Latest news about Panama Canal

Shipyards urged to tap wider Panama Canal

Chinese shipyards have been urged to tap an opportunity thrown up by a project to widen the Panama Canal to design new vessels which use the waterway, according to an industry executive. Work on the US$5.25-billion expansion started in September, and is expected to be completed in August 2014, in time for the centenary of the opening of the world’s most famous waterway. The expansion will create a third set of larger locks of 55 meters wide against 33.5 meters now, and once completed is expected to result in the most cost-effective way to move freight in and out of the United States Midwest. Shipyards in China, which is the largest exporter of sea-borne goods to the United States and a rising shipbuilding power, should quickly take advantage of this new opportunity, said David Tozer, business manager for container ships at Lloyd’s Register, a global ship classification society. A study by Lloyd’s Register and Ocean Shipping Consultants has identified potential designs for “New Panamax” container ships with load capacities of at least 12,500 twenty-foot equivalent units but still capable of sailing through the canal, post 2014. “Any owner who has an NPX ship in 2014 will make a lot of money. They will be ahead of the market,” Tozer told Shanghai Daily in a recent interview. “To order an NPX vessel for delivery in 2014, you need to consider the design now. This is a real opportunity for China’s yards.” The cost of moving goods in an NPX-sized vessel will be about eight percent higher than by ultra-large container ships with capacities of up to 14,000 TEU, Tozer said. But ULCS will not be able to pass through the expanded waterway. “The Chinese ship designers need to be considering NPX design standards (now),” he said. “They should be speaking to ship owners and the Panama Canal Authority about the possibility of (building and designing) bigger ships.” More than 190 ships, each with a capacity of more than 10,000 TEUs, are now on the global order books, half of which have been ordered since May, Tozer said. Only a few of these vessels will not be able to transit via the widened canal, and most will be built by South Korean shipbuilders. The Panama Canal expansion is expected to greatly change the pattern of sea-borne world trade, maritime experts said. An official at the China Classification Society, which plans to set up a representative office in Panama next year, said Chinese shipyards have started looking at various factors in designing vessels that can sail through the widened Panama Canal. The society provides services related to classification, safety, quality and risk management for the global shipbuilding industry. Lloyd’s Register has won contracts with Chinese yards to classify new vessels with a total capacity of 8.5 million gross tons in the first 10 months of this year, a sharp jump from 1.6 million gross tons for the whole of 2006, a Hong Kong-based spokesman said. An expanded canal could also be positive to China, the waterway’s second biggest user, industry experts pointed out. For example, it would enhance the nation’s energy security. A wider waterway will help reduce freight costs for the country to ship crude oil from South American countries such as Venezuela, which has agreed to increase oil supply to China. It would take only 24 days to transport crude from Venezuela to China using the Panama Canal against the 45 days sailing the Atlantic Ocean-Indian Ocean route now, industry officials say. The 80-kilometer-long canal, connecting the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, was built by the United States which handed it over to Panama in 1999. The canal handles around five percent of the world’s trade. Around two-thirds of the cargo that passed through the canal is headed to or from the US. (Shanghai Daily December 6, 2007)

 

Beyond the Canal …

As this article says, the tie between the two countries was fastened for bilateral expansion. There is no need to look too much into it and speculate what hides behind a mutually beneficial relationship.  Not that this relationship is new either: it would be unwise to just ignore history for the sake of bolstering ones own political views.

Panama, China Sign Economic Cooperation Accord

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, December 06, 2001

Representatives from Panama and China on Wednesday signed an economic cooperation agreement between the two countries. It aims to boost economic cooperation, and commit to establishing a regular information and viewpoint exchange mechanism on bilateral commercial expansion. 

China and Panama signed economic agreement

Representatives from Panama and China on Wednesday signed an economic cooperation agreement between the two countries to strengthen commercial relations.

Ma Yue, an official of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, and Ivan Cohen, leader of the Panamanian Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture, signed the document on the eve of the opening of the 5th Economic and Commercial Expo’ of the People’s Republic of China, which is to take place late Wednesday in Panama City.

Two sides expect to strenghten commercial ties

Under the agreement, both countries will boost economic cooperation, and commit to establishing a regular information and viewpoint exchange mechanism on bilateral commercial expansion.

The accord is also aimed at promoting the exchange of visits between entrepreneurs and traders from both countries.

