The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) recently said that it “seeks public comment on proposed actions in Section 301 investigation of China’s targeting of the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors for dominance.” In response, China’s Ministry of Commerce stated on Sunday that such US’ actions will “fail to revitalize its shipbuilding industry” and will instead harm the interests of related US industries. Since March 2024, China has articulated its position through multiple rounds of communication with the US, demanding that the US stop shifting its domestic industrial problems onto China. The US approach is not a viable solution to the problem. Rather, it exposes its shortsightedness and limitations in dealing with its own industrial difficulties. While the “public comment seeking” may appear to be open and inclusive, it is, in fact, a disguised old script of protectionism.
Washington’s practice of seeking so-called public comment on policies toward China is not new. Looking back at recent cases, this process has often served as a “rubber-stamp tool” for US political decision-making. For example, before the US imposed high tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, solar cells, and other products in September 2024, the USTR established a period for public comments. While the majority of comments opposed the tariffs or requested expanded tariff exemptions, the policy was eventually implemented. Under the dominant inertia of “politicizing” and “securitizing” China-related issues, the demands of certain interest groups have been amplified, hijacking US national interests and being selectively defined as “public comment.” As a result, more rational public voices are drowned out, reducing the public comment seeking to a mere formality.
The current restrictions on China’s maritime industry are aimed at catering to a certain protectionist sentiment. The US shipbuilding industry, due to excessive protection, lost its competitive edge many years ago. A report from Bloomberg on February 22 showed that the top three shipbuilding nations – China, South Korea, and Japan – now account for over 90 percent of the global market share, while the US builds fewer than five ships annually. However, even before China’s rise in shipbuilding, the US share of the global market had already been negligible.
Obviously, the proposed restrictions are nothing more than a “setup performance.” When docking at US ports, the plan to charge a Chinese-built commercial vessel is a blatant discriminatory practice. It is clear that revitalizing the US shipbuilding industry cannot be achieved by “exploiting” Chinese merchant ships. Washington’s approach not only takes the wrong direction but also violates the principles of fairness in international trade.
Not only that, but this move is a blow to the entire maritime supply chain, and the increased logistics costs will ultimately be borne by American consumers. Observers have noted that the USTR’s measures against China have received opposition not only from China but also from other countries, international industry organizations, and within the US itself. The US Chamber of Commerce stated last year that the “imposition of an arbitrary fee on Chinese-built vessels that dock at a US port is not the right solution to address the challenge.” Danish shipping giant Maersk expressed concerns that this move would affect global freight demand. These warnings about the “lose-lose” situation, which genuinely come from the public, are hoped to be heard by Washington.
In recent years, the US has implemented restrictions and suppression measures against China in terms of investment and trade. However, these actions often backfire. Research by the US International Trade Commission indicates that American consumers have almost borne the entire cost of the tariffs imposed by the government on Chinese products. Statistics from the Tax Foundation showed that the tariffs on China resulted in the loss of 142,000 jobs in the US. On February 21, the US also released a memorandum entitled “America First Trade Policy,” announcing further measures to restrict two-way investments with China. Many American companies have expressed that this is tantamount to handing over the Chinese market to other competitors.
The legitimacy of the US’ unilateral policies has been widely questioned by the international community. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has long ruled that the US tariffs on China under Section 301 violate multilateral rules. In recent years, Washington has often disguised its true intentions of “violating rules for a head start” under the guise of “de-risking,” attempting to reconstruct global supply chains through a small circle of “friend-shoring.” However, facts have consistently shown that the “small yard, high fence” approach is insufficient to block China’s development; on the contrary, it has prompted China to enhance its industrial resilience and repair its supply chains. The protectionist “script,” which has proven ineffective both theoretically and practically, will not succeed simply by being repeated multiple times.
According to reports from American media, Washington is pursuing a “beautiful sight” of ports filled with “US-flagged and -operated” vessels. However, what Washington overlooks is that the diversification of shipping routes and operators is what ensures the stability and prosperity of global maritime trade. The pendulum of history never swings in favor of closure and confrontation; openness and win-win cooperation are the way forward. The USTR has set aside a month to gather public opinions, we’re hoping that this consultation does not become a mere “stage play” manipulated by Washington’s politics.
