1 million, Veenstra estimates a call at a US port would be 10 times more expensive for shipping firms than it is now.
Sand, meanwhile, told DW, “If a ship were to offload a thousand containers, an extra $1 million fee, for example, would add $1,000 to the cost of each container.” He added that higher shipping costs would raise the price of imported goods and potentially help slow the US economy.
“Few importers are capable of absorbing costs like that without passing them on, so it will eat into consumers’ purchasing power and, in the end, lower demand,” Sand warned.
Stephen Gordon, managing director of the London-based Clarksons Research, told DW that the proposed measure could generate aggregate annual fees for the US of between $40 and $52 billion, “assuming there was initially no change to vessel deployment.”
Clarksons calculated nearly 37,000 US port calls last year by ships that would likely face the maximum $1.5 million fee due to their connection to China, which Gordon said was equivalent to 83% of containership calls, but only around 30% of stops by tankers.
Ships could avoid US altogether
Shipping firms are already exploring alternatives to avoid calling at US ports. One strategy would be to reroute shipments through Mexico or Canada and then transport the goods by truck or rail to their final destination.
“It may make economic sense to stop at Mexico or Canada instead, which shipping firms have increasingly done over the past five years. West Coast Mexican ports were recently operating close to capacity,” Sand noted.
Another way to circumvent the fee, particularly for non-Chinese operators, is by selecting ships without Chinese-built components or that weren’t constructed in China. Firms may choose to change ownership rules that separate their Chinese and non-Chinese fleet to avoid the fees.
The legality of the proposed fee has also been questioned, given that international agreements typically aim to prevent discriminatory tariffs and fees. So the US could face more from its major trading partners.
Little positive impact expected
Furthermore, the proposal is unlikely to lead to a major reversal in US shipbuilding, many analysts believe, which has fallen to less than 5 new vessels per year, according to USTR.
“We don’t have the shipbuilding capacity in Europe and the US anymore,” said Veenstra. “South Korea and Japan don’t have much spare capacity — only China. So I don’t think the market can be easily reformed.”
When combined with , including a plan to retake the Panama Canal, the USTR proposal carries significant risks for global trade and supply chains.
The plan is currently subject to consultation, a public hearing and a final decision by the Trump administration. Still, Veenstra offered a bleak outlook not only for China-linked shipping if the proposal is fully enacted.
“All foreign ship owners will be touched by this regulation. There will be only losers in the end,” he told DW.
Edited by: Uwe Hessler
The post US strikes back at China’s maritime trade with port fee appeared first on Deutsche Welle.
