Diplomacy
Trump’s proposed fees on Chinese ships threaten US maritime industry

Industry executives stated on Monday at a US Trade Representative (USTR) hearing that President Donald Trump’s plan to revitalize the US shipbuilding industry is likely to backfire, as it relies on proposed fees for China-linked vessels that would harm domestic ship operators, ports, exporters, and employment.
The discussion centers on the stacking of fees on Chinese-built ships, which could exceed $3 million per visit to US ports. The Trump administration claims these fees will deter China’s increasing commercial and military dominance in open seas and encourage domestic shipbuilding. US steelworkers’ unions, US steel manufacturers, and Democratic lawmakers support this effort, saying it will revitalize the domestic industry.
However, this idea has created a shockwave in the local maritime industry, as it threatens the survival of the same shipping companies and customers that would increase the demand for orders from the US shipyards Trump wants to rebuild.
“The effort to strengthen American shipbuilding would not serve the national interest if it inadvertently destroyed American-owned carriers,” said Edward Gonzalez, CEO of Seaboard Marine, the largest US international ocean cargo carrier, based in Florida, on Monday.
Like many US operators, Seaboard relies on Chinese-made ships. According to maritime data provider Alphaliner, its fleet of 24 ships includes 16 Chinese-built vessels.
US ship operators said that fees on China-linked ships would push more US cargo to foreign-capitalized ocean transport companies, which have the resources to better handle the change.
According to the USTR, China’s share of the shipbuilding market rose from under 5% in 1999 to over 50% in 2023.
Speakers said that US shipyards produce fewer than 10 ships a year, while China produces 1,000.
Meanwhile, industry executives noted that shipbuilders in Japan and Korea would struggle to meet demand in the years it would take for US shipyards to build capacity.
Kathy Metcalf, CEO of the Chamber of Shipping of America, said that replacing existing Chinese-built ships is not like flipping a light switch. “Punishing China and the US maritime transport system is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.
US ship operators support key American industries such as manufacturing, mining, and agriculture by transporting goods on inland waterways, along the Great Lakes, and up and down the country’s coasts.
Agricultural exporters are struggling to book ships after May due to uncertainty in the USTR plan, while coal industry representatives also state that the fees make it difficult to offer their goods to the global market.
“I urge you to ensure that your efforts to increase domestic shipbuilding do not come at the expense of farmers’ access to the market,” said Mike Koehne, a board member of the American Soybean Association, who grows soybeans and corn in Indiana.
Nate Herman, senior vice president of policy for the American Apparel & Footwear Association, which is dependent on imports, said port fees would lead to job losses for American workers, higher costs for American exports and imports, and scarcity and rising prices for American consumers.
He cited a new study by various trade groups showing that high costs from port fees would cause US exports to fall by almost 12% and GDP to fall by 0.25%.
“Hardworking American families cannot afford more price increases and product shortages, and American manufacturers and farmers cannot afford to lose more export markets,” Herman said.
Representative Rosa DeLauro and 62 other Democrats in Congress supported the proposed fees and other “swift and decisive” actions in a letter sent to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Monday, saying that China’s dominance in the sector poses “unacceptable costs and risks” in terms of job losses and critical manufacturing capacity.
They requested the USTR to provide a facility that would allow firms to avoid fees by routing their cargo through Mexico or Canada.
The USTR, which will hear more comments at a hearing on Wednesday before finalizing the proposal under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In the current proposal, to completely avoid fees, ship operators must be based outside of China, have less than 25% of the ships in their fleet built in China, and not plan to order or take delivery from Chinese shipyards in the next two years.
A draft executive order seen by Reuters earlier this month would further narrow this limit by imposing port fees on all fleets with Chinese-built ships.
Shipowners could try to minimize the blow by using larger ships and limiting calls to major US ports, but this could put those ports in a difficult situation and lead to supply chain-related stress.
According to ship and port operators, ship operators could also shift cargo bound for the US to ports in Canada and Mexico and rely on trucks and trains to complete the journey, but this measure could also clog border crossings and cause more infrastructure wear and tear.
Diplomacy
UAE deploys Israeli radar in Somalia’s Puntland region

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has reportedly deployed an Israeli radar system in Somalia’s semi-autonomous Puntland region under a secret agreement. The silence from both Mogadishu and the Puntland administration lends weight to these claims.
According to a report in Middle East Eye (MEE), Puntland’s President Said Abdullahi Deni handed over Bosaso Airport to the UAE without parliamentary approval. Sources familiar with the matter stated that the UAE deployed the radar earlier this year, citing the need to protect the airport from potential Houthi attacks originating from Yemen.
Satellite imagery obtained in early March shows an Israeli-made ELM-2084 3D Active Electronically Scanned Array Multi-Mission Radar positioned near Bosaso Airport. It is reported that the radar is being used for air defense purposes, specifically to detect potential drone or missile threats from Yemen.
Public flight data indicates that the UAE has been using Bosaso Airport to provide support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan. The RSF has been in conflict with the Sudanese army for two years. The Sudanese government had filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice, accusing the UAE of providing military support to the RSF. The UAE denies these accusations.
Two separate sources who spoke to MEE on the matter stated that the radar was deployed late last year and that regular shipments were being made to the RSF. However, neither the Somali federal government nor Puntland officials have made any public statement regarding the radar deployment.
Puntland’s Minister of State, Abdifatah Abdinur, instead of answering questions, sent messages mocking President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Despite Puntland acting in a de facto independent manner, it is noted that the radar deployment in question did not receive approval from either the federal government or the Puntland parliament. It is alleged that Deni is preparing for the 2026 presidential elections with the political and financial support he receives from the UAE.
Salim Said Salim, President of the Puntland-based Sidra Institute, stated that the lack of an official statement about the radar, despite social media and satellite images, is noteworthy. Salim argued, “This silence confirms the accuracy of the claims,” and suggested that Mogadishu remains silent because it does not want to damage relations with the UAE.
The United Arab Emirates has been training the Somali army for years and providing support in the fight against Al-Shabaab. The UAE has increased its presence particularly in Puntland, which is geographically close to Yemen, and has also maintained a military presence in the region to combat piracy.
On the other hand, the UAE’s investments in the separatist Somaliland region and its treatment of the region’s president as a head of state are causing discomfort for the Mogadishu administration. Somali Foreign Minister Ahmed Mo Fiqi announced that they had sent a letter to the UAE demanding an end to this practice.
Diplomacy
NATO members hit record $1.3 trillion defense spending

