Podcasts about hutchison ports

President Trump has been threatening to “take back” the Panama Canal since he regained power. In this episode, listen to testimony from officials serving on the Federal Maritime Commission who explain why the Panama Canal has become a focus of the administration and examine whether or not we need to be concerned about an impending war for control of the canal. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Current Events around the Panama Canal March 5, 2025. the Associated Press. Sabrina Valle, Suzanne McGee, and Michael Martina. March 4, 2025. Reuters. Matt Murphy, Jake Horton and Erwan Rivault. February 14, 2025. BBC. May 1, 2024. World Weather Attribution. World Maritime News Staff. March 15, 2019. World Maritime News. July 29, 2018. Reuters. Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 U.S. Department of State. The Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” Michele Ruta. March 29, 2018. World Bank Group. The Trump-Gaza Video February 26, 2025. Sky News. Laws Audio Sources Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation January 28, 2025 Witnesses: Louis E. Sola, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Daniel B. Maffei, Commissioner, FMC , Professor, Scalia Law School, George Mason University Joseph Kramek, President & CEO, World Shipping Council Clips 17:30 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Between the American construction of the Panama Canal, the French effort to build an isthmus canal, and America's triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across Panama cost more than 35,000 lives. For the final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United States spent nearly $400 million, equivalent to more than $15 billion today. The Panama Canal proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and to the US economy. 18:45 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): But the Panama Canal was not just given away. President Carter struck a bargain. He made a treaty. And President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that that treaty is being violated right now. 19:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): President Trump has highlighted two key issues. Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit. 19:20 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the canal at a slow pace, so as to take nearly a decade. And Chinese companies control container points 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, I believe, poses acute risks to US national security. 19:50 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Meanwhile, the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans, because US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of Canal transits. US Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to warships. Canal profits regularly exceed $3 billion. This money comes from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees Panama chooses to levy for canal transits, and they have paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly 1/10 of its budget is paid for with canal profit. 21:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama has for years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost fleet, which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil profits to fund terror across the world. 21:40 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): And Chinese companies have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous Belt and Road Initiative has come to Panama. China often engages in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion. In Panama, it also seems to have exploited simple corruption. 32:40 Louis Sola: The Panama Canal is managed by the Panama Canal Authority, ACP, an independent agency of the Panamanian government. The ACP is a model of public infrastructure management, and its independence has been key to ensure a safe and reliable transit of vessels critical to the US and global commerce. 33:25 Louis Sola: In contrast, the broader maritime sector in Panama, including the nation's ports, water rights, and the world's largest ship registry, falls under the direct purview of the Panamanian government. 33:35 Louis Sola: Unfortunately, this sector has faced persistent challenges, including corruption scandals and foreign influence, particularly from Brazil and China. These issues create friction with the ACP, especially as it works to address long term challenges such as securing adequate water supplies for the canal. 33:55 Louis Sola: Although the ACP operates independently, under US law both the ACP and the government of Panama's maritime sector are considered one in the same. This means that any challenges in Panama's maritime sector, including corruption, lack of transparency, or foreign influence, can have a direct or indirect impact on the operations and long term stability of the canal. This legal perspective highlights the need for diligence in monitoring both the ACP's management and Panama government's policies affecting maritime operations. 34:30 Louis Sola: Since 2015, Chinese companies have increased their presence and influence throughout Panama. Panama became a member of the Belt and Road Initiative and ended its diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Chinese companies have been able to pursue billions of dollars in development contracts in Panama, many of which were projects directly on or adjacent to the Panama Canal. Many were no bid contracts. Labor laws were waived, and the Panamanian people are still waiting to see how they've been benefited. It is all more concerning that many of these companies are state-owned, and in some cases, even designated as linked to the People's Liberation Army. We must address the significant growing presence and influence of China throughout the Americas and in Panama, specifically. 35:20 Louis Sola: American companies should play a leading role in enhancing the canal's infrastructure. By supporting US firms, we reduce reliance on Chinese contractors and promote fair competition. 36:55 Daniel Maffei: Because the canal is essentially a waterway bridge over mountainous terrain above sea level, it does depend on large supplies of fresh water to maintain the full operations. Panama has among the world's largest annual rainfalls. Nonetheless, insufficient fresh water levels have occurred before in the canal's history, such as in the 1930s when the Madden Dam and Lake Alajuela were built to address water shortages. Since that time, the canal has undertaken several projects to accommodate larger, more modern ships. In the last couple of years, a trend of worsening droughts in the region, once again, has forced limits to the operations of the canal. Starting in June of 2023 the Panama Canal Authority employed draft restrictions and reduced the number of ships allowed to transit the canal per day. Now the Panama Canal limitations, in combination with the de facto closure of the Suez Canal to container traffic, has had serious consequences for ocean commerce, increasing rates, fees and transit times. 39:30 Daniel Maffei: Now, fortunately, Panama's 2024 rainy season has, for now, alleviated the most acute water supply issues at the canal, and normal transit volumes have been restored. That said, while the Panamanian government and Canal Authority have, with the advice of the US Army Corps of Engineers, developed credible plans to mitigate future water shortages, they also warned that it is likely that at least one more period of reduced transits will occur before these plans can be fully implemented. 41:55 Eugene Kontorovich: We shall see that under international law, each party to the treaty is entitled to determine for itself whether a violation has occurred. Now, in exchange for the United States ceding control of the canal which it built and maintained, Panama agreed to a special regime of neutrality. The essential features of this regime of neutrality is that the canal must be open to all nations for transit. That's Article Two. Equitable tolls and fees, Article Three. An exclusive Panamanian operation, Article Five. The prohibition of any foreign military presence, Article Five. Article Five provides that only Panama shall operate the canal. Testifying about the meaning of the treaty at the Senate ratification hearings, the Carter administration emphasized that this prohibits foreign operation of the canal, as well as the garrisoning of foreign troops. Now, Article Five appears to be primarily concerned about control by foreign sovereigns. If Panama signed a treaty with the People's Republic of China, whereby the latter would operate the canal on Panama's behalf, this would be a clear violation. But what if Panama contracted for port operations with a Chinese state firm, or even a private firm influenced or controlled in part by the Chinese government? The Suez Canal Company was itself, before being nationalized, a private firm in which the United Kingdom was only a controlling shareholder. Yet this was understood to represent British control over the canal. In other words, a company need not be owned by the government to be in part controlled by the government. So the real question is the degree of de jure or de facto control over a Foreign Sovereign company, and scenarios range from government companies in an authoritarian regime, completely controlled, to purely private firms in our open society like the United States, but there's many possible situations in the middle. The treaty is silent on the question of how much control is too much, and as we'll see, this is one of the many questions committed to the judgment and discretion of each party. Now turning to foreign security forces, the presence of third country troops would manifestly violate Article Five. But this does not mean that anything short of a People's Liberation Army base flying a red flag is permissible. The presence of foreign security forces could violate the regime of neutrality, even if they're not represented in organized and open military formations. Modern warfare has seen belligerent powers seek to evade international legal limitations by disguising their actions in civilian garb, from Russia's notorious little green men to Hamas terrorists hiding in hospitals or disguised as journalists. Bad actors seek to exploit the fact that international treaties focus on sovereign actors. Many of China's man made islands in the South China Sea began as civilian projects before being suddenly militarized. Indeed, this issue was discussed in the Senate ratification hearings over the treaty. Dean Rusk said informal forces would be prohibited under the treaty. Thus the ostensible civilian character of the Chinese presence around the canal does not, in itself, mean that it could not represent a violation of the treaty if, for example, these companies and their employees involved Chinese covert agents or other agents of the Chinese security forces. So this leads us to the final question, Who determines whether neutrality is being threatened or compromised? Unlike many other treaties that provide for third party dispute resolution, the neutrality treaty has no such provision. Instead, the treaty makes clear that each party determines for itself the existence of a violation. Article Four provides that each party is separately authorized to maintain the regime of neutrality, making a separate obligation of each party. The Senate's understanding accompanying to ratification also made clear that Article Five allows each party to take, quote, "unilateral action." Senator Jacob Javits, at the markup hearing, said that while the word unilateral is abrasive, we can quote, "decide that the regime of neutrality is being threatened and then act with whatever means are necessary to keep the canal neutral unilaterally." 46:35 Joseph Kramek: My name is Joe Kramek. I'm President and CEO of the World Shipping Council. The World Shipping Council is the global voice of liner shipping. Our membership consists of 90% of the world's liner shipping tonnage, which are container vessels and vehicle carriers. They operate on fixed schedules to provide our customers with regular service to ship their goods in ports throughout the world. 47:15 Joseph Kramek: As you have heard, using the Panama Canal to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific saves significant time and money. A typical voyage from Asia to the US or East Coast can be made in under 30 days using the canal, while the same journey can take up to 40 days if carriers must take alternate routes. From a commercial trade perspective, the big picture is this. One of the world's busiest trade lanes is the Trans Pacific. The Trans Pacific is cargo coming from and going to Asia via the United States. Focusing in a bit, cargo coming from Asia and bound for US Gulf and East Coast ports always transits the Panama Canal. Similarly, cargo being exported from US and East Coast ports, a large share of which are US Agricultural exports, like soybeans, corn, cotton, livestock and dairy also almost always transits the Panama Canal. The result is that 75% of Canal traffic originates in or is bound for the United States. 48:55 Joseph Kramek: We've talked about the drought in 2023 and the historic low water levels that it caused in Lake Gatún, which feeds the canal locks, a unique system that is a fresh water feed, as contrasted to an ocean to ocean system, which the French tried and failed, but which is actually active in the Suez Canal. These low water levels reduced transits from 36 transits a day to as low as 22 per day. Additionally, the low water levels required a reduction in maximum allowable draft levels, or the depth of the ship below the water line, which for our members reduced the amount of containers they could carry through the canal. This resulted in a 10% reduction in import volumes for US Gulf and East Coast ports, with the Port of Houston experiencing a 26.7% reduction. 51:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Are you aware of allegations from some vessel operators of disparate treatment such as sweetheart deals or favorable rebates by Panama for canal transits? Louis Sola: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, we have become aware through some complaints by cruise lines that said that they were not getting a refund of their canal tolls. When we looked into this, we found a Panamanian Executive Order, Decree 73, that specifically says that if a cruise line would stop at a certain port, that they could be refunded 100% of the fees. And as far as I know, that's the only instant where that exists. 53:05 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): So Panama was the very first Latin American country to join China's Belt and Road Initiative, and right now, China is building a fourth bridge across the Panama Canal for car traffic and light rail. Chairman Sola, why should Chinese construction of a bridge near Panama City concern the United States? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, we all saw the tragedy that happened here in the Francis Scott Key Bridge incident and the devastation that had happened to Baltimore. We also saw recently what happened in the Suez Canal, where we had a ship get stuck in there. It's not only the construction of the bridge, but it's a removal of a bridge, as I understand it, called the Bridge of the Americas. It was built in 1961 and that would paralyze cargo traffic in and out of the canals. 53:55 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama also recently renewed the concessions for two container ports to a Chinese company, Hutchison Ports PPC. Of course, Chinese companies are controlled by the Communist Party. How does China use control of those ports for economic gain? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, I am a regulator, a competition regulator. And the Chinese ports that you're referring to, let me put them into scope. The one on the Pacific, the Port of Balboa, is roughly the same size as the Port of Houston. They do about 4 million containers a year. They have about 28 game tree cranes. The one on the Atlantic is the same as my hometown in Miami, they do about 1 million containers. So where Roger Gunther in the Port of Houston generates about $1 billion a year and Heidi Webb in Miami does about $200 million, the Panama ports company paid 0 for 20 years on that concession. So it's really hard to compete against zero. So I think that's our concern, our economic concern, that we would have. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Commissioner Maffei, anything to add on that? