The global geopolitical reckoning period continues with trade wars and protectionism. The US’ new customs tariffs are taking their place as the most important soldiers of this war. The old order is no more. However, there is no change in the old order’s vision of Eurasia and the 21st century’s vision of access to rare metals and oil. After all, World War I was the war of transitioning from coal to oil; World War II was the war of owning oil. The 21st century will be the century of struggle for semiconductors, artificial intelligence and access to rare metals, which are indispensable for advanced technology.
By Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Global Research
Geopolitical Struggle and Trade Wars
Trade wars have already been continuing for years with embargoes, sanctions and bans against traditional rivals such as China and Russia by the US. This time, the dose of the war has increased astronomically, while both its fronts and scope are changing. Now, the US’ traditional allies such as the EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada and Australia are also taking their places on the opposing front in the US trade war. Despite having dollar seigniorage, the US cannot produce enough, it has a trade deficit with economic giants, and the geopolitical gains it has achieved as a result of all the wars and regime changes it has engaged in after the Cold War do not create sufficient surplus value in its economy. On the contrary, it creates a deficit.
On the other hand, its dependence on China for electronics, high technology, and rare metals is no longer sustainable. Until the trade wars began, 40% of the containers coming from China to the US by sea would return to China empty after being unloaded. The US exports grain, meat, LNG, and crude oil to China. China can easily procure these goods from other markets. The new tariffs implemented through the trade war aim to increase the US’ sources of income on the financial front and reduce its budget deficits and debt stocks. However, on the real economy front, it also aims to recover the US’ manufacturing industry, which has declined in the last 40 years, and most importantly, to bring back the production of American brands, which have spread all over the world, especially in China, as a result of neoliberal capitalism and globalization, to the American continent.
In short, the US, like China, aims to be the manufacturing center of the world. It aims to bring the American worker and craftsman back to the level of the 1950s. (An example of how they are really in a very bad situation in this regard was experienced in the navy the other day. The Aegis class cruiser named USS Cape St. George returned to the San Diego base after modernization. This period was 8.5 years. A new ship like this can be built in 4 years.)
Weakening American Sea Power
On the other hand, the navy and the chain of bases, which are the biggest tools of the privilege of being the boss of global trade and ordering world trade and oceans in return for the dollar being the global currency, are weakening. However, the indispensable part of global hegemony is the naval power and the chain of bases. This decline, combined with China’s unstoppable rise at sea, is causing a great impasse for the USA, where time is turning against it every passing day. If the USA’s naval power continues with its current energy, it will need many years to catch up with China in the maritime trade and shipbuilding sectors. China’s merchant marine fleet has a significant share in global maritime transport.
As of 2023, China has reached a capacity of around 430 million DWT, accounting for 18.7% of the world’s fleet. This rate was 2.7% for the US. On the other hand, Chinese-built ships accounted for half of the global shipbuilding market share in 2024 and 71% of 2025 orders. The US share was even less than 0.2%. In the energy sector, China accounted for around 48% of the new liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) ship market and 38% of the new LNG ship market.
Trump’s Operation to Save the US Shipping
The Trump administration is aware of this weakness. On March 24, 2025, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) concluded an investigation into the reasons why China’s share in world shipbuilding increased from 5% in 1999 to over 50% in 2023, and stated that the current situation was met with heavy state subsidies, and recommended that Trump take measures to curb China’s dominance in the sector and encourage domestic shipbuilding. This is why the US is taking the trade war to a different level. They are now clearly giving signs that a new front has opened against China at sea. The US announced that it will impose duties on Chinese-made and Chinese-owned ships docking at its ports on April 17, 2025.
According to the regulation, which will come into effect in six months, ships built and owned in China will face fees calculated based on net tonnage per voyage to the US. Regardless of the flag, a shipowner with a ship built in China is expected to pay more than $1.5 million in taxes when they call at any US port. If the incoming ship is operated by a Chinese shipowner and the shipowner in question (COSCO, for example) has ordered new ships from a Chinese shipyard, then the tax can go up to $3.5 million. The second phase, targeting foreign-made liquefied natural gas (LNG) ships, is planned to be implemented within three years.
The Purpose Is to Weaken Chinese Naval Power
The main reason for this initiative is not just to make money for the US through taxes. The aim is to harm Chinese maritime power both in terms of the merchant marine and shipbuilding; to isolate the Chinese shipbuilding industry and Chinese shipowners from the market. This practice is actually a passive blockade. The US administration sees that China is implementing what their own naval power theorist Admiral Mahan said 150 years ago and is taking countermeasures. Mahan said:
“States must become rich in order to develop. This can be achieved by producing more goods than the country needs and selling them abroad. The sale of the excess goods produced is provided by maritime merchant fleets. Naval forces are needed to protect maritime transportation and to have overseas colonies. Naval bases must be established in the country and overseas in order to support the naval forces. States that establish and operate such a naval power system gain power and dominance worldwide.”
