Many believed that President Jimmy Carter’s relinquishing the Panama Canal was foolish. There is the old joke telling of Carter, unable to sleep, wandering through the White House gazing at the portraits of past US presidents when an apparition of Teddy Roosevelt appeared. “Why so glum?” Teddy asked. Carter then recounted all the mistakes he’d made, the failures in foreign policy, and the faux pas in decision-making during his administration. Teddy, attempting to console, tells Carter, “Not to worry. Being President of the US is a big job. You have to expect some setbacks. Whew! For a minute there, I thought you were going to tell me you gave away the Panama Canal.”
Panama Canal and China’s Growing Influence
As China gains greater influence and presence in Central and South America, the Panama Canal has become the focus of Beijing’s threat to easy transit for global commerce. Former Chairman of the House Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Michael Gallagher (R-WI) wrote in a Newsweek editorial: “In 2023, a visitor to the Panama Canal might think they were in China. Ports at both ends of the Canal are managed by companies from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), while Huawei dominates the country’s telecoms system.” While the management and ownership of the Panama Canal has been out of America’s hands, the CCP has gained influence and management control of one of the most significant waterways in the world.
President-elect Donald Trump wants the Canal back. He told a Turning Point USA conference:
As China gains greater influence and presence in Central and South America, the Panama Canal has become the focus of Beijing’s threat to easy transit for global commerce. Former Chairman of the House Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Michael Gallagher (R-WI) wrote in a Newsweek editorial: “In 2023, a visitor to the Panama Canal might think they were in China. Ports at both ends of the Canal are managed by companies from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), while Huawei dominates the country’s telecoms system.” While the management and ownership of the Panama Canal has been out of America’s hands, the CCP has gained influence and management control of one of the most significant waterways in the world.
President-elect Donald Trump wants the Canal back. He told a Turning Point USA conference:
“We’re being ripped off at the Panama Canal like being ripped off everywhere else. A secure Panama Canal is crucial for secure commerce and rapid deployment of the Navy from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Pacific…The United States is the number one user of the Panama Canal with more than 72% of all transits heading to or from US ports.”
It should have come as no surprise that the president of Panama might have something to say on the subject. “Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent area belongs to Panama and will continue to be so,” Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino responded, according to a Real Clear Defense reprint.
After former President Carter signed a treaty in 1977, a gradual handover of ownership of the Canal and adjacent land began, culminating in Panama gaining complete control in 2000. At the time, no one saw the potential for the Panama Canal to become a PRC enterprise.
Click to view - (Photo by Yasin Demirci/Anadolu via Getty Images)
The history of Panama and the Canal after 150 years might spotlight some modest US claims of influence over the Canal. The US recognized and supported Panama’s becoming a sovereign country in 1903 following its separation from Columbia. After the French failed to complete the Canal, US President Teddy Roosevelt took up the project in 1904 and completed the waterway in 1914 for $15.2 billion (in 2023 dollars). America, having completed the Panama Canal with US taxpayer dollars and Yankee engineering, then signed a treaty with Panama, giving the US governance over a ten-mile-wide Canal Zone.
The Panama Canal has immense strategic value for the transit of US Navy vessels in countering CCP presence in the region. Additionally, reducing travel time by days or months to move military assets from the Atlantic to the Pacific if needed in order to meet an Indo-Pacific threat cannot be overstated. Seeing how President Trump accomplishes the assumption of control of the Canal will be worth the price of admission. However, Trump’s concern over America’s precarious geopolitical circumstances is not limited to Central America.
Could Greenland Be Next?
More than just hegemonic mergers and acquisitions hubris run amuck, President-elect Donald Trump has breathed life into his first-term initiative to buy Greenland. Trump believes that with the US ownership of Greenland and the corresponding freedom to create a formidable American-Arctic presence, Russian and Chinese designs in the North Pole region would be deterred. The US already has a large military base, Pituffik Space Force Base (Formerly Thule Air Base). Its mission is to support the regional Ballistic Missile Early Warning Site, which is used to spot any Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles that Russia might fire at North America.
