Reviewing USTR's Proposed Section 301 Action Addressing Chinese Control of Global Maritime Commerce
BLUF: this is an important and necessary action that will be necessarily disruptive and (if properly structured) drive numerous PRO-GROWTH outcomes for the US.
BACKGROUND
I'm about 20 hours into an analysis of this, have reviewed numerous draft letters (uniformly against the proposed action), and read more talking points from more angles than I could have imagined.
First, the investigation that led to this proposed action was begun in early 2024 by the Biden Administration. It was, and remains, a Section 301 investigation into the various policies, actions, and coercive tactics by which China dominates the global maritime sector and directly threatens US national and economic security.
These levers have enabled China to rise to 62% of global shipbuilding capacity, ALL which is dual-use by design - in essence, ALL of China's massive shipbuilding industry serves the military objections of the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Party. There are PLAN ballistic missile submarines or surface combatant vessels being built in the same shipyards as the next big tanker or containership on order from Maersk, MSC, or whomever.
It's a vast and long-running form of economic warfare, and one which even the US' paltry few Jones Act carriers like Matson and Pasha gleefully indulge to the detriment of US interests by having their ships repaired and maintained IN CHINA.
They are able to do this because their lobby ruthlessly defends the status quo on the Hill. It should be no surprise to scratch the surface of these "US flag" networks, only to find Chinese interests and money deeply embedded in the US' own maritime sector - and yet, it's galling and infuriating all the same.
With that said, here's my best effort to explain the theory of the thing, and summarize the issues at hand.
1. China has a vertically-integrated shipbuilding sector that is heavily subsidized
2. Every new idea, innovation, or improvement to design is incorporated into their commercial AND military fleets
3. Forced labor is rampant in China's maritime supply chains
4. These direct and indirect subsidies crush not only American competitiveness, but harm our allies' shipbuilding industries in Korea and Japan
5. Due to all of the above, China directly or indirectly controls the nearly entire containerized ocean shipping industry, giving them a powerful lever against American importers and exports
Given this understanding, let's look now at some of the specifics of @USTradeRep's proposed action.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
1. Service fees to be applied on a per-port call basis:
A. If the vsl operator is Chinese ($1,000,000)
B. If a vsl is Chinese-built (up to $1,500,000 depending on % of the operator's fleet being Chinese-built, or $1,000/net ton)
C. % of operator's newbuild orderbook being built in China (up to $1,500,000 or $1,000/net ton)
2. Rqmt that vsl operator systems have no connection to China's LOGINK digital framework
3. Scaled-in rqmt for % of US exports to be carried on US-flag vsls
The latter two are subjects for a different post or thread.
IMPACT
1. See the attached table showing various scenarios and rough per-container charges the carriers will pass through to shippers:
A. COSCO & OOCL vsls are most impacted, with major splash damage to their Ocean Alliance partners CMA-CGM and Evergreen (red)
B. MSC, Maersk, and Hapag next most impacted (orange)
C. Premier Alliance carriers (ONE, HMM, Yang Ming) and Zim in yellow or green due to not being Chinese and having relatively few ships made in China
2. Many tankers and bulk vsls will be hit hard, as they are mainly built in China
3. Most Jones Act carriers are exempt, but shouldn't be
Bear in mind how complex this is before getting all "ackshually" in the replies.
Follow-on post coming with recommendations for how to maximize this action against China and to bolster US economic security.
If the proposed tax on Chinese ships visiting U.S. ports goes into effect, the two tiers of tax would add between $16.00/Mt and $24.00/Mt. to U.S. #Grain shipments. This would provide a huge advantage to Brazilian Grain exports to China and Asia and greatly harm U.S. farmers.
Tariffs are costly taxes, and economists consider them to be poor tools for boosting the economy, reducing the trade deficit, or achieving strategic objectives.
@ericadyork explains... https://t.co/S93KIYKhHG
#CatoGlobalization
New long-term research: the benefit of no-till practices on water infiltration is large. Unlike tilled soil, where aggregates break down after the first rain or irrigation, no-till methods maintain soil structure and infiltration effectively.
Open access
https://t.co/jQz5pSH39O
#NG_F Natural gas on the verge of falling below $2.00 for only the 4th time in 25 years. Speculators have lost millions trying to pick a bottom. NG will continue to fall until everyone has been shaken out of their long positions. Impossible to pick the final bottom. #NaturalGas
@ScottYoung6311 I have had wheat roots grow into tile on a dry summer. Next spring the dead roots lodge in the tees if the header is also 4 inch. Internal tees are much worse. If you are ambitious you dig them up but they often decay a bit flow out with time.
Hi Twitter fam. I found out Thursday that I’m going to be laid off from BASF. It’s not only me, but all of North American wheat breeding, the Australian program, with reductions in Europe. It’s been a fairly chaotic last 5 days to say the least. However….