China has moved far ahead of the US in every field except the establishment of naval bases in Mahan’s equation. The US needed to pass this threshold and at least deal a blow to Chinese maritime power without using firepower, especially before going into a final showdown with China over the Taiwan or South China Sea scenario. The US is doing this. This move will undoubtedly disrupt global trade and maritime transportation. This situation will also seriously hurt the American agricultural and energy sectors that export to China.
On the other hand, the US share in China’s exports is around 15% and China is already ready to absorb this loss. However, other fleets in the world that use Chinese-made ships outside of China will be seriously affected by this new practice. According to the famous Shipping Think Tank Clarksons, considering the 2024 statistics, approximately 83% of container ships, two-thirds of car carriers and more than 30% of crude oil tankers calling at US ports would be subject to fines under the new rules that will be implemented in six months. Because these ships were built in Chinese shipyards. This situation will also negatively affect the Chinese shipbuilding industry. Many shipowners operating lines with American ports will be reluctant to place new orders with China.
However, on the other hand, this situation will also force China and its BRICS partners to distance themselves from the US market and establish a closed economic system within themselves. Or, it will also force China to impose new port taxes on US and other US-related shipowners that will call at its ports as retaliation. If this situation reaches a vital level for China in the future, very different scenarios may come into play.
In summary, the US port tax decision against China will not only increase the competition between the two countries, but also the global maritime transportation system, and if the escalation continues, it will trigger new energies in the current crisis areas.
The Example of the Dutch-England Trade War
Major economic crises are the precursors of trade wars, and trade wars are generally the precursors of hot wars. Let’s give a few examples from history. England, which was growing at sea and entering the phase of establishing a maritime empire, issued the Navigation Act in 1651 to protect its own flagged merchant ships, allowing only English ships to trade with English colonies, and dealt a major blow to the maritime trade of the Netherlands, the state with the largest merchant fleet in the world at the time. This law threatened the economic interests of the Netherlands and led to the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1652.
.
Action between ships in the First Dutch War, 1652–1654 by Abraham Willaerts, which may depict the Battle of the Kentish Knock. It is a pastiche of popular subjects of naval painting of the time showing the Brederode (right) duels Resolution and Sovereign (far left). (Public Domain)
The First War took place between 1652-1654; the Second War between 1655-1667; the Third War between 1672-1674; and the Last War between 1780-1784.
The situation of the Netherlands was similar to today’s China, especially in terms of trade, finance, shipbuilding and the number of merchant ships. The main factor that gave the Netherlands an advantage was the maritime tradition of the people of this country, unlike China. The fact that they had a large fishing fleet from the beginning and later had an effective maritime merchant fleet with the Hanseatic tradition, especially in the Baltic, through a very strong merchant class that came to the fore in European trade, were among the reasons for their success.
In the 15th century, half a million of the two million Dutch population were either fishing or working on merchant ships. Not only in Europe, but also in the world during that period, there was no other nation with 25 percent of its population engaged in sea and shipping. The ships built by the Netherlands were aimed at trade rather than war. However, with the good sailors they trained, they were able to use the cannons they placed on these fast and light dual-purpose (trade and war) ships very effectively and dominated the seas for years.
In 1610, Venetian diplomats wrote the following about the Dutch to their government:
“They are making great efforts to dominate the seas. They are advancing with such superior intelligence, determination and interest that they consider seafaring above all else and perceive it as the power and security of the state.”
Another advantage of the Dutch was their shipbuilding industry. The ships they built for their own shallow waters drew less water and had superior maneuverability. Thanks to their keel-driven sailing ships and flat-bottomed barge-type trading ships, they used ships that were faster and could carry more cargo effectively in maritime trade. With the keel suspended from the side, it later became possible for deep-keeled sailing ships to sail narrowly against the wind. Dutch sailors took the island of Ceylon from Portugal in 1609. They occupied Jakarta in 1619, Taiwan in 1624, and the Strait of Malacca in 1641. They expelled the British from Indonesia in 1626. They were also forced to turn to India. In 1640, Albert Tasman discovered the sea he named after himself and circumnavigated the Australian continent. In 1643, they settled in Curaçao in the Caribbean. In 1652, they colonized South Africa. Between 1621 and 1650, they established colonies on the east coast of the USA, and New York was called New Amsterdam.