With only 56,000 people living on the world’s largest island at 836,330 square miles, approximately 80% of the land mass is covered with ice and is an autonomous territory belonging to Denmark. It isn’t hard to see the geostrategic value of Greenland. With Alaska on the Arctic West and Greenland on the Arctic East, the US could control much of the Arctic Sea lanes and shipping should hostile forces attempt to exploit the area to attack NATO forces. “In 2019, then-President Trump floated his interest in buying Greenland, which abuts North Atlantic shipping lanes and hosts important radar and weather installations, but the idea was swiftly shot down by Danish and Greenlandic officials,” the New York Post reported. Trump went so far in his thinking that he looked into investment sources to get the project started.
Never one to be discouraged, Trump has again brought the purchase of Greenland into the public discourse. Trump sees the purchase as a win-win. The sale price will improve the economic condition of the Greenlanders while establishing a more formidable defense for NATO on the island. The obstacle in Trump’s way is, of course, as Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede explained succinctly and publicly, “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale.”
Whether by coincidence or by Denmark getting another message, “Denmark’s government announced a defense package for Greenland worth at least $1.5 billion after President-elect Donald Trump reiterated that he wanted the US to purchase the Arctic territory,” Business Insider reported. This may be his new tactic to get NATO, Allies, and friends to pay more for their own security. The incoming president will threaten to buy them. Today, Greenland, tomorrow, it could be France – Okay, maybe not France.
Dave is a retired U.S. Air Force Pilot with over 180 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and has served in executive positions in the private sector aerospace and defense industry. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
Once upon a time I was a staunch ally of Uncle Sam.
I was a brand-new constable in Lambton Quay 1966 when President Johnson drove past to visit Prime Minster Muldoon – where they did a deal: “Beef sales access to US for troops to Vietnam.”
I was such a strong supporter of Vietnam; in 1970 I did an OCTU course i.e. commissioned rank suitability for the army, but (a) I was accepted into the C.I.B. NZ Police & (b) passed some sergeants promotion exams – so I stayed put.
On one occasion – I was scene commander security of a US nuke submarine – at Devonport - USS Phoenix as I recall. I took my wife and baby daughter into the bowels of this behemoth.
I recall thinking: Here is me mid 30ies an inspector (i.e. Captain army equivalent) in charge of stopping protestors – and here’s the sub captain – about the same age – with the power to launch a nuke missile.
1987 I resigned my police commission and entered parliament as an MP for National. But the tide was turning. Vietnam was done and dusted thanks to Ricard Nixon but Carpet-bombing aka Dresden special, of Vietnam and agent orange etc was rife.
During my first term I advocated National adopt Labour’s anti-nuke policy i.e. no US vessels in NZ. Bolger and his cabal vociferously opposed my caucus speech – but I was supported by Winston and Maurkice Williamson and Kath Oregan and I survived. I gave the same speech to the Dunedin annual conference – where it was accepted – and ultimately became National policy.
When National became government, I was present -under secretary Agriculture with John Falloon Minister and Prime Minser Bilger and a US emmissary who said:
“Great you guys’ are back in power. Its time to repeal the no-nuke policy – or no beef to USA.”
At that point, Uncle Sam lost me. “Who the hell does this fella think he is”, I thought but did not say.
America today?
I’m pleased to see Trump in office. But, his arrogance looms as dangerous as was Biden’s dementia.
Taking Greenland? Taking Panama Canal? Next thing the Poms will say they are going to take back the Suez Canal. The Russians have already taken back Crimea – so what the hell.
Interesting assessment Dave
Most followers of the former President will recognize his thinking aloud as a tried and proven tactic for controlling the discussions following his comments from a position of strength.
The leaders of Greenland and Panama will find it difficult resisting his overtures particularly if he makes them offers they can't refuse.
You've got to love the rhetoric of characterising the potential acquisition of Greenland as "establishing a more formidable defense for NATO on the island" should " hostile forces attempt to exploit the area to attack NATO forces." Meanwhile, the Panama Canal shortens the time US military forces need "to meet an Indo-Pacific threat."
"Hostile" forces posing what kind of "threat" one may ask? Hostile not to you or me, but only to the US world-hegemony it has established by economic (and always backed by military) force over the last century.
To the extent that the US accurately accuses Russia and China of "aggressive expansion" (and 9 times out of 10, it is inaccurate), these entities are merely doing what the US has done for 100 years.
It's not the global influence these countries may seek and acquire per se, it is that this necessarily undercuts America's own global influence that is the "problem" being presented to readers here.
Madam, I concur.
Clive, and what if they do "resist his overtured"?
Well, the Poms did take back the Falklands
Post a Comment