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, I do too also think it is important. I would point out that you don't have to stop at either port. It's not like these two ports control the entrance to the canal. That is the Canal Authority that does control that. However, I think it's of concern. I would also point out that the Panamanian government thinks it's of concern too, because they're conducting their own audit of those particular deals, but we remain very interested as well. 56:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Would the facts discussed here be considered violations of the neutrality treaty in force right now between the United States and Panama? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think Senator, I think potentially they could, but it's impossible to say definitively without knowing more, in particular, about the degree of Chinese control and involvement in these companies. I think it's important to note that these port operation companies that operate the ports on both sides, when they received their first contract, it was just a few months before Hong Kong was handed over to China. In other words, they received them as British companies, sort of very oddly, just a few months before the handover. Now, of course, since then, Hong Kong has been incorporated into China, has been placed under a special national security regime, and the independence of those companies has been greatly abridged, to say nothing of state owned companies involved elsewhere in in the canal area, which raised significantly greater questions. Additionally, I should point out that the understandings between President Carter and Panamanian leader Herrera, which were attached to the treaty and form part of the treaty, provide that the United States can, quote, "defend the canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality," and I understand that as providing some degree of preemptive authority to intervene. One need not wait until the canal is actually closed by some act of sabotage or aggression, which, as we heard from the testimony, would be devastating to the United States, but there is some incipient ability to address potential violations. 58:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): If the United States determines that Panama is in violation of the treaty, what is the range of remedies the United States would have for that treaty violation? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think it may be shocking to people to hear today, but when one goes over the ratification history and the debates and discussions in this body over this treaty, 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. And it's not so surprising when one understands that the United States made an extraordinary concession to Panama by transferring this canal, which the United States built at great expense and maintained and operated to Panama, gratis. And in exchange, it received a kind of limitation, a permanent limitation on Panamanians sovereignty, that Panama agreed that the United States could enforce this regime of neutrality by force. Now, of course, armed force should never be the first recourse for any kind of international dispute and should not be arrived at sort of rationally or before negotiations and other kinds of good offices are exhausted, but it's quite clear that the treaty contemplates that as a remedy for violations. 1:03:20 Louis Sola: I believe that the security of the canal has always been understood to be provided by the United States. Panama does not have a military, and I always believed that there's been a close relationship with Southern Command that we would provide that. And it would be nice to see if we had a formalization of that in one way or another, because I don't believe that it's in the treaty at all. 1:05:05 Daniel Maffei: While we were down there, both of us heard, I think, several times, that the Panamanians would, the ones we talked to anyway, would welcome US companies coming in and doing a lot of this work. Frankly, their bids are not competitive with the Chinese bids. Frankly, they're not that existent because US companies can make more money doing things other places, but even if they were existent, it is difficult to put competitive bids when the Chinese bids are so heavily subsidized by China. 1:06:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): What would China's incentive be to heavily subsidize those bids to undercut American companies and other companies? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, it's not a real short answer, but Senator, China's made no secret of its ambitious policies to gain influence of ports throughout the globe. It's invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries. It runs a majority of 17 ports, that does not include this Hong Kong company, right? So that's just directly Chinese-owned ports. So it has been a part of their Belt and Road strategy, whatever you want to call it, the Maritime Silk Road, for decades. So they believe that this influence, this investment in owning maritime ports is important to their economy. 1:07:05 Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): In 2021, Hutchison was awarded those two ports, Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, in a no-bid award process. Can you tell me, does the United States have any authority or recourse with the Panama Canal Authority under our current agreement with Panama to rebid those terminal concession contracts. And perhaps Mr. Kantorovich, that's more in your purview? Louis Sola: Senator, both of those ports were redone for 25 years, until 2047, I believe. And they have to pay $7 million is what the ongoing rate is for the Port of Houston- and the Port of Miami-sized concessions. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And it can't be rebid until after that date? Louis Sola: Well, I believe that that's what the comptroller's office is auditing both of those ports and that contract. That was done under the previous Panamanian administration. A new administration came in, and they called for an audit of that contract immediately. 1:20:10 Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Are the companies now controlling both sides of the Panama Canal, the Chinese companies, subject to the PRC national security laws that mandate cooperation with the military, with state intelligence agencies. Does anyone know that? Eugene Kontorovich: They're subject all the time. They're subject to those laws all the time by virtue of being Hong Kong companies. And you know, they face, of course, consequences for not complying with the wishes of the Chinese government. One of the arguments -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Wouldn't that be a violation of the treaty? And isn't that a huge risk to us right now that the Chinese -- Eugene Kontorovich: That is a threat to the neutrality -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): If they invaded Taiwan, invaded the Philippines, they could go to these two companies saying, Hey, shut it down, make it hard, sink a ship in the canal. And wouldn't they be obligated to do that under Chinese law if they were ordered to by the PLA or the CCP? Eugene Kontorovich: I don't know if they'd be obligated, but certainly the People's Republic of China would have many tools of leverage and pressure on these companies. That's why the treaty specifically says that we can act not just to end actual obstructions to the canal. We don't have to wait until the canal is closed by hostile military action. Thatwould be a suicide pact, that would be catastrophic for us, but rather that we can respond at the inchoate, incipient level to threats, and then this is up to the president to determine whether this is significantly robust to constitute -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): So aren't we kind of walking up to the idea of a suicide pact, because we've got two big Chinese companies on both ends of the Panama Canal, who, if there's a war in INDOPACOM, Taiwan that involves us and China, these companies would be obligated to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party and PLA? I mean, are we kind of walking up to a very significant national security threat already? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, certainly, there's a threat. And I think what makes the action of the Chinese government so difficult to respond to, but important to respond to, is that they conceal this in sort of levels of gray without direct control. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Let me ask you on that topic, as my last question, Professor, let's assume that we find out. And again, it wouldn't be surprising. I think you can almost assume it that these two companies have Chinese spies or military officials within the ranks of the employees of the companies. Let's assume we found that out, somehow that becomes public. But I don't think it's a big assumption. It's probably true right now. So you have spies and military personnel within the ranks of these two companies that are controlling both ends of the Panama Canal for you, Professor, and Chairman Sola, wouldn't that be a blatant violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty, if that were true, which probably is true? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, I do think it would be a clear violation. As former Secretary of State, Dean Ross said at the ratification hearings, informal forces can violate Article Five as well as formal forces. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Is there any evidence of Chinese spies or other nefarious Chinese actors embedded in these companies? Louis Sola: Senator, we have no information of that. That's not under the purview of -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): But you agree that would be a violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty? Louis Sola: I do. 1:26:25 Daniel Maffei: Senator Sullivan was talking about Hutchison Ports. That's actually the same company that runs terminals on both ends of the canal. I am concerned about that. However, if we want to be concerned about that, all of us should lose a lot more sleep than we're losing because if there are spies there, then there might be spies at other Hutchinson ports, and there are other Hutchinson ports in almost every part of the world. They own the largest container port in the United Kingdom, Felix Dow, which is responsible for nearly half of Britain's container trade. They control major maritime terminals in Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Myanmar, the Netherlands, South Korea and Tanzania. If owning and managing adjacent ports means that China somehow has operational control or strategic control over the Panama Canal, they also have it over the Suez, the Singapore Straits, the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel. 1:35:45 Louis Sola: The fees that I think we are looking at, or have been looked at, the reason that we went there was because of the auctioning of the slots. And so what Panama did is they had a smaller percentage, maybe 20% allocation, and then they moved it up to 30% and 40% because it became a money maker for them. So as they were doing -- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, let me interject here. The auctioning of the slots gives these the right to skip the queue? Louis Sola: Yes, ma'am. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, so just for the record there. Continue. Louis Sola: So the auctioning of the slots. Under maritime law, it's first come first serve, but Panama has always put a certain percentage aside, and they started to put more and more. So we got a lot of complaints. We got a lot of complaints from LNG carriers that paid $4 million to go through, and we got a lot of complaints from agriculture that didn't have the money to pay to go through, because their goods were gonna go down. So if you look at the financial statements -- I'm a nerd, I look at financial statements of everybody -- the canal increased the amount of revenue that they had from about $500 million to $1.8 billion in the last three years just because of those fees. So this is what is very concerning to us. 1:39:20 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): Do you know of any instances where the United States has been singled out or treated unfairly under the neutrality treaty in the operation of the canal? Daniel Maffei: I do not. I would add that one of the reasons why saying the US is disproportionately affected by raises in Canal fees and other kinds of fees at the canal is because the United States disproportionately utilizes the canal. 1:44:55 Louis Sola: We have a US port there, SSA, out of Washington State that I actually worked on the development of that many years ago, and helped develop that. That used to be a United States Navy submarine base, and we converted that. As far as the two ports that we have, they're completely different. One is a major infrastructure footprint, and also a container port that's moving 4 million containers a year. That's really phenomenal amount. That's more than Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and you've probably got to get Tampa and a little bit of Jacksonville in there to get that type of volume. And on the other side, we have a very small port, but it's a very strategic port on the Atlantic. So how are the operations done?I don't know how they don't make money. I mean, if you want to come right down to it, if they've been operating the port for 20 years, and they say that they haven't made any money, so they haven't been able to pay the government. That's what concerns me is I don't believe that we're on a level playing field with the American ports. 1:58:50 Eugene Kontorovich: I think the charges and fees are less of an issue because they don't discriminate across countries. We pay more because we use more, but it's not nationally discriminatory. 1:59:00 Eugene Kontorovich: The presence of Chinese companies, especially Chinese state companies, but not limited to them, do raise serious issues and concerns for the neutrality of the treaty. And I should point out, in relation to some of the earlier questioning, the canal, for purposes of the neutrality treaty, is not limited just to the actual locks of the canal and the transit of ships through the canal. According to Annex One, paragraph one of the treaty, it includes also the entrances of the canal and the territorial sea of Panama adjacent to it. So all of the activities we're talking about are within the neutrality regime, the geographic scope of the neutrality regime in the treaty. 2:00:30 Daniel Maffei: I actually have to admit, I'm a little confused as to why some of the senators asking these questions, Senator Blackburn, aren't more concerned about the biggest port in the United Kingdom being run by the Chinese. Petraeus in the port nearest Athens, one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean, is not just run by a Chinese-linked company, it's run directly by a Chinese-owned company, and I was there. So you're on to something, but if you're just focusing on Panama, that's only part. 2:01:45 Louis Sola: About a year ago, when we were having this drought issue, there was also a lot of focus on Iran and how they were funding Hamas and the Houthis because they were attacking the Red Sea. What the United States has found is that Iranian vessels are sometimes flagged by Panama in order to avoid sanctions, so that they could sell the fuel that they have, and then they can take that money and then they can use it as they wish. Panama, at the time, had a very complicated process to de-flag the vessels. There was an investigation, there was an appeals process. By the time that OFAC or Treasury would go ahead and identify one of those vessels, by the time that they were doing the appeals and stuff like this, they've already changed flags to somewhere else. So when we went to Panama, we met with the Panamanian president, and I must say that we were very impressed, because he was 30 minutes late, but he was breaking relations with Venezuela at the time because the election was the day before. We explained to him the situation. The very next day, we met with the maritime minister, with US embassy personnel and Panama actually adjusted their appeals process so to make it more expedient, so if the United States or OFAC would come and say that this Iranian vessel is avoiding sanctions, now we have a process in place to go ahead and do that, and 53 vessels were de-flagged because of that. 2:06:05 Sen. John Curtis (R-UT): Is there any reason that China can't watch or do whatever they want from this bridge to get the intel from these containers? And does that concern anybody? Louis Sola: Well, it definitely concerns Southern Command, because they've brought it up on numerous occasions that there could be some sort of surveillance or something like that on the bridges. 