By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article provides a comprehensive list of locations, encompassing all 50 US states, US territories, and select Canadian provinces. The inclusion of zip codes is implied, suggesting a database or directory is being described. This detailed geographic coverage highlights the broad scope of the project. The information presented likely serves as a reference for location-based data.
Read the original article here
Panama has lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations over what it perceives as a threat to the Panama Canal from the United States, prompting a significant internal audit. This action follows comments suggesting potential US interference, igniting concerns about the canal’s sovereignty and sparking a flurry of speculation about the potential repercussions.
The Panamanian government’s decision to launch a comprehensive audit of the Panama Ports Company underscores the seriousness of the situation. This audit aims to ensure complete transparency and efficiency in the use of public resources, specifically examining whether the company, operated by Hutchison Ports – a subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based conglomerate – is adhering to all aspects of its concession agreement. This includes meticulously reviewing income reporting, payments made, and contributions to the Panamanian state. The focus on Hutchison Ports, with its complex international ownership structure, adds another layer of complexity to the already tense situation.
The international nature of the company’s ownership structure – a Hong Kong-based entity with connections to other global financial centers – is central to the debate. While some have suggested potential Chinese influence through these connections, it is important to note the lack of direct evidence linking the company’s operations to any form of Chinese government interference. Many commentators point out that the company’s establishment predates the recent events concerning Hong Kong and that there is no evidence of Chinese military presence or undue financial burden placed upon the United States by the existing operational arrangements. The claims of Chinese control appear to be based on speculation, rather than substantiated fact.
The UN complaint itself represents a significant diplomatic move by Panama. However, the effectiveness of this complaint is heavily debated, given the United States’ veto power within the Security Council. Many observers believe the UN’s ability to prevent unilateral action by the US is limited at best, and the effectiveness of any international pressure to deter the US would be significantly weakened by this veto. While Panama’s action sends a strong message about its resolve to protect its national interests, the practical impact on US policy remains unclear.
The potential for a military confrontation remains a central concern. Some analysts suggest that a forceful US takeover of the Canal is highly unlikely, citing the enormous economic disruption such an action would cause globally. The potential for widespread international condemnation and the logistical challenges of such an undertaking are also strong deterrents. However, the possibility of an invasion cannot be entirely dismissed, especially given the context of highly polarized US politics and the recent historical precedent of US military intervention in Panama.
Alternative strategies for Panama to defend its sovereignty are being explored. The suggestion of mining the Canal, while seemingly extreme, highlights the desperation felt in some quarters to protect the Canal from foreign interference. While such a drastic action would cause significant disruption to global trade and inflict heavy damage on Panama itself, it underscores the gravity of the threat that Panama perceives. Less drastic but equally impactful methods of disruption, such as refusing to operate locks or provide essential services to ships transiting the canal, are also being considered as a form of non-violent resistance to potentially hostile actions from the US. The Panama Canal’s importance to global trade presents a unique form of leverage for Panama, far exceeding any capabilities to acquire nuclear weaponry.
This situation highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics surrounding the Panama Canal. While the accusations of Chinese interference seem largely unfounded based on currently available evidence, the underlying anxieties about US intentions remain. The ensuing debate exposes a need for clear communication and transparent diplomacy to avoid misunderstandings escalating into dangerous conflicts. The future of the Panama Canal hinges on navigating these complexities carefully and effectively, ensuring the canal remains a vital artery of global trade under Panamanian sovereignty.