Incoming President Donald Trump has threatened to act to recover the Panama Canal, which the United States, its builder, had controlled since it was opened in 1914 until 1979.
In the form of the Panama Canal Commission, the United States and Panama assumed joint control of the canal for some years, until in 1999 Panama took over completely.
In full, quickly, without question
A few days ago, Trump told an audience of supporters that under his administration the United States “will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly, and without question.”
On Truth Social, Trump wrote that the Canal is “a vital national asset for the United States…. A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. commerce” and for “rapid deployment of the Navy” between oceans.
The Washington Post reports that “Trump’s Panama Canal threats [are] designed to scuttle China influence” (December 24, 2024).
President-elect Donald Trump’s threat last weekend to reclaim the Panama Canal was designed to make clear that “decades of U.S. commerce financing China’s growth and strategic footprint in the Americas is over,” according to a senior Trump appointee.
Successive administrations have allowed a “vacuum of control and influence” in the Western Hemisphere, Mauricio Claver-Carone, named by Trump as his incoming administration’s special envoy for Latin America, said Monday.
But those earlier administrations also included Trump’s first term, when his policy in the hemisphere focused primarily on migration and sanctions against Venezuela, even as Panama severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan and established ties with China in 2017. That opened the door to Chinese investments and companies that were already winning bids for major infrastructure projects elsewhere in the region.
The Post reporter “fact-checks” Trump, who last year “inaccurately said that China ‘controls’ and runs the Panama Canal.” Trump also then said that during his next presidency, China would “get out.”
China will as always respect
Although Trump’s words are treated skeptically in the Post’s article, the words of Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning are not thus treated.
Ning asserts that there is “no control, direct or indirect, from any power” over the Panama Canal. “China will as always respect Panama’s sovereignty over the canal and recognize the canal as a permanently neutral international waterway.”
Same Post report: “While there is little evidence China has sought a military presence in the Americas, the Southern Command has raised flags about Chinese investment in critical infrastructure, including deep-water ports, and cyber and space facilities that ‘can have a potential dual use for malign commercial and military activities.’ Many years of U.S. warnings about the risks of debt and dependence on China have fallen largely on deaf ears” among Latin American countries.
How can Chinese investments in facilities that “have a potential dual use for malign and military activities” constitute only “little” evidence of China’s military interest? All a coincidence? What about the history of modern China and the standard modus operandi of the Chinese Communist Party?
At SouthCom.mil, Lieutenant General Evan Pettus observes that the People’s Republic of China
establishes aggressive and coercive economic ties with nations in the region and uses those ties to exert deep influence over local and national governments. Levers of power include building and operating critical infrastructure, controlling information technology networks, and monopolizing access to vital supply chains. Additionally, the PRC strategically constructs ports near crucial maritime chokepoints that could potentially facilitate future military activities. Their investment in critical infrastructure extends to ostensibly civilian space facilities, which thinly veil their military connections and potential military applications. Moreover, the PRC employs coercion and information control to advance its diplomatic objectives and suppress opposition.”…
The PRC has established a growing network of space facilities in Latin America, typically claiming civilian purposes. However, the involvement of the People’s Liberation Army Strategic Support Force in almost all PRC space activities suggests these facilities likely possess undisclosed military capabilities. According to Admiral Craig Faller, former commander of USSOUTHCOM, some of these facilities may contribute to the PRC’s “ability to monitor and potentially target U.S., allied, and partner space activities.”…
Chinese companies are constructing large port projects near vital supply routes and strategic maritime chokepoints. Although these projects are presented as commercial in nature, the PRC has demonstrated a consistent pattern of gradually upgrading similar facilities worldwide to enable future military use.
What about the Panama Canal?
Pettus says:
If the PRC can exert sufficient influence on host governments, port projects near key lines of communication in the Western Hemisphere could potentially accommodate PRC military forces, posing a risk to the freedom of maneuver for both military and commercial traffic of the United States and its partner nation. Military forces do not need to be present to raise concern. For instance, General Richardson states, “PRC-sponsored companies are engaged in, or bidding on, several projects related to the Panama Canal—a global strategic chokepoint. These projects include port operations on both ends of the canal, water management, and a logistics park.”
At what stage will the Post’s reporter grant that the evidence of Chinese military ambitions in this half of the planet and in Panama is more than “little”?
Maybe we’ll have to wait until Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning says “Now we’ve got you where we want you.”