2:20:30 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): We segregate ourselves artificially in a way that they do not. We segregate ourselves. Let's talk about military. Let's talk about intelligence. Let's talk about economics. They don't. China doesn't work that way. It's a whole of government approach. They don't draw a delineation between an economics discussion and a military one. And their attack may not look like Pearl Harbor. It may look like an everyday ship that decides, you know, it pulls into the locks and blows itself up. And now the locks are non-functional for our usage, and we can't support an inter ocean fleet transfer, and our ability to defend it, as you referred to Chairman, is now inhibited by the fact that we no longer have the military infrastructure around the canal that we did just as recently as 1999. 2:21:10 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): So from a commercial perspective, do the shipping companies have concerns over the security of the narrow waterways? We've the Strait to Malacca, we've got the Suez Canal, we've got Gibraltar, we've got Panama. Is that a concern that's thrown around in the boardrooms of the largest shipping corporations in the world? Joseph Kramek: Senator, I think it's something they think about every day. I mean, really, it's drawn into sharp relief with the Red Sea. It was what I call a pink flamingo. There's black swans that just come up and there's pink flamingos that you can see, but you don't act. But no one really thought a whole lot that one of the most important waterways in the world could be denied, and moreover, that it could be denied for such a sustained period. The good news is that -- Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): And denied, I might add, by a disaffected non-state actor of Bedouins running around with rocket launchers, who also managed to beat us in a 20 year war in Afghanistan. My point to saying all this is we're just debating operational control of the canal, yet it seems very clear to all of us that a very simple act can debilitate the canal and eliminate our ability to use it in a matter of minutes with no warning, and we have no ability to intervene or stop that. To me, that means we do not have operational control of the canal. 2:30:40 Daniel Maffei: I will say that certainly we need to look at other kinds of ways to get US companies in positions where they can truly compete with the Chinese on some of these things. Blaming it all on Panama really misses the point. I've seen the same thing in Greece, where Greece didn't want to give the concession of its largest port to a Chinese company, but because of its financial difficulties, it was getting pressure from international organizations such the IMF, Europe and even maybe some of the United States to do so. So I just ask you to look at that. 2:31:20 Daniel Maffei: Panamanians are making far more on their canal than they ever have before. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's going to the right place. But where they're really making the money is on these auctions, and that is why it remains a concern of mine and I'm sure the chairman's. That is where we are looking at, potentially, using our authority under Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act where we could, if we can show that it is a problem with the foreign trade of the US, it's interfering with foreign trade of the US, there are certain things that we can do. Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 15, 2024 Clips 4:01:40 Marco Rubio: The thing with Panama on the canal is not new. I visited there. It was 2016. I think I've consistently seen people express concern about it, and it's encapsulized here in quote after quote. Let me tell you the former US ambassador who served under President Obama said: "the Chinese see in Panama what we saw in Panama throughout the 20th century, a maritime and aviation logistics hub." The immediate past head of Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, said, "I was just in Panama about a month ago and flying along the Panama Canal and looking at the state owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China on each side of the Panama Canal. They look like civilian companies or state owned enterprises that could be used for dual use and could be quickly changed over to a military capability." We see questions that were asked by the ranking member in the house China Select Committee, where he asked a witness and they agreed that in a time of conflict, China could use its presence on both ends of the canal as a choke point against the United States in a conflict situation. So the concerns about Panama have been expressed by people on both sides of the aisle for at least the entire time that I've been in the United States Senate, and they've only accelerated further. And this is a very legitimate issue that we face there. I'm not prepared to answer this question because I haven't looked at the legal research behind it yet, but I'm compelled to suspect that an argument could be made that the terms under which that canal were turned over have been violated. Because while technically, sovereignty over the canal has not been turned over to a foreign power, in reality, a foreign power today possesses, through their companies, which we know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict. And that is a direct threat to the national interest and security the United States, and is particularly galling given the fact that we paid for it and that 5,000 Americans died making it. That said, Panama is a great partner on a lot of other issues, and I hope we can resolve this issue of the canal and of its security, and also continue to work with them cooperatively on a host of issues we share in common, including what to do with migration. 4:38:35 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): Now, President Trump has recently talked a little bit about the fact that there are some questions arising about the status of the Panama Canal. When we look to the treaty at issue, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal, we're reminded that some things maybe aren't quite as they should be there right now. Given that the Chinese now control major ports at the entry and the exit to the canal, it seems appropriate to say that there's at least an open question. There's some doubt as to whether the canal remains neutral. Would you agree with that assessment? Marco Rubio: Yes. Here's the challenge. Number one, I want to be clear about something. The Panamanian government, particularly its current office holders, are very friendly to the United States and very cooperative, and we want that to continue, and I want to bifurcate that from the broader issue of the canal. Now I am not, President Trump is not inventing this. This is something that's existed now for at least a decade. In my service here, I took a trip to Panama in 2017. When on that trip to Panama in 2017 it was the central issue we discussed about the canal, and that is that Chinese companies control port facilities at both ends of the canal, the east and the west, and the concerns among military officials and security officials, including in Panama, at that point, that that could one day be used as a choke point to impede commerce in a moment of conflict. Going back to that I -- earlier before you got here, and I don't want to have to dig through this folder to find it again, but -- basically cited how the immediate past head of Southern Command, just retired general Richardson, said she flew over the canal, looked down and saw those Chinese port facilities, and said Those look like dual use facilities that in a moment of conflict, could be weaponized against us. The bipartisan China commission over in the House last year, had testimony and hearings on this issue, and members of both parties expressed concern. The former ambassador to Panama under President Obama has expressed those concerns. This is a legitimate issue that needs to be confronted. The second point is the one you touched upon, and that is, look, could an argument be made, and I'm not prepared to answer it yet, because it's something we're going to have to study very carefully. But I think I have an inkling of I know where this is going to head. Can an argument be made that the Chinese basically have effective control of the canal anytime they want? Because if they order a Chinese company that controls the ports to shut it down or impede our transit, they will have to do so. There are no independent Chinese companies. They all exist because they've been identified as national champions. They're supported by the Chinese government. And if you don't do what they want, they find a new CEO, and you end up being replaced and removed. So they're under the complete control of their government. This is a legitimate question, and one that Senators Risch had some insight as well. He mentioned that in passing that needs to be looked at. This is not a joke. The Panama Canal issue is a very serious one. 4:44:30 Marco Rubio: In 2016 and 2017 that was well understood that part of the investments they made in Panama were conditioned upon Panama's ability to convince the Dominican Republic and other countries to flip their recognition away from Taiwan. That happened. Jen Briney's Recent Guest Appearances Travis Makes Money: Give and Take: Music by Editing Production Assistance

Donald Trump amenaza con recuperar el control del Canal de Panamá para contrarrestar, dice la “creciente influencia de China” en este punto estratégico del comercio mundial. La presión de Estados Unidos ya ha provocado que el gobierno panameño cancelara el acuerdo económico de la Ruta de la Seda con China.¿Tiene derecho Trump de retomar el control del canal de Panamá? ¿Cuál es la influencia real de China? Análisis con el historiador francés y experto del istmo panameño, David Marcilhacy.  El istmo de Panamá es un lugar muy preciado, ya en tiempos de la colonia española, era un lugar codiciado. "Es frecuente hablar de él como puente del mundo.El jesuita Bernardo Recio (Valladolid, 1714 - Roma, 1791) hablaba de Panamá como la garganta de las riquezas de América y la llave más segura para para acceder a América. Y si avanzamos en el tiempo, el propio Bolívar se refirió a Panamá como el corazón del universo", nos explica Marcilhacy, gran experto de la historia del canal y autor del libro ‘El istmo de Panamá, un puente entre Europa y las Américas (1879-1936) publicado en 2023 por la editorial Atlande.Desde finales del siglo XIX, las potencias mundiales, Gran Bretaña, Estados Unidos o Francia, compitieron por ser los primeros en construir el canal. "Empezaron los franceses con Lesseps y a partir de 1903 toma el relevo Estados Unidos. Ese año, Panamá se independizó de Colombia, pero se convirtió en un protectorado estadounidense."El interés inicial de Estados Unidos es militar antes de ser económico y sale de la experiencia de la guerra de Cuba de 1898 en que un barco norteamericano tuvo que dar la vuelta por el Cabo de Hornos, tardando 66 días en llegar", afirma. Había que intentar acortar ese camino como fuera para "tener una marina de guerra móvil". Luego, ya vino el interés comercial. "Recordemos que a principios del siglo XX, cuando se inician las obras por parte de los Estados Unidos, es un momento de boom de la economía estadounidense, de crecimiento de la producción industrial que hay que poder transportar", dice el experto. El canal representa el 5% del comercio mundial Tras 30 años de obras, se inaugura finalmente en 1914. Se conoce al Canal de Panamá como la octava maravilla del mundo. "Con sus 77 kilómetros de largo, se tardan unas diez horas para atravesarlo. Hay tres juegos de esclusas, pero permite ganar unas distancias de manera prodigiosa, por ejemplo, de un puerto de Nueva York a San Francisco se acorta unos 13.000 kilómetros. Ha conocido un boom exponencial. Empezó con 2000 barcos al año y hace poco llegó a 14.000 barcos al año. De modo que hoy día el Canal de Panamá representa el 5% del comercio mundial", explica el profesor. La diplomacia del chantaje de Trump “China opera el Canal de Panamá, y no se lo dimos a China, se lo dimos a Panamá. Y vamos a recuperarlo", amenazó el presidente estadounidense durante su investidura el pasado 20 de enero. Unas declaraciones que no le sorprendieron tanto a David Marcilhacy por el hecho de ser historiador y conocer muy bien las relaciones entre Panamá y Estados Unidos. "Parece que Donald Trump está reanudando con prácticas y discursos que eran propios de William McKinley o Theodore Roosevelt, presidentes republicanos de principios del siglo XX, que aplicaban la política del gran garrote, la diplomacia del cañonero. Y recordemos que en las primeras décadas del Panamá independiente, a principios del XX, hubo seis intervenciones militares de Estados Unidos en este país. Entonces, para los panameños es un mal recuerdo, eso es cierto", afirma. "Hay que precisar que allí hubo la última intervención de la Guerra Fría en el 89, en contra del general Noriega, y uno de los argumentos era defender el canal", agrega. ¿Qué dicen los tratados que transfirieron la soberanía del canal a Panamá? Los acuerdos Torrijos-Carter de 1977 establecen la transferencia progresiva del Canal de Panamá a control panameño, poniendo fin a casi un siglo de administración estadounidense. Desde el 1999, Panamá ha tenido el control total del canal. "Son dos tratados, el Tratado del Canal como tal, que prevé que Panamá tome el relevo de Estados Unidos en la gestión y mantenimiento y defensa del canal a partir del 31 de diciembre de 1999. También preveía la restitución de la zona del canal que se había concedido inicialmente a perpetuidad, pero fue renegociado y retrocedida a Panamá progresivamente entre el 79 y el 99. Por otro tratado, el Tratado de Neutralidad Permanente, prevé que el canal debe garantizar el libre tránsito de todas las naciones en tiempo de paz y en tiempo de guerra. En igualdad de condiciones. Y por lo tanto, prevé un régimen de neutralidad permanente y otorga también a los Estados Unidos el derecho de defender dicha neutralidad permanente en caso de que se viera amenazada", recuerda el experto. David Marcilhacy se muestra tajante sobre la eventualidad de que Trump acuse a Panamá de no respetar la neutralidad por la supuesta influencia china. Para él no puede apoyarse en ninguna base legal. "No hay ningún fundamento legal para para invocar este tratado, de ninguna de las maneras, actualmente China no controla el canal ni limita mucho menos el tránsito libre y por lo tanto estas declaraciones no tienen fundamento", afirma. Empresas chinas han participado en obras de infraestructura pero este no quiere decir que China controle el canalOficialmente la empresa Hutchison Ports, con sede en Hong Kong, administra dos puertos, el de Balboa y el de Cristóbal. Las empresas chinas han participado en obras de infraestructura pero este no quiere decir que China controle el canal, según el historiador. "El gobierno de Juan Carlos Varela reconoció a China en el 2017 a raíz de esto, dentro del proyecto de las Nuevas Rutas de la Seda, es cierto que hubo inversiones importantes en infraestructuras en Panamá, como en otros puertos del mundo. Sin embargo, esto no significa que China controle el paso de los barcos, ni mucho menos lo limite. Y de hecho, podemos recordar que a nivel de tráfico el primer usuario sigue siendo Estados Unidos, representa más del 70% del cargamento de la carga total, China viene en segunda posición, pero lejos a un poco más del 20%", subraya.Tampoco Estados Unidos paga aranceles más caros que los demás. "Es otra declaración sin fundamento. La autoridad del Canal de Panamá, que fue creada justo antes de la retrocesión definitiva, fija las tarifas de paso de los barcos y son las mismas para todos los barcos del mundo en función del tipo de barco y, obviamente, de su capacidad. Entonces Estados Unidos paga lo mismo", recalca. Trump ya ha obtenido resultados tras amenazar a Panamá. Tras la visita del secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos, Marco Rubio, a Panamá, el presidente, José Raul Mulino, anunció que iba a cancelar el acuerdo económico con China sobre la Ruta de la Seda."De cierta manera se produce lo mismo que con otros países como México, Canadá o hasta Dinamarca en el caso de Groenlandia. Estados Unidos está aprovechando una relación asimétrica claramente con Panamá y en esta lógica, con su política de "America First", está aplicando una diplomacia del chantaje para obtener beneficios. Esperemos que no invada, obviamente, Panamá. Quizá no sea lo más probable, pero sí, por ejemplo, obtener la exención del peaje para sus buques de guerra, lo cual sería un privilegio excepcional", concluye. #EscalaenParís también está en redes socialesUn programa coordinado por Florencia Valdés, realizado por Souheil Khedir.

