The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the Panama Canal. Most Americans were caught off guard when President Donald Trump first called to take back control of the Panama Canal. Since his first mention of it, more information emerged for his reasoning. The main reason for Trump’s concern about the Panama Canal is national security. China is making inroads at the Panama Canal.
George Caldwell reported that the U.S. Senate is now working on the matter. On Tuesday, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee began discussing the rivalry between America and China at the Panama Canal. Trump warned that there is heavy Chinese activity in the canal area, and he has not ruled out using military force to take back control.
Sen. Ted Cruz opened the hearing by
warning of increasing Chinese control of the canal – in his view, a violation
of the United States’ 1977 agreement with Panama that returned control of the
canal to the Central American nation at the end of 1999, as well as an economic
and national security risk.
“Chinese companies are building a bridge
across the canal – at a slow pace so as to take nearly a decade – and control
container ports at either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the
ability to block the canal without warning, and the ports give China ready
observation posts to time that action. This situation poses acute risks to U.S.
national security,” said Cruz.
“We cannot afford to let American shippers
be extorted,” Cruz said. “We cannot turn a blind eye if Panama exploits an
asset of vital commercial and military importance. And we cannot stay idle
while China is on the march in our hemisphere.”
Four
experts were invited to speak to the committee. All four experts “have
expertise on the Panama Canal and the international economy.”
The
first expert listed was Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at George Mason
University. He told the committee that the activities of the Chinese companies
in Panama look like business dealings but “are likely to also [be] strategic
military maneuvers.
“Modern warfare has seen belligerent
powers seek to evade international legal limitations by disguising their
actions in civilian garb,” said Kontorovich. “Bad actors seek to exploit the
fact that international treaties focus on sovereign actors. Many of China’s
manmade islands in the South China Sea began as ostensibly civilian projects
before being militarized.”
Kontorovich also contended that the treaty
between then-President Jimmy Carter and Panama provided both sides the ability
to use military force to defend their interests in the canal.
“It was clear that the treaty was
understood as giving both sides separately the right to resort to use armed
force to enforce the provisions of the treaty … Panama agreed that the United
States could enforce this regime of neutrality by force,” he said.
The
second expert was Daniel Maffei, the chairman of the Federal Maritime
Commission. He suggested that he did not know of any Chinese spies trying to
shut down the Panama Canal but that they could do so.
“It’s not hard to close off a waterway,”
said Maffei. “The Panama Canal is actually quite vulnerable in terms of
infrastructure. This is not a fort or a military enforced location.”
Both
Republican and Democrat senators recognized the need to secure the interests of
America in the Panama Canal. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) gave a written
statement to The Daily Statement about her concern about giving national
security priority to protecting waterways.
“Chinese Communist Party’s influence on
the operations of Chinese companies at the Panama Canal is a huge national
security concern,” she said. “The United States should consider conditioning
the billions of dollars we invest in Panama on keeping Communist China out of
essential canal operations.”
No comments:
Post a Comment