China’s Claims on the Panama Canal: A Misleading Narrative
Chinese claims of neutrality regarding the Panama Canal are misleading. Utilizing the Belt and Road Initiative, China is expanding its strategic presence in global ports, raising concerns about its geopolitical influence. Recent audits in Panama reveal worries over Chinese involvement and economic returns. Furthermore, national security apprehensions have prompted countries like Australia and Israel to reject Chinese investments in critical infrastructure, citing potential risks to their national interests.
On March 5, Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, declared China’s pledge to maintain the Panama Canal as a neutral international waterway, asserting that the nation has never interfered in its management. However, this assertion is misleading, as China has leveraged its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to expand its influence over key seaports globally. Analysts indicate that by securing critical ports, China aims to enhance its geopolitical leverage in global trade and maritime logistics.
As of January 20, Panama initiated a financial audit of Panama Ports Company (PPC), a subsidiary of Hutchison Ports Holdings, which maintained terminals at both ends of the Panama Canal since 1997. The audit, according to Panama’s Comptroller General Anel Bolo Flores, seeks to ensure the effective and transparent management of public resources, following concerns that PPC’s increased cargo volume has not yielded sufficient financial benefits for Panama. Flores commented that the Chinese have transformed the Panama Canal into “a colonial enclave that replaced the Americans.”
Hutchison Ports’ parent entity, CK Hutchison Holdings, is a multinational organization based in Hong Kong and registered in the Cayman Islands. The company has faced ongoing allegations of collusion with the Chinese Communist regime. Its founder, Li Ka-shing, has established enduring relationships with Chinese Communist Party officials. Victor Li, Ka-shing’s son, is notably a long-standing member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a prestigious political advisory assembly.
The perception of CK Hutchison Holdings as linked with the Chinese regime intensified after a controversial 2000 agreement that enabled a development project on a prime waterfront property in Hong Kong, directed by Li Ka-shing’s son, Richard Li, without public auction. According to The South China Morning Post, the elder Li has been recognized as “the biggest beneficiary” of the state-run BRI, with the company controlling 22 ports across 18 nations, reflecting the BRI’s strategic trade routes.
Concerns related to national security have prompted significant actions against Chinese investments. In June 2021, the Panama Maritime Authority rescinded a concession granted in 2016 to the Landbridge Group of China, which sought to construct a terminal in Colón, due to strategic safety concerns. Simultaneously, Australia’s government rejected CK Hutchison Group’s $9.5 billion proposal for acquiring a local pipeline operator, declaring the move to be “contrary to the national interest.”
Moreover, in 2016, a joint bid involving CK Hutchison and the Chinese government for a stake in an Australian electricity distributor was banned. Israel also denied a proposal from a CK Hutchison affiliate for constructing a desalination plant, citing risks associated with Chinese investments in essential infrastructure. In these instances, the U.S. has highlighted security apprehensions concerning Chinese involvement in critical sectors.
Since its inception in 2013, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has framed the BRI as an initiative to enhance trade routes and infrastructure globally. Despite presenting its investments as neutral economic cooperation efforts, critics maintain that the BRI serves as a mechanism for expanding China’s geopolitical influence. Craig Singleton from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies cautions that these port acquisitions offer Beijing political leverage over host nations and neighboring states alike. The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations notes that Chinese enterprises own or operate 129 global ports, with over 50% under Chinese governmental ownership and 91 identified as having potential naval utility, with a majority stake held by China.
In conclusion, China’s growing dominance over critical maritime ports through the Belt and Road Initiative raises significant concerns about its influence on global trade and national security. While the Chinese government asserts its neutrality regarding such investments, nations like Panama, Australia, and Israel are increasingly vigilant, emphasizing the security risks posed by China’s expanding presence in vital maritime infrastructures.
Original Source: www.voanews.com
Post Comment