Donald Trump amenaza con recuperar el control del Canal de Panamá para contrarrestar, dice la “creciente influencia de China” en este punto estratégico del comercio mundial. La presión de Estados Unidos ya ha provocado que el gobierno panameño cancelara el acuerdo económico de la Ruta de la Seda con China.¿Tiene derecho Trump de retomar el control del canal de Panamá? ¿Cuál es la influencia real de China? Análisis con el historiador francés y experto del istmo panameño, David Marcilhacy.  El istmo de Panamá es un lugar muy preciado, ya en tiempos de la colonia española, era un lugar codiciado. "Es frecuente hablar de él como puente del mundo.El jesuita Bernardo Recio (Valladolid, 1714 - Roma, 1791) hablaba de Panamá como la garganta de las riquezas de América y la llave más segura para para acceder a América. Y si avanzamos en el tiempo, el propio Bolívar se refirió a Panamá como el corazón del universo", nos explica Marcilhacy, gran experto de la historia del canal y autor del libro ‘El istmo de Panamá, un puente entre Europa y las Américas (1879-1936) publicado en 2023 por la editorial Atlande.Desde finales del siglo XIX, las potencias mundiales, Gran Bretaña, Estados Unidos o Francia, compitieron por ser los primeros en construir el canal. "Empezaron los franceses con Lesseps y a partir de 1903 toma el relevo Estados Unidos. Ese año, Panamá se independizó de Colombia, pero se convirtió en un protectorado estadounidense."El interés inicial de Estados Unidos es militar antes de ser económico y sale de la experiencia de la guerra de Cuba de 1898 en que un barco norteamericano tuvo que dar la vuelta por el Cabo de Hornos, tardando 66 días en llegar", afirma. Había que intentar acortar ese camino como fuera para "tener una marina de guerra móvil". Luego, ya vino el interés comercial. "Recordemos que a principios del siglo XX, cuando se inician las obras por parte de los Estados Unidos, es un momento de boom de la economía estadounidense, de crecimiento de la producción industrial que hay que poder transportar", dice el experto. El canal representa el 5% del comercio mundial Tras 30 años de obras, se inaugura finalmente en 1914. Se conoce al Canal de Panamá como la octava maravilla del mundo. "Con sus 77 kilómetros de largo, se tardan unas diez horas para atravesarlo. Hay tres juegos de esclusas, pero permite ganar unas distancias de manera prodigiosa, por ejemplo, de un puerto de Nueva York a San Francisco se acorta unos 13.000 kilómetros. Ha conocido un boom exponencial. Empezó con 2000 barcos al año y hace poco llegó a 14.000 barcos al año. De modo que hoy día el Canal de Panamá representa el 5% del comercio mundial", explica el profesor. La diplomacia del chantaje de Trump “China opera el Canal de Panamá, y no se lo dimos a China, se lo dimos a Panamá. Y vamos a recuperarlo", amenazó el presidente estadounidense durante su investidura el pasado 20 de enero. Unas declaraciones que no le sorprendieron tanto a David Marcilhacy por el hecho de ser historiador y conocer muy bien las relaciones entre Panamá y Estados Unidos. "Parece que Donald Trump está reanudando con prácticas y discursos que eran propios de William McKinley o Theodore Roosevelt, presidentes republicanos de principios del siglo XX, que aplicaban la política del gran garrote, la diplomacia del cañonero. Y recordemos que en las primeras décadas del Panamá independiente, a principios del XX, hubo seis intervenciones militares de Estados Unidos en este país. Entonces, para los panameños es un mal recuerdo, eso es cierto", afirma. "Hay que precisar que allí hubo la última intervención de la Guerra Fría en el 89, en contra del general Noriega, y uno de los argumentos era defender el canal", agrega. ¿Qué dicen los tratados que transfirieron la soberanía del canal a Panamá? Los acuerdos Torrijos-Carter de 1977 establecen la transferencia progresiva del Canal de Panamá a control panameño, poniendo fin a casi un siglo de administración estadounidense. Desde el 1999, Panamá ha tenido el control total del canal. "Son dos tratados, el Tratado del Canal como tal, que prevé que Panamá tome el relevo de Estados Unidos en la gestión y mantenimiento y defensa del canal a partir del 31 de diciembre de 1999. También preveía la restitución de la zona del canal que se había concedido inicialmente a perpetuidad, pero fue renegociado y retrocedida a Panamá progresivamente entre el 79 y el 99. Por otro tratado, el Tratado de Neutralidad Permanente, prevé que el canal debe garantizar el libre tránsito de todas las naciones en tiempo de paz y en tiempo de guerra. En igualdad de condiciones. Y por lo tanto, prevé un régimen de neutralidad permanente y otorga también a los Estados Unidos el derecho de defender dicha neutralidad permanente en caso de que se viera amenazada", recuerda el experto. David Marcilhacy se muestra tajante sobre la eventualidad de que Trump acuse a Panamá de no respetar la neutralidad por la supuesta influencia china. Para él no puede apoyarse en ninguna base legal. "No hay ningún fundamento legal para para invocar este tratado, de ninguna de las maneras, actualmente China no controla el canal ni limita mucho menos el tránsito libre y por lo tanto estas declaraciones no tienen fundamento", afirma. Empresas chinas han participado en obras de infraestructura pero este no quiere decir que China controle el canalOficialmente la empresa Hutchison Ports, con sede en Hong Kong, administra dos puertos, el de Balboa y el de Cristóbal. Las empresas chinas han participado en obras de infraestructura pero este no quiere decir que China controle el canal, según el historiador. "El gobierno de Juan Carlos Varela reconoció a China en el 2017 a raíz de esto, dentro del proyecto de las Nuevas Rutas de la Seda, es cierto que hubo inversiones importantes en infraestructuras en Panamá, como en otros puertos del mundo. Sin embargo, esto no significa que China controle el paso de los barcos, ni mucho menos lo limite. Y de hecho, podemos recordar que a nivel de tráfico el primer usuario sigue siendo Estados Unidos, representa más del 70% del cargamento de la carga total, China viene en segunda posición, pero lejos a un poco más del 20%", subraya.Tampoco Estados Unidos paga aranceles más caros que los demás. "Es otra declaración sin fundamento. La autoridad del Canal de Panamá, que fue creada justo antes de la retrocesión definitiva, fija las tarifas de paso de los barcos y son las mismas para todos los barcos del mundo en función del tipo de barco y, obviamente, de su capacidad. Entonces Estados Unidos paga lo mismo", recalca. Trump ya ha obtenido resultados tras amenazar a Panamá. Tras la visita del secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos, Marco Rubio, a Panamá, el presidente, José Raul Mulino, anunció que iba a cancelar el acuerdo económico con China sobre la Ruta de la Seda."De cierta manera se produce lo mismo que con otros países como México, Canadá o hasta Dinamarca en el caso de Groenlandia. Estados Unidos está aprovechando una relación asimétrica claramente con Panamá y en esta lógica, con su política de "America First", está aplicando una diplomacia del chantaje para obtener beneficios. Esperemos que no invada, obviamente, Panamá. Quizá no sea lo más probable, pero sí, por ejemplo, obtener la exención del peaje para sus buques de guerra, lo cual sería un privilegio excepcional", concluye. #EscalaenParís también está en redes socialesUn programa coordinado por Florencia Valdés, realizado por Souheil Khedir.

El jefe de la diplomacia de Estados Unidos, Marcos Rubio, afirmó que respeta el marco legal de Panamá y los procedimientos que rigen el Canal, aunque le parece “absurdo” que su país tenga que pagar cuotas para transitar “una zona” que tiene la obligación de proteger en momentos de conflicto. Rubio eludió reconocer que el departamento de Estado mintió al asegurar, durante su vista al país centroamericano, que los barcos de guerra estadounidense habían sido exonerados de pagar peaje al pasar por el Canal de Panamá.  Al parecer, las falsedades, contradicciones y desmentidos son el sello del segundo corto mandato de Donald Trump. Esta vez, la visita del jefe de la diplomacia de Estados Unidos, Marco Rubio, a Panamá desató el fuego cruzado de declaraciones mentirosas e impugnaciones.El Departamento de Estado estadounidense aseguró el miércoles 5 de febrero que sus embarcaciones militares ya pueden transitar sin pagar tarifas por el Canal de Panamá. Con celeridad, la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP) negó que el país centroamericano haya aceptado eximir del pago a embarcaciones de guerra estadounidenses.“Ningún cambio a sus tarifas de peaje”“La Autoridad del Canal de Panamá emitió un comunicado de prensa donde indica que ellos no han realizado ningún cambio a sus tarifas de peaje. Atribuciones que le corresponde a través de la Constitución de la República de Panamá”, comenta Erving Vargas, experto en seguridad portuaria y marítima y director del Centro tecnológico de cooperación marítima para Latinoamérica.“Lo que sí comunicaron es que están en comunicación con el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos para discutir las futuras medidas para agilizar el paso de las embarcaciones de guerra de Estados Unidos”, agrega.“Con absoluta responsabilidad, la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP), está en disposición para establecer un diálogo con los funcionarios pertinentes de los Estados Unidos respecto al tránsito de buques de guerra de dicho país”, destacó la ACP en un comunicado.La noticia de que embarcaciones militares de Estados Unidos no pagarían peajes por transitar por el Canal de Panamá venia tomando fuerza antes de la vista de Rubio. Interrogada por la Agencia Bloomberg, la ACP respondió que “la estructura de peajes vigente en el Canal de Panamá se mantiene igual para todos los usuarios y se calcula de acuerdo con el tipo de buque y carga que transporten. En el caso de los buques de guerra, tanto de Estados Unidos como de cualquier otro país, el cobro de peaje se calcula en función de las toneladas de desplazamiento y los servicios marítimos que se requieran”.“La autoridad del Canal de Panamá fija los peajes”Las falsedades de Washington también desatoraron el rechazo y la cólera del presidente panameño José Raúl Mulino. “Tengo que rechazar ese comunicado del Departamento de Estado porque está basado sobre una falsedad. Y así, por lo menos en mi librito, no se manejan las relaciones bilaterales de dos países amigos y socios a través de la historia”, afirmó el mandatario.Mulino reveló que conversó con el secretario de Defensa estadounidense, Pete Hegseth, a quien le explicó la “imposibilidad” constitucional de modificar los peajes del Canal de Panamá. “El presidente no tiene esa potestad”, subrayó el mandatario. Además, recordó que el artículo 319 de la Constitución Política señala que es la Junta Directiva de la ACP la que fija los peajes, con la aprobación final del Consejo de Gabinete. “Para que tengamos en claro la autoridad del Canal de Panamá fija los peajes, las tasas y los derechos para uso del Canal y los servicios conexos que el Canal da. El Canal de Panamá hace una evaluación de sus gastos operativos para ver si el incremento puede darse o ajustes al mismo. Y eso se presenta ante el Consejo de Gabinete para su ratificación. El Consejo de Gabinete solamente verifica que se cumpla con lo que se dice en la Constitución en ese punto específico. Todo esto está establecido dentro de la política de Estado que tiene Panamá para que el Canal se maneje de una forma autónoma dentro del país o dentro de la República de Panamá”, detalla el experto Erving Vargas.Tras su visita a las esclusas de Miraflores, en el Canal de Panamá, el secretario de Estado Marcos Rubio dijo: “Cuando estuve allí ayer (domingo 2 de febrero), el barco detrás de mí, justo sobre mi hombro, era un buque de carga de Hong Kong, por lo que su presencia, no solo en el Canal, sino en todo Panamá, es muy preocupante”. Sin embargo, el barco al que se refiere Rubio que pasaba no era de Hong Kong. Se trataba del buque GAS Ares, de bandera panameña, perteneciente a una empresa de Corea del Sur. La embarcación partió de un puerto en Texas, Estados Unidos, con rumbo a la ciudad costera surcoreana de Yeosu.Finalizada la reunión entre el secretario de Estado y el presidente de Panamá, Washington anunció que Panamá congeló un acuerdo con China conocido como la Ruta de la Seda y abrió la puerta para que la empresa china Hutchison Ports deje de operar los puertos vecinos al Canal.

El jefe de la diplomacia de Estados Unidos, Marcos Rubio, afirmó que respeta el marco legal de Panamá y los procedimientos que rigen el Canal, aunque le parece “absurdo” que su país tenga que pagar cuotas para transitar “una zona” que tiene la obligación de proteger en momentos de conflicto. Rubio eludió reconocer que el departamento de Estado mintió al asegurar, durante su vista al país centroamericano, que los barcos de guerra estadounidense habían sido exonerados de pagar peaje al pasar por el Canal de Panamá.  Al parecer, las falsedades, contradicciones y desmentidos son el sello del segundo corto mandato de Donald Trump. Esta vez, la visita del jefe de la diplomacia de Estados Unidos, Marco Rubio, a Panamá desató el fuego cruzado de declaraciones mentirosas e impugnaciones.El Departamento de Estado estadounidense aseguró el miércoles 5 de febrero que sus embarcaciones militares ya pueden transitar sin pagar tarifas por el Canal de Panamá. Con celeridad, la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP) negó que el país centroamericano haya aceptado eximir del pago a embarcaciones de guerra estadounidenses.“Ningún cambio a sus tarifas de peaje”“La Autoridad del Canal de Panamá emitió un comunicado de prensa donde indica que ellos no han realizado ningún cambio a sus tarifas de peaje. Atribuciones que le corresponde a través de la Constitución de la República de Panamá”, comenta Erving Vargas, experto en seguridad portuaria y marítima y director del Centro tecnológico de cooperación marítima para Latinoamérica.“Lo que sí comunicaron es que están en comunicación con el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos para discutir las futuras medidas para agilizar el paso de las embarcaciones de guerra de Estados Unidos”, agrega.“Con absoluta responsabilidad, la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP), está en disposición para establecer un diálogo con los funcionarios pertinentes de los Estados Unidos respecto al tránsito de buques de guerra de dicho país”, destacó la ACP en un comunicado.La noticia de que embarcaciones militares de Estados Unidos no pagarían peajes por transitar por el Canal de Panamá venia tomando fuerza antes de la vista de Rubio. Interrogada por la Agencia Bloomberg, la ACP respondió que “la estructura de peajes vigente en el Canal de Panamá se mantiene igual para todos los usuarios y se calcula de acuerdo con el tipo de buque y carga que transporten. En el caso de los buques de guerra, tanto de Estados Unidos como de cualquier otro país, el cobro de peaje se calcula en función de las toneladas de desplazamiento y los servicios marítimos que se requieran”.“La autoridad del Canal de Panamá fija los peajes”Las falsedades de Washington también desatoraron el rechazo y la cólera del presidente panameño José Raúl Mulino. “Tengo que rechazar ese comunicado del Departamento de Estado porque está basado sobre una falsedad. Y así, por lo menos en mi librito, no se manejan las relaciones bilaterales de dos países amigos y socios a través de la historia”, afirmó el mandatario.Mulino reveló que conversó con el secretario de Defensa estadounidense, Pete Hegseth, a quien le explicó la “imposibilidad” constitucional de modificar los peajes del Canal de Panamá. “El presidente no tiene esa potestad”, subrayó el mandatario. Además, recordó que el artículo 319 de la Constitución Política señala que es la Junta Directiva de la ACP la que fija los peajes, con la aprobación final del Consejo de Gabinete. “Para que tengamos en claro la autoridad del Canal de Panamá fija los peajes, las tasas y los derechos para uso del Canal y los servicios conexos que el Canal da. El Canal de Panamá hace una evaluación de sus gastos operativos para ver si el incremento puede darse o ajustes al mismo. Y eso se presenta ante el Consejo de Gabinete para su ratificación. El Consejo de Gabinete solamente verifica que se cumpla con lo que se dice en la Constitución en ese punto específico. Todo esto está establecido dentro de la política de Estado que tiene Panamá para que el Canal se maneje de una forma autónoma dentro del país o dentro de la República de Panamá”, detalla el experto Erving Vargas.Tras su visita a las esclusas de Miraflores, en el Canal de Panamá, el secretario de Estado Marcos Rubio dijo: “Cuando estuve allí ayer (domingo 2 de febrero), el barco detrás de mí, justo sobre mi hombro, era un buque de carga de Hong Kong, por lo que su presencia, no solo en el Canal, sino en todo Panamá, es muy preocupante”. Sin embargo, el barco al que se refiere Rubio que pasaba no era de Hong Kong. Se trataba del buque GAS Ares, de bandera panameña, perteneciente a una empresa de Corea del Sur. La embarcación partió de un puerto en Texas, Estados Unidos, con rumbo a la ciudad costera surcoreana de Yeosu.Finalizada la reunión entre el secretario de Estado y el presidente de Panamá, Washington anunció que Panamá congeló un acuerdo con China conocido como la Ruta de la Seda y abrió la puerta para que la empresa china Hutchison Ports deje de operar los puertos vecinos al Canal.

Ondanks het wegvallen van de Russische overslag heeft het terminalbedrijf ECT qua winst en omzet een recordjaar achter de rug. Maar met de hoge inflatie, lagere volumes en de geopolitieke spanningen is het de vraag of het Rotterdamse bedrijf deze groei kan vasthouden. Leo Ruijs, topman van containerterminal Hutchison Ports ECT Rotterdam.  Macro met Boot  Elke dag een intrigerende gedachtewisseling over de stand van de macro-economie. Op maandag en vrijdag gaat presentator Thomas van Zijl in gesprek met econoom Arnoud Boot, de rest van de week praat Van Zijl met econoom Edin Mujagić.  Economenpanel In de aanloop naar de verkiezingen op 22 november laten meer politieke partijen het verkiezingsprogramma niet doorrekenen door het Centraal Planbureau. En: De Chinese economie glijdt af in een toestand van deflatie. Welke gevolgen heeft dat voor het westen?   Bert Colijn, senior econoom bij ING  Steven Brakman, hoogleraar internationale economie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Luister l Economenpanel Maagballonen Half Nederland is te dik. Een daarom heeft Allurion Technologies een nieuw wapen in de strijd tegen obesitas ontwikkeld: doorslikbare maagballonnen moeten patiënten van hun overgewicht afhelpen. Bovendien wil het medische bedrijf zijn intrede maken op de Amerikaanse markt. Gaat hun beursgang daarbij helpen? Te gast is Nick van Lanschot, zorginvesteerder en investeerder in Allurion  Zakenpartner  Ze wilde van kinds af aan piloot worden, maar kwam niet door de keuring. Gelukkig lag de tweede optie lag óók al jaren vast, want creatief zijn en een verhaal vertellen was voor haar geen probleem. Ze belandde in de marketing, klom via de wereld van opticiens op naar McDonald's en inmiddels werkt ze al elf jaar voor de Rabobank. Sinds vorig jaar ligt er zelfs een boek op tafel: The Female Fix, over vrouwen en zelfredzaamheid. De zakenpartner van de week is Marianne Bruijn, Hoofd Brand Activation & Sponsoring bij de Rabobank en schrijver van het boek The Female Fix.  Contact  BNR Zakendoen zendt elke werkdag live uit van 12:00 tot 14:30 uur. Je kunt de redactie bereiken via e-mail en X (voorheen Twitter).  Abonneren op de podcast van BNR Zakendoen kan via bnr.nl/zakendoen, of via Apple Podcast en Spotify. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ondanks het wegvallen van de Russische overslag heeft het terminalbedrijf ECT qua winst en omzet een recordjaar achter de rug. Maar met de hoge inflatie, lagere volumes en de geopolitieke spanningen is het de vraag of het Rotterdamse bedrijf deze groei kan vasthouden. En hoeveel invloed heeft de Chinese aandeelhouder? In ‘De top van Nederland' een uitgebreid gesprek met Leo Ruijs, topman van terminalbedrijf Hutchison Ports ECT Rotterdam. Abonneer je op de podcast  Ga naar ‘De top van Nederland' en abonneer je op de podcast, ook te beluisteren via Apple Podcast en Spotify. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now more than ever, companies are looking to diversify and increase the resilience of their supply chains as the macroeconomic environment continues to evolve in Asia and globally. In this episode, you'll hear from industry express discussing supply chain transparency, digitisation and sustainability that are reshaping the business models across Southeast Asia, and how they're navigating the global trade landscape. This podcast features Michael Hardwick, Chief Financial Officer, Cotton On Group, Stephen Ashworth, Managing Director, Thailand & South East Asia, Hutchison Ports, Peter Liddell, Global Operations Centre of Excellence Lead and Partner, KPMG, and Ian Tandy MBE, Managing Director, Co-Head of Global Trade and Receivables Finance, Asia-Pacific, HSBC, in a discussion moderated by Asanka Abeyasinghe, Head of Global Trade and Receivables Finance, Sri Lanka & Maldives, HSBC. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trung Quốc không thể duy trì các lực lượng bố trí ở tiền phương, triển khai từ một mạng lưới căn cứ quân sự ở nước ngoài trên toàn cầu giống như Mỹ. Thay vào đó, Bắc Kinh đang âm thầm trở thành « đối thủ cạnh tranh cầu cảng », tận dụng lợi ích kép quân sự - dân sự từ hệ thống cảng biển quốc tế rộng lớn để củng cố tầm với lực lượng quân sự toàn cầu của mình. Đây là các nhận xét từ hai nhà nghiên cứu người Mỹ, Isaac Kardon và Wendy Leutert. Từ nhiều năm qua, giới chức an ninh quốc gia Mỹ quan tâm nhiều đến đà tiến mạnh mẽ của quân đội Trung Quốc, đặc biệt là lực lượng hải quân viễn dương. Chưa bao giờ Hoa Kỳ phải đối mặt với một thách thức to lớn như lúc này, trước một đối thủ được xem như là « ngang hàng » kể từ khi Liên Xô sụp đổ. Đối với quân đội Mỹ, đây là một « cuộc đua về tốc độ », hàm ý rằng phải điều chỉnh nhanh như thế nào và bao xa để có được một khả năng phòng thủ hiệu quả trong một hệ thống quốc tế ngày càng cạnh tranh quyết liệt. Trung Quốc và thế thống trị kinh tế Tuy nhiên, theo hai nhà nghiên cứu Isaac Kardon, chuyên gia về Trung Quốc, Quỹ Carnegie vì Hòa bình Quốc tế, và Wendy Leutert, giáo sư trường Nghiên cứu Toàn cầu và Quốc tế Hamilton Lugar, đại học Indiana, chiến lược quốc phòng này của Mỹ dường như được hiệu chỉnh kém, do không có được một vị thế thống trị về kinh tế giống như Trung Quốc. Trên trang mạng Foreign Affairs, hai chuyên gia phân tích : « Không những Bắc Kinh là đối tác thương mại lớn nhất của nhiều nước, mà Trung Quốc còn là nhà cung cấp các cơ sở hạ tầng thiết yếu cho thương mại toàn cầu. Tầm ảnh hưởng áp đảo này đặc biệt thể hiện rõ trong lĩnh vực vận chuyển hàng hải, trong đó các công ty Trung Quốc có liên hệ chặt chẽ với chính quyền Bắc Kinh đã trở thành những hãng đi đầu về tài chính, thiết kế, xây dựng, vận hành và sở hữu các bến cảng trên toàn thế giới. » Quả thật, 90% lượng hàng hóa trao đổi của Trung Quốc được vận chuyển bằng đường biển, cao hơn mức trung bình của thế giới là 80%. Các bến cảng không chỉ dành cho xuất khẩu hàng hóa do Trung Quốc sản xuất mà còn phục vụ cho việc nhập khẩu các loại nguyên nhiên liệu, khoáng sản, nông sản và nhiều loại hàng hóa khác… Đây là kết quả của một chính sách dài hạn mà Bắc Kinh đã vạch ra từ cuối những năm 1990 : Đặt phát triển và thiết lập một vị thế vững chắc trên thị trường toàn cầu và tài nguyên thiên nhiên như là mục tiêu chính sách đối ngoại trọng tâm. Nỗ lực này đã được ông Tập Cận Bình khi lên cầm quyền cho thúc đẩy nhanh hơn qua dự án có tên gọi là Sáng kiến Vành đai và Con đường (BRI) vào năm 2013.Chỉ trong vòng có một thập niên, Bắc Kinh đã bỏ ra khoảng một ngàn tỷ đô la cho BRI, dự án xây dựng cơ sở hạ tầng toàn cầu được thiết kế để thúc đẩy kinh tế và ảnh hưởng chính trị của Trung Quốc, thông qua các khoản đầu tư do chính phủ hậu thuẫn tại hàng chục quốc gia.Isaac Kardon cùng với đồng nghiệp, sau nhiều năm thu thập các dữ liệu hàng hải Trung Quốc, đưa ra con số gây ấn tượng mạnh: Tính đến cuối năm 2022, Bắc Kinh sở hữu và khai thác 95 cảng biển tại 53 quốc gia, trải dài trên khắp các châu lục, ngoại trừ Nam Cực. Trả lời nhật báo Mỹ The Wall Street Journal, vị chuyên gia về hàng hải Trung Quốc nhận định thêm :« Quy mô của các doanh nghiệp thương mại Trung Quốc thật sự đáng kinh ngạc. Tôi nghĩ rằng động cơ chiến lược đối với Trung Quốc về cơ bản là phòng thủ. Họ cảm thấy dễ bị tổn thương trước Hoa Kỳ và mạng lưới đồng minh của nước này đến mức Bắc Kinh có nguy cơ bị gạt ra khỏi hệ thống kinh tế toàn cầu theo một cách cơ bản nào đó. