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.
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.
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.
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.
Further, any actions Trump might take must viewed in the context that the Panama Canal and its zone, built with American blood and treasure, turned a well-nigh worthless jungle into an economic zone that generates at least 7.7 percent of Panama’s economy and that the zone was gifted to Panama by the United States under the condition that it be kept neutral and the ability for U.S. Navy ships to transit the canal be protected.