Tensions Rise as Rubio Prepares for Inaugural Visit to Panama Amid Trump’s Push for Canal Control

Introduction: Rubio’s Diplomatic Mission and the Panama Canal Dispute

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to embark on his first official trip as the United States’ top diplomat, with Panama being his initial stop. However, this visit is fraught with tension, primarily due to President Donald Trump’s relentless demands for U.S. control over the Panama Canal. Trump’s rhetoric has sparked a heated debate, with Panama asserting its sovereignty and rejecting any discussions about the canal’s ownership. Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino, has been unequivocal, stating, “Panamanian sovereignty over the canal is clear. There is no discussion on this issue. The soul of a country is not up for discussion.” Despite this, the Trump administration continues to escalate the narrative, claiming that the canal has fallen under Chinese military influence, a scenario Panama vehemently denies.

Rubio, during his Senate confirmation hearings, echoed Trump’s concerns, arguing that foreign powers could potentially exploit the canal as a strategic chokepoint, posing a direct threat to U.S. national security. These claims, however, are not supported by concrete evidence, and Panama has invited Rubio to visit the canal during his trip to see the operations firsthand. The situation underscores a deeper geopolitical struggle, with the U.S. seeking to reassert its influence in a region where China’s economic presence has grown significantly.

The Trump Administration’s Narrative: A Mix of Facts and Fiction

At the heart of the Trump administration’s argument is the assertion that China has secretly gained control of the Panama Canal through its investments in the region. Trump has repeatedly referenced this claim, even going so far as to suggest that Chinese soldiers are deployed at the canal and that Panama is trying to remove Chinese signage from the area. These allegations, however, are baseless. The former “Canal Zone,” an American enclave, ceased to exist in 1979, and there is no evidence of Chinese military activity in Panama.

The 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties, signed during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, transferred ownership of the canal to Panama, with the U.S. retaining the right to intervene militarily only if the canal’s neutrality is compromised. Trump has criticized this agreement as a “bad deal” and claims that Panama has broken its promises to the U.S. In his inaugural speech, he declared, “Panama’s promise to us has been broken,” and erroneously stated, “China is operating the Panama Canal.” These claims are reminiscent of the 2001 film The Tailor of Panama, where the U.S. invades Panama based on false intelligence about Chinese influence.

In reality, the Panama Canal Authority, an autonomous Panamanian agency, has operated the waterway since 2000. The majority of its employees are Panamanian, and the organization is responsible for selecting contractors and overseeing operations. While Chinese companies, such as Hutchison Ports, a subsidiary of the Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, manage terminals near the canal, their role is limited to logistics and does not involve military or strategic control.

The Role of Chinese Investment and the Trump Administration’s Misconceptions

The Trump administration has pointed to the involvement of Hutchison Ports as evidence of Chinese military influence over the Panama Canal. Hutchison Ports, which operates terminals on both sides of the canal, was granted its concession in 1997, when Panama and the U.S. jointly administered the waterway. The company is a global port operator with a presence in 24 countries, including U.S. allies such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. It is not a secret military front but a publicly traded entity with no known ties to Chinese military activities.

Panama’s government has announced an audit of Hutchison Ports in response to Trump’s claims, with the company stating it is fully cooperating. The invitation extended to Rubio to visit Hutchison’s facilities remains unanswered, suggesting the U.S. may be unwilling to engage with the evidence that contradicts its narrative. Contrary to Trump’s claims, there is no indication that China has the ability to disrupt the canal’s operations or use it for military purposes. The Panama Canal Authority has operated efficiently since 2000, with record levels of cargo traffic following a major expansion completed in 2016.

Legal and Historical Context: The 1977 Treaty and the Limits of U.S. Intervention

The 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties form the legal basis for Panama’s sovereignty over the canal. Under the terms of the treaties, the U.S. agreed to transfer ownership of the canal to Panama, with the stipulation that it would remain a neutral waterway open to all nations. The treaties also granted the U.S. the right to intervene militarily if the canal’s operations were disrupted by internal conflict or foreign interference. Trump has cited this provision as justification for his calls to “take back” the canal, claiming that Chinese influence constitutes a threat to U.S. interests.

However, the reality does not support this narrative. The Panama Canal Authority has maintained the waterway’s neutrality and efficiency, and there is no evidence of disruption or foreign control. Any attempt by the U.S. to seize the canal would be a clear violation of international law and the principles of sovereignty enshrined in the 1977 treaties. Panama has made it clear that it will not tolerate any infringement on its sovereignty, and the U.S. would face widespread condemnation from the international community if it were to act unilaterally.

The Broader Implications for U.S. Interests: Migration, the Economy, and Geopolitical Fallout

While the Trump administration’s focus on the Panama Canal may be driven by geopolitical concerns, any U.S. military action or diplomatic pressure aimed at reclaiming the waterway would have far-reaching consequences that extend beyond Panama. For one, it could destabilize the region and undermine U.S. partnerships in Latin America, where trust in American leadership is already fragile due to policies on migration and trade.

Panama plays a critical role in managing the Darién Gap, a jungle border between Panama and Colombia through which hundreds of thousands of migrants pass each year on their way to the U.S. President Mulino had initially expressed willingness to work with the Trump administration to address migration, but any U.S. aggression over the canal would likely lead Panama to abandon this cooperation, potentially opening the floodgates for more migrants.

Additionally, U.S. citizens and businesses would bear the brunt of any conflict. Panama is home to at least 25,000 American expatriates, who would be put in danger by military action. The canal itself is a vital trade artery, with 40% of U.S. container traffic passing through it. Disrupting its operations would lead to significant economic consequences, including higher prices for goods such as automobiles, electronics, and apparel.

Panama’s Stand: Sovereignty and the Rejection of U.S. Pressure

Panama has made it clear that it will not compromise on the issue of the canal’s sovereignty. President Mulino has emphasized that the canal is central to Panama’s national identity and that any foreign attempt to seize it would be met with fierce resistance. Panama’s resilience is rooted in its history, including the 1989 U.S. invasion that overthrew dictator Manuel Noriega. Since then, Panama has focused on building a stable democracy and a robust economy, with the canal as its crown jewel.

The Trump administration’s claims about Chinese control have been met with skepticism, not only in Panama but also internationally. Both Russia and China have called for the canal to remain neutral, framing the U.S. push for control as a violation of international norms. Panama has also underscored that it is capable of managing its own affairs, including overseeing the operations of foreign companies like Hutchison Ports.

In conclusion, while the Trump administration’s rhetoric has sparked alarm, the reality is that the Panama Canal remains a neutral and efficient waterway under Panamanian control. Rubio’s visit presents an opportunity to reset relations and address legitimate concerns about Chinese investment in the region. However, any attempt to undermine Panama’s sovereignty would have significant and far-reaching consequences for U.S. interests, both in the region and globally.