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng nỗ lực làm cho họ trở nên thiết yếu và là trung tâm của hệ thống, một phần còn là cách để tự vệ trước sự dễ bị tổn thương đó. »Huyết mạch hàng hải và vai trò của PLAMạng lưới cảng biển của những tập đoàn vận tải hàng hải Trung Quốc đặc biệt tập trung dày đặc dọc theo những tuyến hàng hải thương mại nối Trung Quốc với các nguồn nhập khẩu tài nguyên thiên nhiên ở Trung Đông và châu Phi, và với những thị trường xuất khẩu chính ở Địa Trung Hải. Đáng chú ý đó là hơn một nửa số cảng nước ngoài mà một công ty Trung Quốc có cổ phần là nằm dọc theo tuyến hàng hải chạy từ duyên hải Trung Quốc băng qua Biển Đông và eo biển Malacca, xuyên qua Ấn Độ Dương, nối với Vịnh Ba Tư, hay đi qua Biển Đỏ và kênh đào Suez, rồi vào Địa Trung Hải. Bắc Kinh coi việc bảo đảm an ninh cho « huyết mạch hàng hải » này cũng như tại những cảng biển nằm gần các « nút thắt hàng hải » như eo biển Ormuz và eo biển Malacca là một « nhiệm vụ chiến lược » mà Quân Giải phóng Nhân dân – PLA phải hoàn thành. Nhiệm vụ này đã được chính phủ Trung Quốc công bố trong sách lược quân sự quốc phòng năm 2015, nhằm bảo vệ những lợi ích và dòng chảy thương mại của Trung Quốc ở nước ngoài. Đối với Bắc Kinh, các cảng biển không chỉ hấp dẫn về mặt thương mại, mà còn có giá trị cho việc triển khai sức mạnh hải quân. Việc kiểm soát được những cảng biển quan trọng cho phép hải quân Trung Quốc có những hoạt động triển khai dài ngày ngoài khu vực mà không cần có các căn cứ quân sự ở nước ngoài, đồng thời cho phép cung cấp những dịch vụ hậu cần chính yếu và đáng tin cậy. Tầu chiến Trung Quốc có thể cập cảng để tiếp nhiên liệu, thay dầu nhớt, tiếp tế vật liệu, trang thiết bị và nhân sự, thậm chí có thể tiến hành các hoạt động bảo trì, tu sửa…Ngoài ra, những cảng biển này còn giúp gia tăng khả năng thu thập thông tin tình báo cho Bắc Kinh, vì những nhà khai thác cầu cảng Trung Quốc có những thông tin đặc quyền về những chuyển dịch tầu thuyền và giao thương hàng hóa. Những dữ liệu thu thập được còn trở nên quý giá hơn khi những kiện hàng quân sự và hoạt động cảng biển được giám sát. Theo quan sát của hai nhà nghiên cứu Mỹ, những cảng biển do Trung Quốc kiểm soát thường nằm cùng một điểm với các căn cứ quân sự của các nước chủ nhà như cảng biển Haifa của Israel, những cầu cảng thương mại cung cấp những địa điểm thuận tiện để quan sát các chiến dịch thông thường, nhân sự, những đòi hỏi và các chuyển dịch của quân đội các nước khác.  Điều này giải thích vì sao năm 2017, chính quyền Donald Trump đã ra sức ngăn chặn tập đoàn Cosco của Trung Quốc – vốn đã có những hoạt động đầu tư tại các cảng Los Angeles, Long Beach và Seattle của Mỹ - tiếp quản hoạt động của một cảng container ở Long Beach khi viện dẫn lý do an ninh quốc gia. Ông Costas Paris, phóng viên kỳ cựu của The Wall Street Journal, giải thích : « Ngày càng có nhiều nghi ngờ là bất cứ thứ gì do Trung Quốc kiểm soát đều được sử dụng để dọ thám Hoa Kỳ. Chính phủ Mỹ đã tiến hành các thủ tục để xem liệu các cần cẩu ở Mỹ, do Trung Quốc sản xuất, có được dùng để theo dõi các hoạt động cảng biển hay không. » Nỗi lo an ninh của MỹTuy nhiên, điều khiến Washington đặc biệt lo lắng là mối liên hệ chặt chẽ giữa các tập đoàn khai thác cảng biển của Trung Quốc với chính quyền Bắc Kinh và quân đội PLA. Hoạt động đầu tư cảng biển ở nước ngoài chỉ do ba hãng chính của Trung Quốc thực hiện bao gồm hai tập đoàn nhà nước là Cosco Shipping Ports, China Merchants Port, và một hãng tư nhân Hutchison Ports, đóng trụ sở tại Hồng Kông. Đây là những hãng mà chính phủ Trung Quốc là cổ đông chính và lãnh đạo hãng là do Đảng – Nhà nước bổ nhiệm (ngoại trừ Hutchison Ports). Điều này sẽ tạo thuận lợi cho Bắc Kinh áp đặt và đạt được các mục tiêu kinh tế - chính trị - an ninh trong chính sách đối ngoại rộng lớn của mình. Hơn nữa, nhìn từ góc độ chiến lược, việc kiểm soát hoàn toàn các hoạt động cảng biển, giúp cho doanh nghiệp Trung Quốc quyết định toàn bộ sự phát triển của cụm cảng, hạn chế hay loại trừ một số tầu nhất định quyền tiếp cận các dịch vụ, và thậm chí hỗ trợ các hoạt động hải quân gây thiệt hại cho các hoạt động thương mại. Isaac Kardon và Wendy Leutert, tác giả bài nghiên cứu « Sức mạnh cảng biển của Trung Quốc », còn chỉ ra rằng Trung Quốc ban hành nhiều điều luật và quy định bắt buộc các doanh nghiệp Trung Quốc cung cấp tài sản của họ cho mục đích quân sự. Và nhất là kể từ năm 2015, Bắc Kinh có những cải cách quân sự sâu rộng nhằm tích hợp hơn nữa các nguồn lực và cơ sở dân sự trong các hoạt động thông thường của quân đội.Làm thế nào ngăn chặn đà bành trướng « cảng biển » của Trung Quốc ? Nếu như Mỹ có thể viện dẫn lý do an ninh quốc gia để cản trở các hoạt động đầu tư cảng biển của Trung Quốc, thì tại châu Âu, những nỗ lực của Washington vấp phải thái độ do dự từ nhiều nước đồng minh, mà vụ chuyển nhượng một phần vốn của cảng Hamburg, cảng biển lớn nhất của Đức là một ví dụ điển hình.Bất chấp những chỉ trích từ Mỹ và nhiều chính đảng trong nước, chính phủ của thủ tướng Olaf Scholz vẫn quyết định để tập đoàn Cosco của Trung Quốc tham gia 24,9% cổ phần, thay vì 35% như ý định ban đầu. Về điểm này, ông Costas Paris nhận xét:« Hoa Kỳ có thể cho lời khuyên và thúc ép bất kỳ nước nào không chấp nhận các khoản đầu tư của Trung Quốc. Nhưng đó lại là một vấn đề nan giải cho những nước này, bởi vì Trung Quốc có nhiều tiền để đầu tư, điều đó có nghĩa là những đầu tư này sẽ tạo ra việc làm, và cải thiện ngành sản xuất của những nước đó (…) Trong quá khứ, những khoản đầu tư nhỏ như vậy thậm chí không gây chú ý. Điều này cho thấy mối quan hệ giữa Trung Quốc với phương Tây căng thẳng như thế nào. »Thương cảng : Công cụ phô trương sức mạnh hải quân, răn đe đối thủTuy nhiên, những nỗ lực ngoại giao này của Washington lại có được một thành công khi Croatia, một thành viên khác của Liên Hiệp Châu Âu, hủy một thỏa thuận ký kết với Trung Quốc nhằm khai thác một bến cảng container tại Rijeka và giao quyền khai thác cho một tập đoàn Đan Mạch là Maersk. Gần với kênh đào Suez và là cửa ngõ vào thị trường Trung Âu, cảng biển Rijeka có một vị trí chiến lược quan trọng. Tầu chiến hải quân Mỹ và NATO đôi khi sử dụng để vận chuyển trang thiết bị quân sự ra vào châu Âu. Nếu Trung Quốc nắm quyền khai thác, điều đó sẽ gây khó khăn cho những hoạt động quân sự của Mỹ và NATO.Tại châu Phi, nếu như Hoa Kỳ có hàng chục thỏa thuận mở căn cứ quân sự, Trung Quốc chỉ có một ở Djibouti, thì các công ty của Mỹ chẳng có lấy một cảng thương mại nào, trái ngược hoàn toàn so với các hãng của Trung Quốc. Giới chức Mỹ lo ngại việc Trung Quốc thiết lập các mối quan hệ thông qua các cảng thương mại để mở thêm căn cứ quân sự thường trực ở châu Phi, phía bên bờ Đại Tây Dương như khu vực được coi là sân sau của Mỹ. Một khả năng mà nhà Costas Paris nêu lên là một ngày nào đó có nguy cơ nhìn thấy tầu chiến Trung Quốc cập bờ đông Đại Tây Dương, như tại Guinea Xích Đạo chẳng hạn.Nhìn chung, hai tác giả nghiên cứu nhìn nhận trong một chừng mực nào đó, khả năng tác chiến hiệu quả của PLA từ mạng lưới thương cảng của Trung Quốc vào thời chiến dường như vẫn còn hạn chế. Nhưng trong thời bình, sức mạnh quân sự của hải quân Trung Quốc được triển khai từ hệ thống thương cảng đang tái cấu trúc lại diện mạo an ninh thế giới. Sự hiện diện thường trực của PLA tại những điểm chiến lược quan trọng có thể buộc hải quân các nước khác phải thay đổi vị thế quân sự và các hoạt động thông thường, tác động đến nhận thức của thế giới về năng lực quân sự của Trung Quốc và có thể nhằm mục tiêu răn đe các quốc gia nào thách thức Trung Quốc để bảo vệ tài sản và các lợi ích kinh tế của mình.

We take you through the top stories from the week: - Peru launches railway PPP project - AES plans 379MW solar project in Chile - Sempra takes FID for Port Arthur LNG Phase 1 - Hutchison Ports signs for two Egyptian terminal concessions - UK government plans SMR build-out - Netomnia completes £230m fundraise - China firm wins tender to redevelop Solomon Islands port Plus, Proximo Americas Digital Infrastructure Forum is back and this year we are joining the who's who of infrastructure in Nashville on May 23! Find out more and book your place via our website – www.proximoinfra.com.

-UBS will acquire Credit Suisse USD 3.25 bn in return for receiving up to CHF 100 bn in liquidity from the Swiss central bank.  - Minister of Finance revealed draft state budget for FY23/24. It factors in 5% real GDP growth, a primary surplus of 2.5% of GDP, and an overall deficit of 6.37% of GDP. -El Sisi has directed the government to raise the personal income tax exemption threshold to EGP 36k from EGP 24k currently. -State-owned real estate companies El Nasr Housing and Development and Maadi for Development and Construction will attract investments from strategic investors through capital increases rather than selling stakes.  -CLHO recorded net attributable profit of EGP78.8 million in 4Q22 (-31.7% YoY, -4.5% QoQ). For FY22, net attributable profit came in at EGP326 million (-15.9% YoY). CLHO reported revenues of EGP620 million in the first 9 weeks of 2023, an increase of 24% YoY.  CLHO is currently trading at 2023f P/E of 12.6x and EV/EBITDA of 6.8x.-MNOs should receive NTRA's approval for price increases within days, unless NTRA decided to keep prices unchanged.-ESRS raised rebar prices by 9.7% or EGP2,850/ton to EGP32,135 (including VAT) as of March 20, 2023. Rebars price went up c.37% YTD. -Cement Chamber of Union addressed the Ministry of Industry to facilitate challenges facing cement producers and help expand producing different cement types like those in Europe and the US. -Government has received Emirati interest to participate in the development of EGAL led by Emirates Global Aluminium (EGA) in return for a stake in the company's capital increase.-ADIB Egypt intends to focus on more aggressive growth over the next three years and will launch a digital consumer finance company and a microfinance company in 2H23. ADIB is trading at 2023 P/E of 2.87x and P/B of 0.6x.-FAIT's 4Q22 net profit recorded an impressive EGP2,225 million (+89% y/y,+316% q/q) bringing FY22 net profit to EGP4,826 million (+60% y/y), supported by a one-off gain of EGP1,458 million booked in 4Q22 along with impairments reversals of EGP200 million. The stock is currently trading at P/B23 of 0.7x and P/E23 of 5.3x, with ROAE of 13%. -HRHO and GB Capital's Kaf Life Insurance has obtained a commercial life insurance license from FRA. -Pachin has 10 working days to respond to National Paints Holding's (NPH) takeover bid after FRA yesterday approved the offer, which was for 75-100% at EGP34/share. -The winning consortia's contribution to Containers handling in Ain Sokhna Port is: 50% for Hutchison Ports, 25% for CMI terminals, and 25% for COSCO.-Weekly Commodities UpdateBrent, USD/bbl            73.0     -11.9%Diesel-HSFO Spread, USD/ton          412.0   -3.1%Egypt Urea, USD/ton  377.5   -6.3%Polyethylene, USD/ton           1,160.0            -0.9%Polypropylene, USD/ton         1,040.0            -1.4%Steel/Iron Ore Spreads, USD/ton       498.2   -2.0%LME Aluminum Cash Price, USD/ton 2,226.5            -1.6%Egyptian Retail Cement, EGP/ton      1,915.0            1.9%Steam Coal, USD/ton 173.0   -6.6%Crude Palm Oil, USD/MT       890.7   -3.3%SMP, USD/MT            2,739.0            -1.1% 

Whether by air, road, or sea, in this episode we hear how all these trade channels had their share of disruptions as part of the global supply chain crisis. The episode features Lars Mikael Jensen of Maersk, Clemence Cheng of Hutchison Ports, Matthias Maedge of the World Road Transport Organisation, and Carlos Grau Tanner of the Global Express Association. WTO Counsellor Nora Neufeld provides the analysis.