China’s trade with Panama stood at around US$1.2 billion in the year 2000 with China’s export up 33 per cent from the previous year.

 

China’s (and Tycoon Li Ka Shing’s) defence

This Chinese news article clarifies the views of Chinese and Panamanian governments. The fears of certain politicians, which are revealed in the previous news commentary, are unfounded: the co-operation between the two governments is not so much political as economic, hinged on the continuous and potential material benefits promised by the improvement of infrastructure and the facilitation of trade at the canal. As tycoon Li Ka Shing himself says, “I don’t even have a gun with me – how the hell can I ever control the Panama Canal?” If there are few things in the world that are not political, what are political do not have to be prejudged as having an essentially insidious nature.

       
中国没想控制巴拿马运河

李嘉诚说：“我连一把手枪也没有，哪里能控制巴拿马运河？”

 http://world.people.com.cn/GB/42032/3853370.html
●本报驻墨西哥特派记者　张蕾
　　●本报特约记者　徐世澄

　　远在中美洲的巴拿马运河近日不仅再度闯入了人们的视线，还与中国离奇地挂上了钩。11月7日，美国总统布什在被拉美媒体称为“拉拢人心之行”的访问过程中，特别与巴拿马总统商议了中国香港和记黄埔集团投资扩建巴拿马港口的事。布什在之后的记者招待会上表态说，巴拿马运河需要现代化改造，但运河是国际的，经营者必须符合国际利益，保证运河平等的使用权。话里话外透出对香港公司在巴拿马存在的关切。

       台湾煽风点火，美国表示“关切”

  　布什在巴拿马的言论一出，一直担心巴拿马要与之“断交”的台湾当局立刻揣测美国的态度，几家媒体也跟着煽风点火。8日，台湾几家媒体纷纷以《中国插手巴拿马运河》或《巴拿马拟与北京建交》为题，大肆评论香港和记黄埔集团扩建港口的用意。台湾“中央社”称，大陆借助香港公司插手巴拿马运河，意在加强主导权。中时电子报也放出言论，说台湾当局要向巴拿马政府讲明利弊，劝说其不要受大陆所骗等等。台湾还有媒体认为，巴拿马这届政府和美国关系格外良好，而美国共和党是反对巴拿马出租港口给中国公司的，因此美国不会袖手旁观。

 　　1997年，香港著名企业家李嘉诚的和记黄埔集团下属的一家子公司，通过国际竞标获得对巴拿马运河太平洋一端的巴尔博亚和大西洋一端的克里斯托瓦尔两个港口长达25年的管理权。美国当时就表示了“关切”。曾担任美国参谋长联席会议主席的穆勒大放厥词，称美军撤出后“巴拿马运河将落入中国人的手中”，“中国在需要时甚至会封锁运河”。他还危言耸听地说中国很有可能在巴拿马部署导弹瞄准美国。美国参议院和新闻界也一直有人鼓吹类似荒谬言论。 　　时隔多年，美国又老调重弹，主要是看到今年10月，和记黄埔集团巴拿马港口公司又与巴拿马政府签署一项协议，投资10亿美元，用于巴拿马运河港口扩建工程。美国再度发出了“关切之声”，一是“担心”中国控制这条世界上最主要的海上通道之一，对美国的经济造成不良后果。巴拿马运河每年的货运量占到了全球的5％，而美国又占到其中的55％。二是“忧虑”中国会利用巴拿马运河从西方运送科技产品或者武器。说到底他们显然是不愿意看到在美国后院里出现中国的身影。几天前，美国提出的美洲自由贸易区谈判遭到了阿根廷、巴西、委内瑞拉等五国的反对，而与此对照的是，前不久，中国和委内瑞拉签署了卫星合同。美国《大西洋月刊》今年6月号发表一篇题为《我们应该如何与中国作战：另一场冷战》的文章，宣扬中国与巴拿马经贸关系的发展和中国对巴拿马运河的使用是想“填补1999年美国撤出巴拿马运河后留下的真空”，是对美国安全的威胁。 　