NATO’s 32 members allocated a total of $1.303 trillion to defense spending last year, exceeding estimates, and 22 members met the 2% GDP target.
According to figures published by the military alliance on Thursday, member countries’ defense spending reached a record level. A total of $468 billion (412 billion euros) was spent in Europe and Canada, with 38% of this allocated to major equipment purchases. Meanwhile, the US share was $818 billion (720 billion euros).
According to the document, NATO members spent $200 billion (176 billion euros) less on defense in the previous year, 2023, indicating a 19% increase in spending in the reported year. The figures are based on 2021 prices.
A total of 22 countries also achieved the target of spending 2% of their GDP on defense. In the initial estimates published at the beginning of the year, 23 countries were expected to meet the target, but Montenegro did not achieve this target.
Belgium (1.29%), Italy (1.5%), and Spain (1.24%), traditionally at the bottom of the class, remained below the 2% target. Canada also failed to meet the target (1.45%).
Some key security actors like the United Kingdom (2.33%), Germany (2.1%), and France (2.03%) met or exceeded the target.
According to the data, most of the cash resources are directed to the eastern flank, i.e., border regions with Russia, the Baltic countries, and Poland. Greece is also among the countries that traditionally spend heavily.
This situation creates a challenging backdrop for discussions with Washington.
Washington is pushing to increase the defense spending target from 2% of GDP to 5%. As discussions continue, NATO diplomats suggest that a compromise around 3% or 3.5% could be reached. The final decision will be made at the leaders’ summit in The Hague at the end of June.
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said last week that the regular defense spending target could be “set at 3.5%, with an additional 1.5% for non-military areas”.
The Swedish leader added a new dimension to the discussions ahead of the summit by stating that “discussions are ongoing” regarding setting a target in NATO for “civil defense, readiness, and support for Ukraine”.
Diplomacy
Major refineries in China and Türkiye restart buying Russian oil

Russian oil falling below the $60 per barrel price cap and the absence of new restrictive measures from the US have somewhat eased concerns among major buyers wary of US sanctions.
According to a Reuters report citing industry sources, state-owned Sinopec, China’s and generally Asia’s largest oil refinery, has resumed imports after a pause in March to assess sanction risks.
Sources stated that Unipec, the Chinese company’s trading arm, signed contracts for ESPO grade oil to be shipped in May.
Shipments were suspended in March following a threat by US President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on buyers of Russian oil.
Tüpraş, meanwhile, placed an order for Ural grade oil last week. Tüpraş had halted purchases due to concerns about violating sanctions imposed by the Joe Biden administration on January 10.
However, in April, global oil prices fell due to the trade war initiated by Trump: the price of Brent crude oil dropped below $60 per barrel.
The price of Ural crude oil had fallen below $50, and although quotas were later increased, Russia’s main oil grade was still trading below $60.
Reuters sources explained that purchases made below the price cap set by Western countries allowed Tüpraş to carry out barrel imports from Russia without concern.
Sinopec, however, is not paying much attention to the price: ESPO crude oil is more expensive and has almost never sold for less than $60 per barrel throughout the price cap, which has been in effect for over two years.
Traders note that the cargoes purchased by the Chinese for loading in May were sold at a $2 premium to the Brent price.
Brent crude was trading below $67 on Wednesday, but had traded at lower prices in previous days.
Sources said that Unipec has so far signed contracts for far fewer cargoes than those purchased before Biden’s January sanctions.
India has also started increasing shipments, which it had reduced in February-March.
-
Middle East2 weeks ago
Syria may recognize Israel by 2026, claims former UK diplomat
-
Interview2 weeks ago
EU late in Central Asia initiative, says expert
-
America2 weeks ago
NATO buys AI-powered military system from Palantir
-
Europe1 week ago
Palantir faces scrutiny over data privacy concerns in Germany
-
Europe2 weeks ago
Tusk calls for nationalization: ‘Naive globalization’ has ended in Poland
-
Europe2 weeks ago
Germany to reduce annual refugee intake below 100,000
-
Europe2 weeks ago
MBDA invests heavily to boost missile production amid high demand
-
Middle East2 weeks ago
Israel alarmed by US decision to withdraw from Syria