Connect with us

Diplomacy

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

Published

on

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

Greece’s Marinakis says paying Hormuz transit fees beats enduring Red Sea shipping crisis detour

Published

on

Evangelos Marinakis, one of Greece’s leading shipowners, has announced that he is prepared to pay up to $200,000 per transit to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to civilian maritime traffic.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Marinakis stated that paying a transit fee would be a far better option for him than having the strait closed to navigation.

As the chairman of Capital Maritime Group, which controls a fleet of 185 vessels including approximately 35 tankers, Marinakis emphasized that shipowners have been forced to use alternative routes around the Cape of Good Hope for years due to attacks launched by the Houthis in the Red Sea, a detour that has generated substantial additional costs.

The Greek shipowner indicated that paying a transit fee of $100,000 or $200,000, depending on the size of the cargo or the vessel, is far more reasonable than enduring the current logistical challenges. He added that such payments could offset all the losses experienced so far.

Following US strikes on Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Tehran administration had introduced transit fees of up to $2 million for certain vessels transiting the waterway.

In May, Iran announced the establishment of a state agency tasked with managing the Strait of Hormuz. It was stated that the institution in question would provide real-time updates regarding maritime activities in the waterway.

Ebrahim Azizi, the chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, had noted that only commercial vessels and countries cooperating with Iran would be able to benefit from the facilities provided under this “professional mechanism.”

US President Donald Trump has explicitly opposed the imposition of transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz. In a statement on the matter, Trump said, “We want the strait to be open. We do not want any transit fees to be charged. This is an international waterway.”

On the other hand, the draft text of a planned 60-day ceasefire extension agreement between the parties stipulates that the Strait of Hormuz will remain open without any transit fees being demanded.

According to the draft details reviewed by Axios, the US in return commits to lifting the blockade it has imposed on Iranian ports. The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, however, announced that the management of the Strait of Hormuz has been excluded from the scope of the agreement with the US, asserting that the issue will be addressed solely by littoral states.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Pashinyan promises aid to farmers hit by Russian import restrictions

Published

on

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has pledged compensation for Armenian farmers affected by restrictions on exports to Russia.

According to Sputnik Armenia, Pashinyan made the announcement during an election campaign meeting in the Gegharkunik region.

Speaking at the event, Pashinyan said the subsidies would be designed to offset losses incurred by producers.

The prime minister also acknowledged that some Armenian products had failed to meet required quality standards, adding that such companies would receive support aimed at improving product quality.

Addressing alternative markets for Armenian exports, Pashinyan said several Armenian business delegations were already engaged in negotiations abroad.

He added that Armenia had received offers for the purchase of roses as well as fresh fruits and vegetables.

Pashinyan argued that Armenia’s agricultural output was not particularly large, describing this as an advantage under current circumstances. According to the prime minister, “a respected supermarket chain in Europe” would be capable of selling the entire volume of these products on its own.

Russia’s Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) imposed temporary restrictions on imports of stone fruits and grapes from Armenia effective July 2.

The ban covers cherries, sour cherries, apricots, plums, peaches and nectarines, among other products.

On the same day, a temporary suspension was also introduced on certification procedures for live fish shipments from Armenia. Russian authorities had previously restricted the entry of flower products originating from Armenia into the Russian market.

In addition, Russia’s Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor) halted the import of all consignments of Jermuk mineral water from Armenia.

In a statement, the agency said levels of bicarbonate, chloride and sulfate ions in the mineral water exceeded established limits and could mislead consumers regarding the product’s medicinal properties.

The Russian regulator argued that the growing number of violations stemmed from the abolition of Armenia’s Agriculture Ministry and the transfer of its responsibilities to the Economy Ministry.

Rosselkhoznadzor further stated that Armenia’s Economy Ministry was experiencing structural problems and was unable to adequately perform the supervisory functions assigned to it.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Zelenskyy urges US to grant Ukraine license to produce Patriot missiles

Published

on

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he has asked the United States to grant Ukraine a license to manufacture missiles for the Patriot air defence system.

In a post on social media platform X, Zelenskyy argued that current US production of missile defence interceptors is insufficient and could contribute to crises in different parts of the world.

“Producing 60-65 missiles a month is nothing compared with the challenges we face today. This is no secret, and Russia knows it as well,” Zelenskyy wrote. “We need to expand production. As I requested from the previous US administration, I am asking the current administration to grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missiles.”

Zelenskyy said US companies possess advanced technologies that are not available in Ukraine, while Kyiv could contribute its extensive battlefield experience in return.

He also argued that granting such a license would benefit not only Ukraine, but also the Middle East and any country Washington chooses to support.

Washington pledges to maintain defence support

Zelenskyy’s remarks came a day after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on May 30 that Washington would continue supporting Ukraine’s defence capabilities and ensure military shipments to Kyiv continue.

“We want them to be able to defend themselves, and we will find a way to help them do that,” Hegseth said.

Several days earlier, Yuriy Ihnat, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, warned that the country’s air defence forces were experiencing a shortage of missiles.

“Due to certain supply problems, we are practically at starvation levels when it comes to missiles today,” Ihnat said.

Concerns persist over air defence missile stocks

In April, Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine’s stockpile of air defence missiles could be exhausted at any moment.

He said that under current conditions, air defence missiles were more critical for Ukraine than the air defence systems themselves.

Highlighting what he described as a critical shortage of Patriot missiles, Zelenskyy said: “We are facing a deficit now that could hardly be worse.”

Concerns that Ukraine could face a severe shortage of US-made air defence missiles had previously been reported by Reuters.

The situation was expected to worsen as the United States and its allies depleted significant portions of their arsenals during tensions with Iran, a point Zelenskyy also underscored.

In a separate statement in January, Zelenskyy said Ukraine lacked sufficient missiles for both US- and European-made air defence systems.

The Ukrainian leader said he had been forced to personally secure every package of missiles from European countries and the United States.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey