SRES-31-119
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S338-339)
Sponsored by Eric Schmitt (R-MO)
What it does
This non-binding Senate resolution would express the Senate's concern about Chinese presence in Panamanian ports, including Balboa and Cristobal. It calls on Panama to review and end agreements letting Chinese state-owned or China-based firms manage strategic infrastructure and to expel Chinese officials working in ports and critical infrastructure. It also urges the U.S. government to use the Neutrality Treaty, offer financial and technical support to Panama, and set up a framework for a U.S.-Panama partnership over canal operations and a joint security task force. It creates no legal duty and appropriates no money.
Who benefits
U.S. policymakers and national security officials who favor limiting Chinese infrastructure influence in the Western Hemisphere. Shippers and canal users who may prefer management they see as neutral. Panamanian officials and firms that could receive U.S. financial or technical support if the executive branch chose to offer it. Regional allies who share concerns about Chinese investment.
Who is hurt
Hutchison Ports and other Chinese-affiliated operators and their employees, if Panama acted on the call to end port agreements. Panamanian officials and workers who rely on existing port contracts and Chinese investment. U.S. taxpayers, if the executive branch pursued the urged investments or joint task force. U.S.-Panama relations could be strained if Panama views the resolution as pressure on its sovereignty.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Neutrality Treaty gives the United States a stake in keeping the canal open and neutral, and that firms subject to China's National Security Law could pose risks to that neutrality. They contend a Senate statement signals bipartisan resolve, backs Panama in reviewing its contracts, and offers investment alternatives to Belt and Road financing, at no cost and with no binding effect.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Panama is a sovereign nation that has operated the canal since 1999, and that public U.S. demands to expel officials and cancel contracts could provoke backlash and push Panama toward China. They contend the resolution overstates the evidence of Chinese control over canal operations, and that its call for a U.S.-Panama framework over canal operations could be read as questioning the 1977 treaties.
Constitutional context
The resolution is non-binding, so it rests on the Senate's role in foreign affairs and its Article II, Section 2 treaty role, and it creates no legal obligations. Treaty questions about the Neutrality Treaty are governed by the Treaty Clause and Medellín v. Texas (2008) on how treaties are enforced; any U.S. military action would still depend on Congress's war power and the Commander-in-Chief Clause.
Checks and balances
The Senate states a position without changing law, leaving the President with primary authority over diplomacy and Panama policy; Congress keeps its checks through appropriations, treaty consent, and war powers.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously passed non-binding resolutions urging foreign governments to act, and the Senate has ratified the Panama Canal treaties of 1977, but no directly analogous resolution urging Panama on port management is clear.