突发特讯！商务部谈反制美“301调查”相关措施：是必要被动防御行为，罕见措辞引爆国际舆论

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article is that China's response to the U.S. imposition of port fees on Chinese vessels is a necessary defensive action after prolonged patience and failed communications [1][3] - The term "passive defense" used by China indicates a clear stance: China does not seek confrontation, the U.S. is the initiator of conflicts, and China has no option but to retaliate [3][5] - The U.S. "301 investigation" is characterized as a unilateral tool that bypasses multilateral dispute resolution mechanisms, reflecting a continuation of U.S. trade policy towards China [5][8] Group 2 - The U.S. accuses China of employing non-market measures in maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding industries without providing solid evidence, while China attributes its industry growth to innovation and market rules [5][7] - China has made efforts to engage in dialogue since the London economic talks, but the U.S. has shown a negative attitude, closing off negotiation avenues [7][10] - China's countermeasures are precise, targeting only U.S. vessels to minimize collateral damage and are based on domestic law while adhering to WTO principles [7][8] Group 3 - The international reaction to the term "passive defense" highlights a shift in narrative, challenging the Western portrayal of China as aggressive [10][12] - If the U.S. continues to misuse the 301 clause, it may lead to a fragmented global trade system as other countries might adopt similar retaliatory measures [10][12] - The ongoing trade friction may enter a new phase, with the U.S. potentially combining various pressure tactics against China, necessitating a multi-faceted response from China [12][14]