Does Trump’s claim of China controlling Panama Canal hold water?

#Trumps #claim #China #controlling #Panama #Canal #hold #water

According to AFP, US President Donald Trump’s threat to seize the Panama Canal over suspected Chinese influence may be more about curbing Beijing’s growing diplomatic and economic presence in Latin America. .

They agree, however, that the use of force to gain control of the vital waterway, which handles five percent of global maritime trade and 40 percent of U.S. container traffic, appears unlikely.

Here’s what we know:

Who owns the canal?

Built by the United States with primarily Afro-Caribbean labor and opened in 1914, the canal was administered by the United States until 1977, when the Panamanian extradition treaties were signed under then-US President Jimmy Carter. .

Since the handover in 1999, the canal has been managed by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) – an autonomous body whose board of directors is appointed by the legislature and the President of Panama.

The government has awarded concessions to private company Hutchinson Ports – a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based company CK Hutchinson Holdings – to operate ports at either end of the 82 km (51 mi) waterway.

According to Rebecca Bill Chavez of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank: “Panama has respected the canal agreements by effectively maintaining the canal’s operations and ensuring its neutrality.”

Yet Trump complained in his inaugural address on Monday that “China is running the Panama Canal, and we didn’t give it to China, we gave it to Panama.”

“China does not operate or control the Panama Canal,” Chavez said.

Can it change?

In the eye of the storm is Hutchinson Ports, which has operated the Balboa and Cristobal ports since 1997.

Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio has questioned whether Chinese companies could take control of ports under Beijing’s orders and “shut it down or obstruct our corridor.”

Panamanian President José Raúl Molino has insisted that his country operates the canal on the principle of neutrality, in accordance with the agreements.

“There are legitimate concerns about the presence of a Chinese company,” Benjamin Gaddan, director of the Latin America program at the Washington-based Wilson Center, told AFP.

“The channel is of great importance to the United States, both commercially and strategically,” Gaddan said, adding that it is a potential target for China to influence, or even nationalize, Hutchinson Ports. .

Beijing said on Wednesday that it has “never interfered” and does not “participate in the management and operation” of the canal, in which the United States is the largest user, followed by China.

Hutchinson Ports said an audit by the Office of the Comptroller of Public Expenditure and the Panama Maritime Authority a few years ago found the company was in “full compliance” with its contractual obligations.

The comptroller has announced another audit following Trump’s threats.

The art of the deal?

Trump has complained that US ships – including US Navy vessels – are “grossly overcharged” for using the port.

But for Euclids Tapia, a professor of international relations at the University of Panama, this appears to be a “false argument” to cover up Trump’s real goal: “for Panama to minimize its relationship with China.”

Panama cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan in favor of Beijing in 2017, much to the dismay of Washington.

Since then, China’s footprint has expanded greatly in Panama as in the rest of Latin America, primarily through infrastructure projects.

The United States is Panama’s main political and trade partner, but subsidiaries of Chinese companies have built a $206 million port at the canal’s Pacific entrance in recent years, and are spending about $1.4 billion on a bridge over it. .

“He (Trump) is definitely trying to intimidate Panama,” said Natasha Lindstedt, an international relations expert at the University of Essex.

“It’s either a negotiating tool or a distraction, or both,” he added.

What is the possibility of power?

Under the 1977 agreements, Panama is committed to ensuring that the canal is open to all countries equally.

“There is nothing, nothing, that the United States is allowed to do to restore or reclaim the canal,” said Julio Yao, a former government policy adviser who was part of the Panamanian team that negotiated the accords. Talked.

According to Tapia, a professor of international relations, Washington introduced amendments to the treaties that allow unilateral U.S. military force to defend the canal against the threat of closure.

“Only the fabrication of a false flag operation … could justify the use of military force in Panama” under the current circumstances, Tapia said.

And this could only be to “keep the channel open, not to take it and exploit it economically,” the analyst added.

The Wilson Center’s Gaydan sees military intervention as “unlikely” but notes that Trump could pressure Panama through tariffs, for example.