Amsterdam Moves to London
In 1602, the Netherlands established the East India Company, financed by the Amsterdam Bank, and in 1621, the West India Company. Under the leadership of the Amsterdam Wisselbank, founded in 1609, Amsterdam became the world’s financial center. This center was the administrative center of European finance until the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 18th century. Later, this superiority and financial center passed to London. These wars were a result of the struggle for control over maritime trade. Like the rise of every power, its inevitable downfall began after 1640 with the emergence of deep-hulled ships with greater firepower in the English and French navies. The English became more dominant due to both the superiority of their navy and their greater success in establishing and operating East and West India Companies, which they imitated the Dutch, and as an island state, they took over the financial and world maritime trade center from the continental state of the Netherlands. Amsterdam had now become London.
The Opium War
In 1839, England tried to close the trade deficit by exporting large amounts of opium to China, and the Chinese government banned this trade due to the negative effects of opium on society. It seized and destroyed a large amount of opium in the port of Guangzhou (Canton). This incident led to military intervention by England, and the First Opium War began. At the end of the war, with the Treaty of Nanking signed in 1842, China was forced to hand over Hong Kong to England and allowed many new capitulations in the field of trade.
.
The East India Company steamship Nemesis (right background) destroying war junks during the Second Battle of Chuenpi, 7 January 1841 (Public Domain)
The Example of the USA and Japan
In 1931, Japan’s occupation of Manchuria and subsequent attacks on other parts of China caused the USA to impose economic sanctions against Japan. The USA restricted the export of scrap metal and oil to Japan. These sanctions threatened Japan’s access to energy resources and paved the way for military conflicts that culminated in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. As an island state, Japan had no power to withstand the blockade and no choice but to attack the USA. These examples show how imbalances in naval power and maritime relations have led to trade wars throughout history.
Future Assessment
The US owed its hegemony, which reached an imperial dimension in the early 1990s, to its national power, primarily its naval, trade and financial power. This power has diminished today. Its economic power and naval power are in serious decline. The recovery of this decline is dependent on decades. On the other hand, the world is turning and the Russia-China duo is in a period of great power competition.
The US has seriously challenged the front it has established with Israel, the EU and its traditional allies in the Pacific. Trump has taken urgent measures, seeing the gravity of this situation. These measures have destroyed the Washington Consensus established after 1945. Trump has begun to question the defense guarantees given by the US to Europe and Japan, and even intelligence sharing with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Trump has withdrawn from the UN Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization. He has halted all distribution of USAID and US foreign aid. He even goes so far as to advocate withdrawing from the IMF and the World Bank. He has openly declared his intention to withdraw from Europe in the field of defense. He has sought to reduce the US’s role in NATO. He has supported Russia and its old enemies such as Belarus and North Korea in the Ukraine votes held at the UN. In short, Trump is not making these maneuvers for nothing.
These decisions alone are an indication of the urgency and gravity of the situation. The gap is widening with China, especially in the maritime sector, which is the US’s biggest brand. Europeans, especially the UK, never care about the US growing again. The EU elites, primarily the financial oligarchic structure centered in London, have not given up on their vision of Russia being torn apart and its resources being put under the command of British, French and German financial giants. Furthermore, they do not care about Ukraine’s independence or the happiness of its people. They are only concerned with how to use Ukraine’s resources and infrastructure to evaluate, in short, exploit its huge financial resources. However, they do not have the military power to do this, or rather impose it.
There is no other country on the western front other than the US that will directly protect Ukraine against Russia, and the US does not want to do this job. However, they will continue their provocations and plots despite this. It is clear that even the terrorist attack that took place in Kashmir between India and Pakistan on April 22 was a false flag operation that would provoke both states to the point of war.
The aim is to keep Eurasia fragmented and confused. The US, on the other hand, is facing China, which is a very serious threat to itself. Europe is the second priority. Unlike the London, Paris and Berlin axis, it does not see Russia as a threat. Israel, on the other hand, is on the US administration’s priority list as a separate priority.
Washington’s situation is really difficult because resources are not enough. In this case, Trump is starting a new process without firing a shot in the field of maritime power, which is the most important power factor. However, Trump’s port tax application targeting the Chinese Merchant Marine Fleet and indirectly Chinese shipyards is the threshold of a very serious rupture and a difficult decision to be overcome in this process. Because this difficult decision will not only harm China but also the American middle class. However, it will be enough to explain to the public that the basis of the US’s empire/hegemony is the sea and maritime.
In short, we can say that we will encounter new plots and new provocations every day in Asia and Europe, namely Eurasia, as experienced in the India and Pakistan crises. While this chaos buys time for the US, we can expect measures to be taken for US shipyards to build more ships and to review the restrictions of the Jones Act, the cabotage law of 1920. In this process, a significant portion of the 51% share of Chinese shipyards in the world market may shift to shipbuilding giants such as South Korea and Japan.
Considering that Japanese shipyards are full until 2028, we can say that many countries including Türkiye, Philippines, Italy, Germany, France, Taiwan, Finland will open doors of opportunity to receive new orders for their shipyards in the gap that will arise from Trump taxes.
Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM.
