security and influence in the region.
Concretely Addressing China’s de Facto Control of the Panama Canal Is Long Overdue
Commentary
Contrary to assertions made by Panama’s president and some fact-checkers who have mistakenly focused on Panama’s legal/de jure control of the Panama Canal, President-elect Donald Trump is correct in his assertion that China’s de facto control over the Panama Canal is a national security threat.
Indeed, Beijing’s de facto control put China in a position to be able to cripple the U.S. Navy’s ability to respond to worldwide events should Chinese leader Xi Jinping decide such an action is warranted.
The idea that this is not the case because the company managing and operating the Panama Canal’s two most important ports is a “Hong Kong” company and not a Chinese company, and this “Hong Kong” company does not legally control the Panama Canal does not stand up to scrutiny.
Likewise, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino’s implied assertion that Chinese military and intelligence assets aren’t embedded into port operations simply because such assets are not wearing their People’s Liberation Army uniform or carrying cards identifying themselves as intelligence assets of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not one upon which Trump can responsibly base U.S. security.
Of course, Hong Kong has been returned to Chinese control, and it must be assumed that any “Hong Kong” company answers to the CCP. Hence, given the growing tensions with China, the current national security situation presented by CCP influence and control in Panama is intolerable and needs to be rectified.
Related Stories
The preferable course is for Panama to admit that allowing China to gain such control over the canal violates key provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty and moves to come into compliance with the treaty as quickly as possible. The far less preferable but still fully justified course is for the U.S. military to forcibly restore control over the Canal Zone, which was built and paid for with American lives.
Yes, the Panama Canal’s military and economic importance warrants such an action.
About 14 percent of U.S. maritime trade and 40 percent of U.S. container ship traffic flow through the Panama Canal. But even more importantly, the primary reason the United States expended 38,000 lives to build the canal was to provide a quick way for U.S. Navy ships to move from the Atlantic to the Pacific and vice versa.
Some will argue that the fact that our supercarriers cannot transit the canal, including the new canal and locks built in parallel to the original Panama Canal, makes it no longer essential to the United States. This is untrue; our carriers, unlike our other conventionally powered Navy warships and support vessels, are nuclear-powered and can steam at 30 knots continuously to move from one ocean to another in a matter of two to three weeks without having to refuel.
The destroyers and other Navy ships, including those that make up carrier strike groups, are typically limited to under 20 knots. Because they need to refuel, they are much slower than our carriers when it comes to making their way around South America or North America. Consequently, the fact that the vast majority of U.S. Navy ships can transit the Panama Canal makes it very strategically important to the United States.
Some might argue that Hutchison Whampoa Limited (HWL) has been managing and operating the ports of Balboa and Cristobal, which are located on the Pacific and Atlantic sides of the Panama Canal, since 1997.
So why is Trump making such a big deal about it now?
There are several reasons. First, when the Hong Kong-based HWL formed the Panama Ports Company in 1997 to manage and operate the two most important canal ports, Hong Kong had just begun transitioning from British to Chinese control. While it took some time for China to gain full everyday control of Hong Kong, it still has Hong Kong fully under its thumb today.
Consequently, all Hong Kong companies operate at the discretion of the Chinese Communist Party. But for the company, evidence of CCP influence goes beyond merely being part of China. Indeed, congressional testimony dating back as far as 1999 expresses concerns that billionaire Li Ka-shing, the owner and CEO of HWL, had strong ties to the CCP.
Second, the CCP’s growing influence in Panama has made it increasingly foolish for the United States to rely on Panama to safeguard its canal interests, especially given the long-established, strategically placed Chinese asset, HWL, in the Panama Canal Zone.
Third, over the last 28 years, the nature of the U.S.–China relationship has changed dramatically and become more strained as the Chinese regime has become more hostile, and even as many in the United States have come to the conclusion that the U.S. policy of constructive engagement has not only failed but actually supercharged the regime’s rise to being an economic and military superpower.
Finally, allowing China to continue to encroach on what absolutely should be an American sphere of influence and control—Latin America—will lead to further encroachments that diminish U.S. security and influence in the region.
Increasing Power and Influence: Escalating Risks of Armed Conflict
The Trump administration’s approach to addressing security concerns remains uncertain. However, Trump’s resolute refusal to exclude economic or military tactics in acquiring control of the Panama Canal highlights a potential escalation towards armed conflict.
It is crucial to recognize the historical significance of the Panama Canal, constructed with significant American resources and sacrifices. The Canal not only plays a vital role in Panama’s economy but also holds strategic importance for the United States, ensuring the neutrality of the zone and safeguarding passage for U.S. naval vessels.
Given the evolving global landscape since the transfer of the Canal in 1978, there is a pressing need for enhanced U.S. oversight of Canal Zone security to mitigate potential threats.
Trump’s emphasis on the Panama Canal as a national security concern is justified. The failure to invest in infrastructure upgrades to accommodate U.S. supercarriers following the Canal’s expansion in 2016 underscores a critical lapse in national security priorities.
This oversight mirrors broader shortcomings in U.S. foreign policy, exemplified by inadequate responses to challenges such as China’s expanding influence in Latin America. While engaging in costly and counterproductive endeavors like the proxy conflict with Russia, the foreign policy establishment neglects fundamental security imperatives.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily align with The Epoch Times’ views.