The rise in mental health problems caused by the lockdowns in Victoria and NSW have already cost $1 billion in lost productivity and those aged 15 to 25 are likely to be the worst affected, according to updated modelling by the University of Sydney's Brain and Mind Centre. The figure builds on earlier modelling by the centre that estimated the productivity cost of the COVID-19 pandemic at more $20 billion a year due to a projected increase in psychological distress, hospitalisations and suicide. The centre's modelling considers the initial and ongoing cost of increased mental health illness to the health system and the wider economy. This includes estimates of the costs of increased suicide; the costs of caring for the increases in people self-harming and having suicidal thoughts; and estimates of the reduction in productive output of those affected by mental illness. Professor Ian Hickie, the former Mental Health Commissioner, warned the growing COVID-19-related mental health crisis, especially for young people, had become a “shadow pandemic”. Business support for mandating Covid vaccinations in workplaces is growing, with a national survey of 700 companies finding a quarter would like compulsory jabs of their employees. An Australian Industry Group survey of business attitudes to mandatory Covid vaccination in workplaces found more than half were in favour of some form of mandating. 24% said they would like to mandate Covid vaccinations for some or all of their employees; and 27% said they would like Covid vaccinations to be mandated only through a health order related to their industry.Almost 7000 COVID-19 jabs have been administered to critical workers in the food and freight sectors from Sydney's hardest-hit local government areas Co-operation between major employers and the federal government's Operation COVID Shield rollout effort has seen staff of supermarket and food giants Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, OzHarvest and Metcash vaccinated across 19 sites. About 1000 doses have been administered to employees at freight firms Linfox and DHL, according to federal government data. Ahead of a major expansion of workplace vaccinations in coming months, about 6000 Commonwealth Bank and Westpac employees in hotspot local government areas are being jabbed in a pilot phase. Rollout boss Lieutenant General John Frewen is working with the retail and university sectors on workplace vaccinations, and sporting bodies in AFL, tennis, soccer and netball are expected to be included.Hutchison Ports and DP World have told wharfies they must get the jab to come to work next week as new rules introduced by the NSW government ratchet up pressure on employers to mandate vaccinations. The stevedores advised hundreds of workers they could not work at their Port Botany terminals, located in one of the hotspot local government areas in south-western Sydney, from August 30 if they have not had their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccination. The directions confirm what employer groups suspect thousands of employers might be forced to do after the introduction of rules requiring authorised workers in 12 Sydney local government areas to be vaccinated if they work outside their LGA, unless their workplace uses rapid antigen testing. Fully vaccinated travellers will be able to claim 1000 Qantas frequent flyer points, 15 status credits to move up the loyalty tiers and a $20 discount on Qantas and Jetstar flights from tomorrow. It is part of a new initiative from the airline to encourage vaccinations. Frequent Flyer members who claim the rewards will automatically enter a prize draw to get free accommodation at Accor hotels and free fuel from BP service stations. Prize winners will also get a free international flight on Qantas or Jetstar when borders re-open, projected for mid next year. There will be 10 winners overall – one selected from each state and territory, with another two winners chosen from a national pool. The Porsche-driving mortgage broker who filmed dying police officers at a horrific multi-vehicle accident last year has been banned by the corporate cop from providing financial services or credit for at least a decade. Richard Pusey, whom a judge dubbed “the most hated man in Australia”, was banned from performing any function relating to carrying on a financial services or credit business earlier this month by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. An investigation found the 43-year-old mortgage broker and insurance salesman had given the regulator as many as seven false statements in licence applications and compliance documents. The regulator declared he “is not a fit and proper person to participate in the financial services and credit industries”. In a statement, ASIC said Mr Pusey “has no regard for the law”, “lacks the attributes of good character, honesty, and judgment” and “cannot be relied upon to comply with directions issued from authorities”. ASIC added Mr Pusey “is likely to contravene credit legislation and financial services legislation”. Mr Pusey is in custody awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to assaulting a woman at his home, and two road rage incidents. Mr Pusey also pleaded guilty to menacing a Westpac bank employee in a series of messages in 2019 following a credit card dispute.Australian electric car charging network JOLT plans to install 5000 free fast chargers across capital cities after Blackrock, the world's largest asset manager, bought a stake in the company and pledged an initial $100 million towards building the network. Drivers using JOLT chargers would receive 7 kWh – equivalent to about 45 kilometres of driving – for free, and be charged for power drawn after that. JOLT would also make money from advertising sold on its charging stations. All the power it sells will be renewable and the installation of the charging points is expected to begin in Sydney in September. JOLT operates charging stations in Adelaide. Charlie Reid, a managing director of BlackRock's Global Renewable Power team, said for the world to reach net zero emissions by 2050, the last internal combustion car engine would need to be sold by 2035. He said this would happen globally and in Australia, whatever government policies were in place, as Australia imported its vehicles.Supermarket giant Woolworths has responded to the push by many shoppers for faster online deliveries, striking a deal with Uber Eats for groceries and fresh fruit and vegetables to be delivered from some of its Woolworths Metro outlets within an hour. Woolworths is starting a trial for Uber Eats drivers to deliver goods ordered from 12 Woolworths Metro stores in Sydney and Melbourne. It aims to roll out the service to about 200 Woolworths outlets by early next year. Woolworths operates 996 large supermarket outlets and 78 Woolworths Metro stores, which have a smaller footprint and are generally positioned in inner-city locations to capture customers and commuters buying smaller amounts of groceries, but more frequently. But the Woolworths Metro format has suffered in the pandemic as more people worked from home and CBDs emptied out. Woolworths in June booked a $50 million write-down on the value of 13 Metro locations located in CBDs or near major train stations, which have borne the brunt of the work-from-home shift.Right-wing extremists are using platforms such as YouTube, PayPal and Buy Me A Coffee to raise money to support their nefarious activities, says the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which is calling for anti-money-laundering laws to apply to more technology businesses. ASPI analyst Ariel Bogle wants the federal government to develop a centralised hate crime and statistics database to track and understand the financial activities of extremists operating in Australia. She is also calling for regulators to consider whether emerging platforms have obligations under laws such as the Anti-Money-Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act.About 7000 truckies at Toll Transport will strike across the country on Friday, disrupting parcel and food deliveries at the height of the pandemic. The Transport Workers Union confirmed drivers would stop work for 24 hours after Toll refused to drop bargaining claims in crisis talks on Monday, including that part-time staff work up to 38 hours a week without overtime and new drivers work six to 12 month contracts. The stoppage is the first national strike in road transport in more than a decade and comes as home deliveries have surged following stay-at-home orders for more than 14 million people in NSW and Victoria.And the profit reporting season continues. Kogan's net profit plunged 87% to just $3.5 million in 2021. Takeover target Afterpay has widened its net loss to $159.4 million in financial 2021, versus $22.9 million in the prior year. Australia's biggest smash repair outfit AMA Group reported a $99.1 million statutory loss for the year. Chorus EBITDA rose slightly to $NZ649 million during the year, up only slightly on $NZ648 million in the 2020 financial year. Its net profit after tax fell to $47 million, from $NZ52 million, and operating revenue dipped to $NZ947 million, from $NZ959 million Reliance Worldwide revenue rose 15.3% to $1.16 billion while net profit climbed 110.5% to $188.2 million. oOh!media's revenue for the period was up 23% to $251.6 million, while earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation more than tripled to $33.3 million. The company reported a $9.3 million net loss after tax compared to a loss of $28 million in the prior comparable period. GPI Property Group's net profit fell to $22.96 million, down from $66.74 million a year earlier. NIB's underlying revenue rose 2.9% to $2.6 billion however its net profit rose 84.5% to $160.5 million. Hotels and cinemas operator Event Hospitality and Entertainment has posted a 45.4% fall in financial 2021 revenue to $449.3 million. It narrowed its statutory loss 15.7% to $48 million on EBITDA of $27.2 million. Mining contractor MACA's net profit after tax jumped 219% to $20.7 million following the $17.4 million loss it reported last year. Ampol's EBIT rose to $340 million, from $221 million a year ago. Michael Hill's net profit rose 15-fold to a record $45.3 million in 2021. Charter Hall reported post-tax operating earnings of $284.3 million. Latitude delivered an 81% rise in cash profits, to $121 million. Ansell sales rose 25.6% to $US2.02 billion while EBIT climbed 56% to $US338 million and profit firmed 57.5% to $US246.7 million. Perenti Global's net profit after tax and amortisation in the second half of the 2021 financial year improved by $75.3 million from a first-half statutory loss of $63.8 million to a statutory gain in the second half of $11.5 million. Underlying net profit after tax and amortisation fell from $211.7 million to $170.8 million. HUB24 reported net profit after tax of $15 million, up 53%, and underlying group earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation of $36.2 million which was a 47% increase on FY20. Monadelphous Group's revenue rose 18% to $1.75 billion while profit climbed 29% to $47.1 million. The Westfield Australia real estate trust Scentre Group has reported its operating profit for the half year to June 30 climbed 27.5% to $460.1 million on property revenue up 21.3% to $1.064.8 million. Total revenue fell 1.2% to $1081.4 million. Alumina's net profit dipped 19% to $US73.6 million. Carbon Revolution revenue declined 10% to $34.9 million as the company reported a $32 million loss after tax. Oil Search's revenue climbed 7% to $US667.7 million in the first half of the year while core net profit soared 463% to $139 million. Nanosonics' full year revenue was up 3% to $103.1 million for the period with an operating profit before tax of $11 million, down from $12.4 million in FY20. Voice communication software provider MNF Group's recurring revenue rose 12% to $113.2 million, while EBITDA increased 13% to $43.1 million, sitting at the top end of market guidance. Estia Health's revenue rose 4.4% to $665.4 million while profit after tax rose to $6 million following a $116.9 million loss a year earlier. Austal's net profit after tax came in at $81.1 million, down from $89 million in FY20. Superloop's total revenue rose 2.9% to $110.7 million during the year however it still reported a loss of $31.9 million for the year. Sleep treatment specialist SomnoMed has narrowed its full-year net loss to $1.18 million and lifted revenue 9% to $62.7 million for financial 2021. ReadyTech's underlying net profit after tax and amortisation rose 27% to $10.6 million. Local fund manager VGI Partners delivered a normalised net profit after tax of $42.9 million for the half-year to the end of June. Fertility specialist Monash IVF has hiked its adjusted net profit 61.5% to $23.3 million on revenue up 26.3% to $183.6 million for financial 2021. Statutory net profit climbed 116.9% to $25.5 million, with the adjusted profit number excluding the impact of JobKeeper subsidies. Viva Energy's gross profit firmed 17% to $788.9 million. Mt Gibson's sales revenue dipped to $329.7 million, from $445.2 million a year earlier, while net profit slid 24% to $92.1 million. Wagner Holdings reported net profit after tax of $10 million. Financial software player Bravura Solutions reported 13.8% fall in financial 2021 profit to $34.6 million. Northern Star's net profit climbed 299.7% to $1.03 billion. Medibank Private's net profit advanced 39.8% to $441.2 million. Sky City's reported profit dipped 33.7% to $NZ156.1 million. Seven Group's net profit firmed 447.6% to $631.4 million. Zircon miner Iluka Resources has posted a half-year net profit up 61.7% to $129 million. Orocobre's losses widened 14.7% to $US59.6 million. IDP Education's earnings before interest and tax were $64.1 million, a 41% decrease on FY20. Adbri's net profit firmed 94.5% to $56.6 million. National Storage REIT grew underlying earnings by 28% to $86.5 million for the financial year that ended in June. Nine Entertainment's net profit firmed 76% to $277.5 million. APA Group's profit after tax 98.8% to $3.68 million due to significant one-off items. Engineering Group Worley's net profit fell 50% to $86 million in financial 2021. IVE Group's net profit rose to $29.5 million, improving on the $20.2 million loss from a year earlier. Growthpoint Properties has posted a financial 2021 statutory net profit of $553.2 million, versus $272.1 million in the prior year. McMahon Holdings' Statutory net profit rose 19% to $77.2 million. Ferries and bus operator Sealink reports its underlying net profit climbed 152.6% in financial 2021 to $74.7 million. Aurelia Metals' net profit firmed 46% to $42.9 million. Green whistle painkiller merchant Medical Developments has swung to a net loss of $12.6 million. Clearview Wealth reported a 54% increase in underlying net profit after tax to $22.7 million. Dalrymple Day Infrastructure reported net profit of $113.2 million. Sunland Group's net profit after tax surged from $2.4 million in FY20 to $24.9 million in FY21. Ridley's EBITDA climbed $9.6 million to $69.1 million while total comprehensive income climbed to $29.9 million following a loss of $10.7 million a year earlier. E-commerce business MyDeal has swung to a $5.9 million loss. Zip Co has reported a staggering $652.5 million loss. Pent-up demand for youth fashion