Exploring the Significance of Revisiting the Panama Canal Treaty
Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,
What’s behind the Trump administration’s interest in revisiting the Panama Canal Treaty?
Plenty.
As Panama technically owns the canal, China operates ports at both ends of it, giving Beijing the opportunity to exert control over it with dual-use infrastructure. This raises concerns about China’s potential to manipulate access to the critical waterway, especially for the United States.
Currently, China stands as the second-largest customer of the canal, right after the United States. There are suspicions that Beijing’s influence has led to disproportionately higher transit costs for the US and violates Panama’s neutrality policy established in a treaty with the US back in 1978.
The Trump administration argues that the treaty has been breached, justifying US intervention. It also highlights the threat posed by Beijing’s de facto control over the Panama Canal to US economic, military, and geopolitical interests locally and globally.
The administration’s assessment appears to be accurate.
The Global Reach of the ‘Panama Strategy’
On a broader scale, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has expanded its influence in Latin America and other strategic regions worldwide through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This initiative aims to extend Chinese presence globally by investing in infrastructure projects such as roads, railways, ports, and energy pipelines.
Participation in the BRI often results in indebtedness to Beijing, compromising foreign governments’ sovereignty over Chinese-built infrastructure like ports. Panama’s ceding of economic authority over the canal to Beijing epitomizes the CCP’s overarching strategy, known as the “Panama Strategy,” which focuses on gaining control over critical global waterways, shipping routes, and ports.
This strategic approach involves establishing a naval presence worldwide, expanding influence through BRI agreements, and constructing military installations in key locations. The ultimate objective is to enhance China’s power to challenge the US-led global trade system and its policy on open shipping lanes. The Panama Canal is one of many strategic waterways that China influences through infrastructure investments or military presence via the BRI program.
Beijing’s Strategic Moves on the Global Chessboard
For Beijing, the South China Sea holds paramount importance, with a significant portion of global trade passing through it annually. China has constructed artificial islands and military bases in the region to assert dominance, challenging US security commitments to neighboring nations like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. This has escalated tensions with various countries, including the US and Taiwan.
Similarly, the Strait of Malacca, another critical trade route, is vulnerable due to China’s commercial naval presence facilitated by the BRI. With a substantial percentage of imports passing through the strait, Beijing’s influence poses strategic risks.
Moreover, China’s involvement in the Suez Canal Economic Zone, through its partnership with Egypt, enables it to oversee trade between Europe, Asia, and Africa. Additionally, Chinese military bases near key waterways like the Strait of Hormuz and Djibouti demonstrate Beijing’s efforts to expand its influence globally.
Countering China’s Ambitions
Since Xi Jinping assumed power in 2013, China has pursued a maritime strategy to control vital waterways and shape global trade and military dynamics. This aligns with Xi’s ambition to establish China as the preeminent global power across economic, military, geopolitical, and energy domains.
However, China’s aspirations for hegemony directly clash with US interests, requiring the US to thwart Beijing’s ambitions. The Panama Canal emerges as a focal point for the Trump administration in challenging China’s grand designs.
It is crucial to remain vigilant in countering China’s global ambitions and safeguarding strategic interests.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Loading…