Core Points - The article discusses the recent trade tensions between the U.S. and China, particularly focusing on the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors, following the U.S. implementation of port fees based on a Section 301 investigation [2][3][4] - China's response includes imposing special port fees on U.S.-related vessels, which is seen as a necessary countermeasure to maintain fair competition in international shipping and shipbuilding markets [2][6][7] Group 1: U.S. Actions and Motivations - The U.S. has initiated a trade investigation against China's maritime and shipbuilding sectors, citing "non-market behavior" and "unfair competition" as reasons for the actions [3][4] - The U.S. has been using Section 301 of the Trade Act since 2018 to impose tariffs and restrictions, which has now extended to the shipping and shipbuilding industries [3][4] - The U.S. aims to restore its shipbuilding capacity and regain control over key maritime industries, rather than reducing global trade costs [5][6] Group 2: China's Response and Strategy - China's countermeasures are described as a necessary defensive action to protect its industries and maintain a fair competitive environment in global shipping [6][7] - The measures specifically target vessels with at least 25% U.S. ownership, demonstrating a precise and restrained approach to avoid broader impacts on third-party nations [7] - China emphasizes the importance of upgrading its industries and enhancing self-sufficiency to mitigate the effects of external sanctions and geopolitical risks [7][8] Group 3: Impact on Global Shipping Industry - The U.S. port fee policies could significantly increase operational costs for affected shipping fleets, potentially leading to a reallocation of shipping capacity and reduced market efficiency [5][6] - The shipping industry is experiencing a decline in orders, influenced by macroeconomic factors and geopolitical tensions, which could further complicate investment decisions [5][6] - The ongoing tensions highlight a struggle for dominance over international trade rules, with potential long-term implications for global shipping dynamics [6][8]