    　世界最大的水闸式运河 　　巴拿马运河具有重要的运输和战略价值，是通过巴拿马地峡沟通大西洋与太平洋的通航运河。它与苏伊士运河同样具有世界性战略意义，因此素有“世界桥梁”之称。　　运河全长81.3公里，河面最宽处为304米，最窄处只有152米，水深13.5米至26.5米，可以通航宽度不超过32米的船只，运河区总面积约1432平方公里。船只通过此运河往来太平洋和大西洋间，比绕道南美洲合恩角缩短路程约1.4万公里；从欧洲至亚洲东部或澳大利亚缩短3200公里。

　　巴拿马运河是世界最大的水闸式运河。运河连接的大西洋和太平洋水位相差较大，运河大部分河段的水面比海面高出26米。为调整水位差，建造了6座船闸。船只通过运河，一般需要8至9小时。美国、中国和日本是巴拿马运河最大的三个使用国。巴拿马运河管理局在一份公报中宣布，在9月30日结束的2005财政年度，巴拿马运河的过往船只和货运量均创历史最高纪录。在2006财政年度，巴拿马运河的预算收入将增至12.752亿美元，比2005财年增加20％。

　　通航能力已近极限，和记黄埔投资扩建

　　巴拿马运河自1914年投入使用到现在已有91个年头。最初是1534年西班牙国王卡洛斯一世的构思，但是鉴于技术条件和恶劣的自然条件，西班牙人只做了一条鹅卵石铺就的小道。1881年，开通苏伊士运河的法国运河公司开始动工开凿巴拿马运河，但1889年因财政困难放弃了继续施工。1903年，美国与刚刚脱离哥伦比亚的巴拿马签署条约，从此享有开凿运河和“永久使用、占领及控制”运河及运河区的权利。1904年，运河再次开凿，历时10年完工通航。1977年，巴拿马和美国签署条约，规定巴拿马于1999年从美国手中收回对运河的全部管辖权，美国军队也全部撤走。

　　目前，运河已发挥90％的通航能力，面对日益增多的来往船舶，运河河道和港口的吞吐能力已经不足。目前，巴拿马政府正计划拓宽这条国际航道，但整个工程预计将耗资100亿美元以上，巴拿马政府无力独自承担如此高的费用，而且运河拓宽工程还需经过巴拿马全民公决。巴拿马希望美国和其他国家能投资运河的拓宽项目。但据美方估计，整个运河拓宽工程需要160亿美元的资金，因此对巴拿马政府的投资邀请一直不做回应。

　　2005年10月18日，和记黄埔集团巴拿马港口公司与巴拿马政府签署了总投资10亿美元的协议，用于扩建两个港口。扩建后的克里斯托瓦尔港将拥有两座350米长的泊位，能处理全球最大的货柜船；巴尔博亚港则建有430米长泊位和230米长泊位各一个。扩建后的港口接待能力和现代化程度将提高，也会给当地带来大量的工作机会，毋庸置疑，这也正是巴拿马方面所希望看到的。

　　“运河是巴拿马人的运河”

　　和记黄埔集团是中国香港的一家私营企业，在巴拿马开展的业务纯属商业行为，有利于巴拿马运河的进一步建设和发展，也有利于所有巴拿马运河的用户。

　　布什到访巴拿马期间，巴拿马工会示威时发表声明，巴拿马运河是巴拿马人的运河，不需要布什来决定中国人是否可以参加运河拓宽工程。巴拿马总统托里霍斯在回答布什的这个问题时态度坚定，他否认了一部分美国政客所谓“中国是对巴拿马运河的威胁”的说法，认为不应有人因香港公司的投资而心存疑虑。他说：“在巴拿马经营管理港口的并不是中国政府，而是香港投资商。巴拿马欢迎一切真诚的投资。”巴拿马前总统也明确表示：“运河在巴拿马人手里。香港公司经营运河两个港口，不构成任何威胁。”

　　中国一贯反对霸权，在世界上从不谋求霸权。美国一些政客一再炒作已被人唾弃的“中国威胁论”，目的是想为今后干预巴拿马运河的事务寻找借口，这是明眼人一看便知的。李嘉诚说：“我连一把手枪也没有，哪里能控制巴拿马运河？”

　　中国巴拿马贸易发展办事处代表杨发金指出，中国经济是与世界各国的经济联系在一起的，也是与巴拿马的经济联系在一起的。中巴贸易额2004年达22亿美元，今年将超过25亿美元……随着中国经济的发展和中巴关系的发展，两国经济和贸易交流将会更多。“我希望两国关系尽快正常化（巴拿马尚未与中华人民共和国建立外交关系―――编者注），它符合两国的根本和长远利益，它能够给两国人民带来更大的实惠。”▲

