By Matt Underwood Trump’s suggestion that US ships should receive free passage through the Panama and Suez canals immediately raises questions about the practicality and fairness of such a proposal. The idea that these vital waterways, requiring extensive maintenance and operational costs, could operate without any fees seems unrealistic. Even if the US were to reclaim control of the Panama Canal, as some have suggested, the substantial expenses associated with its operation – encompassing lock maintenance, tugboat services, and a complex logistical network – would remain. There’s no way to simply wave a magic wand and make them disappear.
The proposition also overlooks the fundamental principles of international commerce and the realities of maritime shipping. Most commercial vessels are registered under flags of convenience, primarily for tax and insurance reasons, not solely under the US flag. Therefore, the number of US-flagged ships that would actually benefit from this policy would be drastically limited. Free passage for only a small fraction of global shipping traffic wouldn’t really change much, anyway.
Furthermore, the notion of free canal passage for US ships invites comparison to other sectors where similar free-service requests might be made. If free canal transit is justifiable, why not free stays at Trump hotels, often touted as deserving of a similar free access. Is that principle consistent with an expectation that all services should come without cost? The inherent contradiction in this line of thinking seems glaring. It’s simply not how a properly functioning economy works. It suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of how costs are recovered and services are funded. In essence, those who use a service should reasonably be expected to pay their share towards its maintenance and operations. That’s how things get built and maintained.
This brings to light the larger issue of the suggestion’s implications for international relations. The Suez Canal, in particular, is under the sovereign control of Egypt. Its operation is not subject to arbitrary decisions from any foreign power. Demanding free passage, therefore, is not just economically impractical but diplomatically inflammatory. It’s a high-stakes power play that disregards another country’s sovereignty and economic interests. The Panama Canal, while having a history of US involvement, is also independent. Demanding free passage disregards existing agreements and the principles of fair compensation for services rendered.
The economic viability of Trump’s proposal is questionable. The maintenance and upkeep of these canals are expensive. Who would cover the costs if US ships were granted free passage? Would it be US taxpayers? The financial burden alone would be astronomical. And what about other nations whose ships use the canals? Would they also demand free passage, creating an unsustainable situation?
The suggestion also appears somewhat impulsive and uninformed. There is a lack of apparent awareness of the complexities of international maritime law and the logistical challenges inherent in maintaining such critical global transportation routes. It seems to emerge from a perspective that overlooks the fundamental principles of fair compensation for services and the realities of how these intricate systems operate. In short, it’s not that simple.
The broader context suggests that the comment is not seriously thought out. There is a pattern of demands for free services or concessions, often seeming unconnected to realistic solutions to actual problems. This pattern, combined with a lack of focus on the consequences, casts doubt on the seriousness of the proposal.
Finally, the proposal has been met with widespread skepticism and criticism. It’s seen as unrealistic, economically unsound, and diplomatically insensitive. The reaction highlights the lack of understanding of international relations and the practicalities of global commerce. It underscores that the suggestion is less a viable policy proposal and more a rhetorical flourish without substantial basis in reality.