It's about China, not Panama

It’s about China, not Panama – American Thinker https://t.co/QtSuNB3OAb

— Silvio Canto. Jr. (@silvio_canto) January 14, 2025

 We have not heard so much about the Panama Canal since candidate Ronald Reagan made it an issue back in 1979-80. It did not become a major issue for President Reagan because there was so much on the front pages about Jimmy Carter’s failures.

The canal is back but for different reasons. Back then, it was all about “we built it and that’s it.” Now, it’s more about China and the idea that it could become the national security nightmare that some feared back then.

Yes, it’s about China and not really Panama. From China making electrical vehicles in Mexico to all those natural resources in Greenland, it’s all about China.

I think that Gregg Curley is correct:

Trump’s recent comments on the Panama Canal’s transit fees and Chinese influence have thrust the canal to the forefront of US strategic discourse. Chinese companies such as Landbridge Group and the Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings now operate ports at both ends of the canal. This presence raises concerns about potential dual-use infrastructure and strategic maneuvering, particularly given China’s deepening ties to Latin America.

The United States wields significant economic leverage over Panama. As the primary user of the canal and Panama’s largest provider of foreign direct investment—$3.8 billion annually—the United States can influence Panamanian decision making. Conversely, the United States and its partners present few viable alternatives to Chinese investment in the region, a reality unlikely to change in the short term. Will Panama prioritize alignment with US interests to safeguard this support, or will it risk economic repercussions by favoring China and leveraging its control over this vital trade route? Alternatively, could US economic retaliation, Panama’s reaction, and Chinese competition escalate tensions to the point that interventions are warranted under the treaty?

Transit fees, which are calculated using a universally applicable formula, have surged in recent years. In part, these fee increases are a response to droughts in 2023 and early 2024, which restricted the number of ships that could transit the canal. Authorities raised fees to counteract revenue loss from the transit restrictions. Nonetheless, if costs continue to rise, and if China continues to expand its presence around the canal, then there may be louder calls to resurrect the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. This corollary asserts the United States’ right to intervene in the region to ensure stability and prevent foreign interference.

It makes total sense to get China out of the canal. I am not comfortable with the fact that something as vital as maritime commerce should be in the hands of an adversary of the U.S. It’s as simple as that.

As I recall, we were promised back in 1979 that the canal would be neutral of international interference. Of course, it was the USSR that we were worried about back then. We took out a communist government in Grenada in 1983 because we didn’t want MIGs that close to the canal. My point is that keeping the canal in neutral hands and away from adversaries was a condition of giving it to Panama.

China is not our friend, so let’s get real about containing its expansion. I’m glad that President is up to speed on this.

P.S. Check out my blog for posts, podcasts and videos.