Latin American leaders who choose to follow an independent US policy must be prepared for any reaction that might come from Washington. Currently, the greatest discontent for the White House is generated by the president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, which the US State Department says, is acting in an “extremely hostile” US policy front, some experts believe.
Short article, but IMO it’s a fairly accurate description of actual US policy towards Nicaragua and specifically the Grand Canal. Seems obvious that China owning a canal that’s actually closer and makes more economic sense to shippers to use than the Panama Canal won’t be welcomed in Washington.
The article makes a good point, that the environmental impact report directly contradicts the Obama administration’s argument. The EIR says that the canal will be viable in terms of nature conservation and water resources whereas the Whitehouse says that it will cause devastating effects of the channel on the ecology of the region.
Since the normal playbook used is to cause instability in countries and regions that don’t play along with the preferred scheme, we can expect more money to be put into the political opposition and there will be more protests.
There’s a journalist and political scientist named Igor Ignatiev who has been writing about this issue on some Russian journals such as Politikus.ru and based on Google translations, has some very interesting observations, including the following:
It is common, in general, the US strategy: Write in your region instability, shake the political situation, and thereby block the flow of investments from other countries. No one wants to invest money where it is not clear what will happen tomorrow. This, in my view, a clear signal to China not to rush to the financing and construction of the Nicaragua Canal.
I’ll let you, dear reader, come to your own conclusions. I just present this as an alternative to the mainstream media and think it’s important to get some perspective from other sources.