Havana
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s inaugural trip includes a stop in Panama, where he will meet with President José Raúl Mulino. However, the visit may prove to be contentious due to President Donald Trump’s repeated demands for control of the Panama Canal, which he claims has fallen under Chinese military control.
Panama’s Mulino has emphasized that his country’s sovereignty over the canal is non-negotiable and that there is no evidence to support the claim that China has taken control of the waterway. The U.S. administration, on the other hand, has been painting a dire scenario where the canal has fallen under Chinese control and must be seized back.
However, a fact-check reveals that many of the claims made by the Trump administration are misleading or false. For instance, the administration claims that Panama’s promise to the U.S. has been broken, and that China is operating the canal and attempting to take down signs written in Chinese. However, the reality is that the Panama Canal Authority is an independent entity that operates the canal, and there is no evidence of Chinese military activity in Panama.
The U.S. administration has also pointed to the fact that Panama Ports, a subsidiary of the Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings, operates terminals on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal. However, this is not evidence of Chinese control, as the company is publicly traded and not known to be on any U.S. blacklists.
Despite the Trump administration’s rhetoric, there is no evidence of Chinese military activity in Panama. The canal is operated by the Panama Canal Authority, which is responsible for selecting contractors, including Hutchison, to run the ports near the canal. The majority of the canal’s employees are Panamanian, and ships transiting the 50-mile-long canal are required to be piloted by local captains who work for the Canal Authority.
The U.S. has no legal standing to seize the Panama Canal, as the 1977 treaty with Panama emphasizes the waterway’s neutrality. Under the agreement, the U.S. may intervene militarily if the canal’s operations are disrupted by internal conflict or foreign power, but this is not the case. Seizing the canal would also fly in the face of international law and the treaty the U.S. agreed to.