theres a difference: the company now running the panama canal is a chinese military front company. chinese now run the operations. here americans run it. its no different then a company like citgo. venezuela and that nut chavez own it but i don't see everyone screaming we need to shut down every citgo gas station and track every citgo tanker because that nut chavez might have his people blow a few of them up. now in panama they can stop us warships from entering the port there fore they would now have to go around south america to reach the west coast. no one can tell us what we can or can't do with us ports in the continental united states. in case you haven't noticed the chinese are building their armed forces with stolen us technology and technology gain through espinage conducted around the panama canal. shit the chinese just launched their first aegis destoyer. and why is this port deal being made a big deal? the dems for the most part need to improve their ratings on national security.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=99-F_18
Senator Lott Calls for Hearings on Chinese Penetration of the Panama Canal Zone
(Washington, D.C.): As the clock inexorably runs on the United States' completion of its withdrawal from the bases that control the Panama Canal, the risks associated with such a step are both growing and becoming a matter of increasing concern in Washington. Of particular concern are the confluence of the intensifying conflict in neighboring Colombia and the long-term lease of key facilities on both ends of the "path between the seas" to Communist Chinese entities. According to a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (USN, Ret.):
"A company called Panama Ports Company, S.A., affiliated with Hutchinson Whampoa, Ltd. through its owner, Mr. Li Ka-Shing, currently maintains control of four of the Panama Canal's major ports....Panama Port Company is 10 percent owned by China Resources Enterprise, the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation."
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) has called China Resources Enterprise "an agent of espionage -- economic, military, and political -- for China." He also has observed that CRE has "geopolitical purposes. Kind of like a smiling tiger; it might look friendly, but it's very dangerous." The same might be said of Li Ka-Shing, who has been closely linked with the Chinese government, including the People's Liberation Army and intelligence services.
So great is the unease about Chinese penetration of the Western hemisphere's most strategic waterway that the Senate Majority Leader yesterday formally requested that the Senate Armed Services Committee assess this situation and its implications for U.S. national security and economic equities. Excerpts of Senator Lott's wise tasking letter follow (emphasis added):
The Honorable John W. Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear John:
...In [an August letter to Secretary of Defense William Cohen], I raised questions regarding Hutchison-Whampoa, a company with reported Chinese military and intelligence ties, and its control of port facilities at either end of the Canal. To date, I have not received a response to my letter from Secretary Cohen.
The turnover of the Panama Canal is a very divisive and controversial issue of its own accord.
The Canal is strategically important; one-third of the world's shipping passes through its waters. Unimpeded commercial and military passage through the Canal is of primary importance to the United States, its number one user.
It is the perception of some of my colleagues and I that the Chinese involvement in Panama may not be straightforward and could, in fact, be a threat to our national security. One example would be the apparent rights to former U.S. installations won by the Chinese in a perceived "disputed competition bid" for these facilities. My interest is to learn the facts associated with the Panama Canal transfer.
I would appreciate greatly your committee, as part of your hearings this fall, reviewing this critical national security issue. Some questions that I feel deserve attention are:
What powers does Panama Law No. 5 give Hutchison Whampoa in controlling, influencing and running the Panama Canal? Could these powers be used to limit or hinder U.S. military or commercial traffic transiting the Canal?
What are the national security risks of Hutchison Whampoa controlling container facilities in the Balboa and Cristobal ports? What are that national security risks of Hutchison Whampoa eventually controlling former U.S. military bases in Panama?
Does Hutchison Whampoa or its Chairman, Li Ka-shing, have ties to the Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army, or Chinese intelligence activities?
Does the 1977 treaty ensure that the United States can intervene, militarily if necessary, to keep the Panama Canal open? What options short of direct military intervention are available to the U.S. to ensure the safe, timely transit of U.S. military and commercial traffic through the Canal?
Is China purchasing the leverage of a "blue water Navy" by commercial control of the Panama Canal? How might this asymmetric response impact our Western Pacific doctrine, particularly regarding Japan, Korea, and Taiwan?
I appreciate greatly your considering this request. The transfer of control of the Panama Canal is one of the critical national security issues currently facing our Nation, and its impact will be felt for many generations to come.
* * *
Again, thank you for your attention to this issue. With very best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
Trent Lott