　　《环球时报》 2005年11月11日 第十六版

 

A fair piece of news writing

This  news article by Richard Lister, taken from BBC news, gives a more objective account of the whole circumstances surrounding the canal issue. Citing the U.S. government, it is far more cautious in bringing in the Hong Kong tycoon and the extent of his alleged influence on the canal ports. Hence the “uncertainty” in tone has less to do with what China might make use of the canal, than with the disruption brought by the change of power and ownership and its economic consequences. It confirms our impression that a good piece of news commentary can be poetic and communicative, but without being unfairly provocative.

Panama Canal : America’s strategic artery

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/553979.stm

Perhaps more than any other engineering project, the Panama Canal has been a blunt reminder of one nation’s dominance in the world.

Washington helped carve the nation of Panama from Colombia in 1903 in order to gain control of the canal route.

Eleven years later it had linked the Atlantic and the Pacific with a 50-mile canal through the heart of the jungle.Even though it slices Panama in two, the canal has always been owned, controlled and operated by the United States. That will change at the end of the year, when the United States fulfils the treaty signed by Presidents Carter and Torrijos in 1977 and hands the waterway to Panama.

The 1977 treaty, drawn up as a result of increasing nationalist pressure from Panama, has never been particularly popular in the United States: in the words of one former US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer “We built it, we paid for it, we use it”.

But although used by some 15,000 vessels a year, it is less important than it once was. Some 10% of the world’s container ships are too big to go through the canal, and railways now carry much of its cargo.

Nevertheless as the “belt buckle” of the Western Hemisphere, it still has considerable strategic importance.

Howard Air Force Base in the Canal Zone had been the hub for US anti-drug efforts in Latin America; now that it has closed, the US is scrambling to find other bases to launch anti-narcotics missions.

Port control

But more sinister to many Republican eyes is the fact that a Hong Kong company, Hutchison Whampoa, won the right to control a port facility at each end of the canal after a somewhat murky bidding process.

The Clinton administration denies that the firm has links to the Chinese government, but President Clinton did nothing to calm the controversy when he commented: “I think the Chinese will in fact be bending over backward to make sure they run it in a competent able and fair manner”.The State Department later stressed that Hutchison Whampoa will not in fact be “running” the canal, just two of its ports.

Admiral Moorer has warned that China could use the facilities to base missiles in Panama – something denied by the company, and the governments in Washington and Beijing.

Opinion polls show that the majority of people in Panama are also concerned by the loss of the American presence.While sovereignty over the canal is a matter of intense national pride, the local economy is already suffering from the departure of thousands of American troops.

There are fears too that without the US presence, the small country could be dragged deeper into the narco-economy of neighbouring Colombia.

After almost a century of American imperialism in Panama, both sides are now looking to a new but uncertain future.

 

The article below, written by Charles R. Hazard in 1999, laments that the U.S. should give up its power on the Panama Canal and is outrageous that China should lavishly and greedily reap the benefit. China is described provocatively as “Red,” and even Hong Kong is brought into the picture, as is the close tie between tycoon Li Ka Shing and top politicians in China.  Even though speculation on the intrigues behind all these has not been uncommon among politicians, this is  one of the rarer articles explicitly stating the disastrous consequences that would result from the withdrawal of ownership of the canal – in a tone that reeks heavily of determinism — one cannot help but suspect that either the commentary indeed contains rare, penetrating insight, or the writer is necessarily biased. 

 

China, Panama and the U.S.

Red China: Gatekeeper of the Panama Canal
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/nov99/psrnov99.htmlJimmy Carter never would have been able to ram through his two treaties giving away our Panama Canal if the Senate in 1978 could have looked into the future and known that, when the U.S. Flag is lowered on December 31, 1999, Red China would become its gatekeeper. But that’s what’s scheduled to happen unless Congress takes immediate action to prevent it.Don’t expect the Clinton Administration to interfere with China’s stunning beachhead in the Western Hemisphere. Clinton is hopelessly indebted to the Chinese and their allies in Indonesia for financing his presidential elections in 1992 and 1996.

