Why do you say that the "Trump Administration indeed has a leg to stand on when they argue that Panama’s toll hikes might violate Article 3 of the Neutrality Treaty, which mandates that charges be 'just, reasonable, equitable, and consistent with international law.'" If the tolls are applied equally to all users of the canal, how can they violate neutrality? Surely not because U.S. shipping accounts for the majority of the canal's use. Wouldn't you expect the biggest user to pay the most in tolls?
I'm not making a universal argument! The counterarguments, such as you advance, are quite sensible. The U.S. generates the most traffic, the U.S. pays the most tolls, ships of the same type and tonnage pay the same rates regardless of origin, destination, or nationality.
I am saying that there is a case to be made on two prongs. First, it's quite plausible to argue that average /real/ price hikes of 250% are "unreasonable," especially since the Panama Canal much more than covers both its opex and capex. Second, since different kinds of ships are charged different rates, and LNG tankers are particularly important to the United States but not huge revenue-generators for Panama, then one could argue that these differential rates are "inequitable."
My guess is that the ultimate aim is to renegotiate the Neutrality Treaty to give American export commerce preferential treatment. If that's right, then the above is just necessary window-dressing. What will actually happen is that the Trump Administration will pressure Panama into giving special treatment to export cargoes originating the United States, therefore giving President Trump a win.
Why do you say that the "Trump Administration indeed has a leg to stand on when they argue that Panama’s toll hikes might violate Article 3 of the Neutrality Treaty, which mandates that charges be 'just, reasonable, equitable, and consistent with international law.'" If the tolls are applied equally to all users of the canal, how can they violate neutrality? Surely not because U.S. shipping accounts for the majority of the canal's use. Wouldn't you expect the biggest user to pay the most in tolls?
I'm not making a universal argument! The counterarguments, such as you advance, are quite sensible. The U.S. generates the most traffic, the U.S. pays the most tolls, ships of the same type and tonnage pay the same rates regardless of origin, destination, or nationality.
I am saying that there is a case to be made on two prongs. First, it's quite plausible to argue that average /real/ price hikes of 250% are "unreasonable," especially since the Panama Canal much more than covers both its opex and capex. Second, since different kinds of ships are charged different rates, and LNG tankers are particularly important to the United States but not huge revenue-generators for Panama, then one could argue that these differential rates are "inequitable."
My guess is that the ultimate aim is to renegotiate the Neutrality Treaty to give American export commerce preferential treatment. If that's right, then the above is just necessary window-dressing. What will actually happen is that the Trump Administration will pressure Panama into giving special treatment to export cargoes originating the United States, therefore giving President Trump a win.