Beijing has accused Washington of running a smear campaign over China’s ownership of two ports at the Panama Canal.
The United States announced a six‑nation coalition – comprising Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago – to pressure China to divest its interests in the Balboa and Cristóbal ports. The coalition’s statement said the move was necessary to protect Panama’s sovereignty and to keep the Western Hemisphere free from “undue external pressure.”
Washington’s position follows a January ruling by Panama’s Supreme Court that annulled contracts held by a subsidiary of Hong Kong‑based CK Hutchison Holdings for the two terminals. The court’s decision, which the United States has endorsed, effectively ends the Chinese‑controlled concession that has been in place for nearly three decades. CK Hutchison has contested the ruling, claiming unlawful expropriation and initiating international arbitration seeking more than $2 billion in damages.
China’s foreign ministry rejected the U.S. allegations as “baseless” and accused Washington of politicising the issue. Spokesman Lin Jian said the United States was “over‑securitising” the ports, spreading rumors and smears, and urged the involved countries not to be “deceived or used by forces with ulterior motives.” He maintained that the inspections of the ports were lawful.
The dispute reflects a broader pattern of U.S. efforts to limit Chinese presence in Latin America. The 2022 U.S. National Security Strategy identified non‑Western “competitors” as potential threats to critical infrastructure in the region. Former President Donald Trump previously warned that China was “operating the Panama Canal” and pledged to “take it back.”
Panama’s government has not yet announced a response to the coalition’s statement, but the Supreme Court decision signals a shift toward greater scrutiny of foreign‑controlled assets. The outcome of CK Hutchison’s arbitration could set a precedent for other Chinese investments in the hemisphere.
The situation underscores ongoing tensions over strategic assets and highlights the interplay between sovereignty concerns and global trade routes. Further diplomatic and legal developments are expected as the parties navigate the dispute.