China didn’t need to send an invading army. Because of what is euphemistically called “free trade,” China has plenty of cash to buy and bribe its way into our domain.

Communist China is the greatest national security threat to America today and in the foreseeable future. At a major meeting in Beijing in 1994, China designated the United States as its primary global rival. China is rapidly building a modern war machine with 18 long-range and 140 intermediate and medium range missiles. It’s based on espionage, theft, trade deals that include technology transfers, and cash provided by a $60 billion-a-year favorable balance of trade.

Every month, China collects up to $6 billion in U.S. cash by selling its slave-labor products to Americans, but China buys only $1 billion worth of U.S. goods. The Chinese pocket the $5 billion a month difference and use it to build their military-industrial complex.

In order to cash in on the cash-rich Chinese, Panama manipulated the bidding process, holding repeated rounds of bids, for leases for the U.S.-built ports of Cristobal on the Atlantic end of the canal and Balboa on the Pacific end. The 50-year leases were awarded to a Chinese Hong Kong corporation named Hutchison Whampoa operating under the name Hutchison Port Holdings.

Hutchison Whampoa had come in only fourth in the bidding, after the Japanese firm Kawasaki/I.T.S., the U.S. firm Bechtel, and the Panamanian American company M.I.T. For exclusive control of the two ports, Hutchison Whampoa agreed to pay $22.5 million a year plus what one Panamanian called “bucket loads of money” under the table, and Panama’s Law No. 5 was passed on January 16, 1997 to confirm the deal.

Law No. 5 blatantly violates the Panama Canal Neutrality Treaty, Article V, which stipulated that only Panama is allowed in defense sites. By giving Hutchison “priority” for its business operations, Law No. 5, Art. 2.11d, also violates the treaty’s Article VI, which guaranteed “expedited” and “head of line” passage for U.S. warships.

Art. 2.10c of Law No. 5 gives Hutchison Whampoa the “right” to operate piloting services, tugs and work boats, which translates into control of all the Canal’s pilots. Art. 2.10e grants the “right” to control the roads to strategic areas of the Canal, and Art. 2.12a grants priority to all piers, including private piers.

Art. 2.8 gives Hutchison Whampoa the right to “transfer contract rights” to any third party “registered” in Panama. Those rights could be transferred to China, or even Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya or North Korea.

The Hutchison leases even violate Panama’s own constitution, Art. 274, which requires a plebiscite on Canal matters. None was held. Law No. 5, Art. 2.1, also grants “first option” to Hutchison Whampoa to take over the U.S. Rodman Naval Station, the Pacific deep-draft port facility capable of handling any warship. The Chinese will then have the power to exclude U.S. warships while admitting Communist warships.

The billionaire chairman of Hutchison Whampoa, Li Ka-shing, was a business and political buddy of the late Deng Xiaoping and now has the same close relationship with both Jiang Zemin and the Riady financial empire of Indonesia. No doubt that’s why he controls most of China’s commercial ports and seaborne trade as well as most of the dock space in Hong Kong.

Li was China’s chief agent in facilitating China’s smooth takeover of Hong Kong in 1997. Hutchison Whampoa partnered in several enterprises with China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), which is directly controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, and served as a middleman in China’s deals with the U.S. firms Hughes and Loral.

The Carter-Torrijos Treaties, bad as they were, gave the United States the right to defend the Panama Canal militarily. The Chinese leases, however, will make it impossible to do this without directly confronting the Chinese Communist regime.

In 1996, when China was “testing” missiles to scare Taiwan before its election, the United States sent warships to the area and China responded by impudently threatening to “rain down fire” on Los Angeles from its China-based ICBMs. Would Communist China do the same if it bases its shorter-range missiles in Panama?

China will be able to ship its shorter-range missiles across the Pacific, unload them at Balboa, and conceal them in warehouses until the time is ripe. If Congress doesn’t act immediately, we are heading for a Panama Missile Crisis like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

 

The Debate on the Panama Canal

To probe the history of the relation between China and Panama, one needs to travel back in time to the first wave of Chinese immigrants into Panama. Alternatively, the Panama Canal, its history and developments, also serve as an interesting starting point.  This is a link to an online debate on whether the canal, originally built by the U.S. in the early twentieth century, should be taken over by China, after the U.S. returned the control of the canal and its operations toPanama in 1999.

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/panama_china.HTM