helped Universal Store lift net profit by 90% to $24.4 million in 2021.And that's it for this week. And next week, I'll be talking to Cat Long, the CEO of Trace, a company set up to help businesses and individuals reduce and/or offset their carbon footprint. And I'll be talking to economist Nicholas Gruen about ways to manage our superannuation.In the meantime you can catch me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. And if you want leave a comment. Wishing you all a safe and healthy week. And looking forward to bringing you Talking Business next week Follow my socials on:https://twitter.com/leongettlerhttps://www.instagram.com/leongettler/https://www.linkedin.com/in/leongettler/https://www.facebook.com/talkingbusinesspodcast See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Your weekly update on the latest critical news and developments that affect your workplace, presented by FCW Lawyers. Catch up on this week's episode covering: COVID/JobKeeper update: - Stand down when reduction in work cf Qantas - CFMEU v Hutchison Ports – stop work for COVID Managing RTW in a post-COVID world: Flexible work arrangements policy Rossato v Workpac: Special leave – what does it mean? DA v Baptist Care: Limitations on work AMWU v CSL: Acting in the best interests of the business, and the second job CFMEU v ABCC: Safety rights of entry See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This essay is part of "On China's New Silk Road," a podcast by the Global Reporting Centre that tracks China's global ambitions. Over nine episodes, Mary Kay Magistad, a former China correspondent for The World, partners with local journalists on five continents to uncover the effects of the most sweeping global infrastructure initiative in history. The Panama Canal was a marvel of American engineering when it built more than a century ago. It’s still pretty impressive, moving up huge container ships from one ocean, level by level, through three locks to a lake well above sea level, then down again and on to another ocean. Over the past century, the Panama Canal has helped transform global shipping. It can shave off two weeks or more from the route of otherwise having to go around the horn of South America —  saving shippers time and money, with the bonus of skipping the stormy seas.Related: The 'China dream': China's new Silk Road begins at homeAmericans didn’t just build the Panama Canal. For most of the 20th century, from 1903 to 1979, they also controlled it. The US military was based on a strip of land that ran the entire length of the canal and 10 miles across.  But Panamanians generally weren’t allowed to enter the Panama Canal Zone. That created both mystique and resentment and eventually led to an end to what pro-independence protesters saw as a neocolonial American presence. American housing in the old Panama Canal Zone has now been left to rot, with graffiti thick on the walls. And Panamanians are proud to control the Panama Canal themselves.“Even from high in the government, they have recognized that the canal is running efficiently — even better now than in the old system,” said Johnny Wong, an engineer who worked on the Panama Canal for three decades. He helped oversee an expansion project of the canal from 2007 to 2016, adding an extra lane and doubling the canal’s capacity.China is now interested in the Panama Canal both for its economic utility in cutting time and cost on shipping routes, and for its strategic and symbolic value, with China aspiring to replace the US as the global, preeminent power. Johnny Wong is an engineer who helped oversee expansion of the Panama Canal. He is one of many Panamanians of Chinese ancestry.  Credit: Mary Kay Magistad/The World For 20 years, Hutchison Ports, a Hong Kong company, managed ports at either end of the canal.A Chinese state-owned company plans to build a bridge over the canal. Another has built a convention center and a cruise ship terminal on the Pacific side of the canal, where the Chinese government also wanted to build a new embassy — until pushback from both the United States and Panama caused them to look elsewhere. Several other Chinese projects were also proposed since Panama joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2017, including a high-speed rail system across Panama. “Belt and Road” stands for a belt of land routes and a maritime Silk Road of sea routes — which is what China aims to build with this global infrastructure initiative. Most of the world’s countries have signed on or expressed interest in it. When Panama shifted its diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in June 2017, a step needed to join the Belt and Road later that year, then-President Juan Carlos Varela sat down for an interview with China’s state-run CGTN television network. “China has the largest population in the world, has the second-largest economy, [and] is the second-main user of the Panama Canal,” Varela said. Varela also said he gave the Trump administration about an hour’s notice of Panama’s decision to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative. “This is our decision,” he said. “And I’m pretty sure I did the right thing for our people.”The Trump administration soon made it clear it had a different view. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Panama in late 2018 and warned against what he called China’s “predatory economic activity.”  Related: China's new Silk Road traverses Kazakhstan. But some Kazakhs are skeptical of Chinese influence. Soon after, Chinese projects in Panama started being scaled back, canceled or rejected. A $4 billion high-speed rail project was canceled. A $2.5 billion monorail project, linking Panama City with its western suburbs, went to South Korea’s Hyundai instead of, as earlier expected, to a Chinese company. The Panama Canal bridge to be built by a top Chinese state-owned company was scaled back. Negotiations between Panama and China for a free trade agreement stalled. And Panama’s government said it will audit Hutchison Ports and is considering whether to renew its concession when it expires in 2022. Patiently and methodically, China is using its Belt and Road Initiative to expand and strengthen its strategic presence around the world, including in what has long been called the United States’ backyard.Welcome to a 21st-century version of the Great Game. The 19th-century version had imperial Russia and imperial Great Britain vying for influence and access to resources in Central Asia. Now, it’s the world’s two top economies vying for influence around the world: the United States as the incumbent premier power, and China as an ambitious contender for that position. China, patiently and methodically, is using its Belt and Road Initiative to expand and strengthen its strategic presence around the world, including in what has long been called the United States’ backyard.“Our government, the generals and the president should have sat down and said, ‘Hey, something is going on around here,’” said retired US Sergeant First Class Sidney Thomas, on a cruise down the Panama Canal in November 2019. He was born in Panama, moved to the United States as a kid, and came back to Panama with the US military in the 1970s. “It’s like playing checkers, or even chess. You make a move, and you wait for the other person. If the other person doesn’t make a move, you study the board to get an advantage. So, yeah — I believe China has an advantage now.” China has been investing heavily in Latin America for more than a decade. It has built roads and dams in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest as land is cleared to grow more soybeans for export to China. It has also built or expanded ports in Peru, Mexico, Panama; a dam and surveillance system in Ecuador; and dozens of other projects throughout the region. In Latin America, 19 countries have now joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative — after a decade in which trade between China and Latin America increased more than twentyfold.  The hope across much of Latin America had been that signing on to Belt and Road membership would bring more Chinese investment of the kind each country needed, and more opportunities for Latin American countries to export to China, narrowing often sizable trade imbalances. That hasn’t always happened. Venezuela and Ecuador, in particular, now have high debts to China and new economic woes in the wake of COVID-19. The region’s four largest economies — Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico — still haven’t signed a Belt and Road Initiative agreement. Together, they account for 70% of Latin America’s gross domestic product. But the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei is already building 5G networks in Mexico and Argentina, and has done pilot runs of its 5G technology in Brazil. “Mexico has to be always open to build up a strategic relationship with China, but always very, very clear: It has to be a relationship that is well-balanced. We don’t want to create any type of dependency, not to China, neither to the United States.” Idelfonso Giajardo, Mexico's former Secretary of Economy“Mexico has to be always open to build up a strategic relationship with China, but always very, very clear: It has to be a relationship that is well-balanced. We don’t want to create any type of dependency, not to China, neither to the United States,” Mexico’s former Secretary of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo told Isabella Cota, a Mexican journalist and economic correspondent for the Spanish newspaper, El Pais.   Isabella Cota is the economic correspondent for the Spanish newspaper El Pais and a partner reporter for the "On China’s New Silk Road" podcast. Credit: Mary Kay Magistad/The World Later, Cota — a partner reporter for the “On China’s New Silk Road” podcast — said the hit Mexico’s economy is taking from COVID-19 is causing the government to consider the best way forward. Mexico’s central bank has warned the economy could contract by almost 13%, and 15 million or more Mexicans could fall out of the middle class and into poverty. Chinese investment in the Mayan Train, a 900-milelong tourist train on the Yucatán Peninsula and in an oil refinery may help. But Cota says many Mexicans are looking to the new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement — the new North American Free Trade Agreement — more than anything else. “Mexican officials are just so hopeful that this is going to be the thing that makes the economy come back in Mexico,” Cota said. “I’m not so sure it’s going to work out that way, at least not immediately. But this shift in mentality is important. It’s been kind of like being more grounded, being more realistic about Mexico’s opportunities. Cota says it’s not clear yet how Mexico is going to balance its long-standing and close economic relationship with the United States, and new investment opportunities that may be coming from China.  “But I think that they’re going to try and get the best of both worlds,” she said. “And you know what? Quite frankly, I hope they do. Because we need as much investment and as much opportunity as we can get in Mexico.”

Nuestra invitada de esta semana Elida Avellaneda , quien es la Branch Manager de Hutchison Ports en Bajío, nos cuenta como al vivir en Lázaro Cárdenas le surgió la cosquillita de hacer su servicio social en el puerto y de ahí se enamoró de la logística. Ahora con 12 años de trayectoria, es la experta que nos platica todo lo que una terminal portuaria puede hacer por nosotros, aderezado todo con buenas anécdotas y su buen humor.

With 22 ports situated along China’s Belt and Road and a further 26 ports globally, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Ports has taken a large stake in the Initiative, with huge growth potential. Group Managing Director Eric Ip points to major port developments in Thailand and Pakistan, significantly contributing to those countries’ infrastructure development on the Belt and Road.

Hutchison Ports regards its Hong Kong headquarters as the right place to run its global network – including connecting people, cultures and systems across the Belt and Road, according to Group Managing Director Eric Ip. Particularly relevant is Hutchison Ports’ award-winning nGen high technology operations system, which was developed in Hong Kong.

Wrap up of this weeks news articles in GreenLeft Weekly and an interview by Lalitha Chelliah with Gulay from the Kurdish Association of Victoria.Australian ArticlesArticle and discussion on Australia being taken to the International Criminal Court over refugees. The Refugee Action Collective Victoria has filed a complaint at the International Criminal Court over the Australian government's treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60486Article and discussion on the historic land claim victory for Mithaka people. Thirteen years after launching their land claim, the Mithaka people of south-west Queensland were granted native title over more than 33,800 square kilometres of their land and waters on October 27. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60503Article and discussion on the The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) backing of the People's Climate March on November 27-29 across the country. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60515Article and discussion on the Public servants' campaign forcing a government retreat on pay rise caps. Under pressure from the Public Sector Union (CPSU), the Turnbull government has announced it will lift its cap on wage rises for federal public sector workers from 1.5% to 2%. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60513Article and discussion on the Moreland council in Victoria voting 'no' to Work for the Dole. Moreland council has become one of the first organisations to vote against participating in the federal Work for the Dole scheme. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60492Article and discussion on the Hutchison dispute edging toward settlement. The long-running dispute between the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and Hutchison Ports is edging closer to settlement. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60499Article and discussion on Australian support for boycott, divestment and sanctions on Israel. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60524International NewsArticle and discussion on British academics declaring Israeli university boycott. Hundreds of university professors in Britain have declared a boycott of Israeli schools in an effort to draw attention to the Israeli government's many human rights offenses against Palestinians and violations of international law. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60526Article and discussion on South African student protests. An historic victory over neoliberalism in South Africa was won on October 23, after the most intense three-week burst of mobilisation in the country since liberation from apartheid in 1994. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60517Article and discussion on 10 million people taught to read by Cuban literacy program. https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60535InterviewInterview by Lalitha Chelliah with Gulay from the Turkish Association of Victoria. Gulay talks about the celebration on November 1st, Kobane day and the Turkish elections.