It is a fine article, but I am wounded for all the obvious self-indulgent reasons. Hey, I get calls, but still, Mr. Plumer. Carlos and I quite literally wrote the book on the economic history of Isthmian canals.
The article gets one historical detail wrong: fear of volcanoes did not scuttle U.S. plans for a Nicaragua Canal. It is true that volcanoes were used as one of the talking points to approve the Panama route, but it was not determinative. Goddammit, I get no respect from these young folks.
It also only avers that the Canal might be a financial boondoggle. I have numbers, available upon request. (They have already been passed on, so feel free.)
And it fails to present evidence that the Canal is likely a Trojan Horse for other projects, which is a big detail to miss in an explainer. Nor is there anything about the concession itself, save a mention that it is for 50 years. (HKND will in fact have a unilateral option for 100.)
I get to post this picture from ‘09, though, so not all bad. And the article really does a good job of covering most of the issues, so go read.
Comments