| US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's planned visit to Panama on a swing through Latin America that's reportedly starting this week offers an opportunity to delve into the reasons President Donald Trump has included the home of the vital shipping canal on his territorial wish list. It can't only be because of its role as a vital artery for seaborne trade. According to new research from Bloomberg Economics, it's estimated that just 5% of the total value of US imports and exports of goods transited the waterway in 2023. (Click here for the full report on the Bloomberg Terminal.) Beijing's influence over shipping in the region has increased, and China has invested more in Panama since convincing the country to break off diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 2017, Maeva Cousin and Jennifer Welch of Bloomberg Economics wrote this week. There's also a domestic political motivation for Trump to covet the Panama Canal. "Exporters of agricultural products including cotton, cereal grains, soybeans and oil are among those that rely more on the canal to reach their export markets — putting industries in some key Trump constituencies at risk," Cousin wrote. Read More: A $2 Trillion Reckoning Looms as Ports Become Pawns in Geopolitics On imports, the BE economists estimated that textiles, as well as metals — notably copper — and coffee are among the items most exposed to any potential disruption of goods moving through the canal. 'Disastrous' Idea After vowing in his inaugural address last week that "we're taking it back," Trump hasn't specified exactly how he plans to do that. But taking the canal by military force would be a bad idea, according to retired US Navy Admiral James Stavridis, a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and former supreme allied commander of NATO. QuickTake: Why Trump Wants But Can't Have the Panama Canal "Politically and diplomatically, it would be disastrous for our relations throughout the Americas," he wrote in a recent column. "The US would instantly lose all credibility in the region," and "domestically, such a move would not be popular in the Latino community." He argued that there are better approaches. "Should the US continue to have a strong, integrated relationship with Panama, including a free trade agreement? Of course," he wrote. "We could also approach the Panamanians for reduced shipping rates, arguing that the US does a great deal to protect the canal on their behalf." Raising concerns about China's influence is fair game, Stavridis continued, "but the best response is to negotiate for stronger US public and private economic involvement that would box out Beijing." Related Reading: —Brendan Murray in London Click here for more of Bloomberg.com's most-read stories about trade, supply chains and shipping. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment