US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued a stern demand to Panama, calling for "immediate changes" to curb what he perceives as China's growing influence over the Panama Canal. This is a key moment, not just in the relationship between the two nations, but in the broader geopolitical dynamics involving China and the United States. Rubio’s warning centers on the idea that the United States may need to take action to protect its interests, particularly its rights under an agreement between the two countries.
This bold statement comes in the wake of President Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about retaking the Panama Canal, raising tensions and sparking fresh debates. Rubio’s comments followed a significant meeting with Panama's conservative president, Jose Raul Mulino, in Panama City. The two men held a two-hour discussion that seemed to end with diverging interpretations of the situation. Mulino, on one hand, downplayed the threat of US military force, suggesting that the US should initiate talks at a technical level to address concerns regarding China's influence. But even as Mulino downplayed the possibility of military action, protests erupted in Panama City, signaling widespread discontent with the notion of American intervention.
Protests in Panama have intensified, with demonstrators burning effigies of Trump and Rubio, a dramatic display of the nation’s anger. Though the protests were relatively small in scale, they have reflected the deep-seated feelings of resentment towards US involvement in Panama’s sovereignty, especially given the country’s history of control over the canal. The sight of riot police using tear gas to disperse demonstrators further underscored the volatile atmosphere in the country.
On Thursday, Mulino made it clear that discussions about the ownership of the canal were not on the table. "The canal belongs to Panama," he firmly stated, making it clear that Panama would not entertain any discussions about the canal’s sovereignty. He reiterated that the 1979 treaty, which initiated the handover process and culminated in Panama assuming full control in 1999, was a binding agreement. Under that treaty, the US and Panama agreed that the waterway would remain neutral, with Panama retaining full control, but the US still maintaining certain rights related to its operations.
Trump’s remarks about the canal, however, were far from grounded in facts. He claimed that Chinese soldiers were operating at the canal—a baseless assertion—and also suggested that American ships were being unfairly charged higher fees than ships from other nations, despite such practices being illegal under the treaty. The canal, in fact, is entirely owned and operated by the Panamanian government, and the neutrality treaty ensures that no nation can lay claim to it for military or other aggressive purposes.
Despite these inaccuracies, it’s true that Chinese companies have made significant investments in ports and terminals near the canal. For example, a Hong Kong-based company operates two of the five ports located near the canal entrances. These investments have raised suspicions within the US government about China’s growing influence in a strategically important location, especially as China is viewed by some as a rising global power.
For many Panamanians, the idea of revisiting the past US control over the canal is deeply offensive. "It’s ridiculous," says Mari, a resident of Panama City who spoke to the BBC. "There’s a treaty that he has to respect, and there’s nothing in the treaty that says we cannot have ports run by the Chinese." For Mari and many others, the presence of Chinese investment in Panama is not inherently troubling, especially given that similar investments have been made in US ports and cities. The real issue for them is the notion of returning to a time when the United States controlled the canal zone with little regard for Panamanian sovereignty.
Mari reflects on the painful memories of the past when Panama was under US control of the canal zone. "We could not cross into the canal zone without being arrested if we didn’t follow all the American rules. The minute you stepped across that border, you were in the United States," she recalls. "We had no rights within our own country, and we will not put up with that again. We are very insulted by Trump’s words." These sentiments are common among older generations who remember the harsh realities of US dominance in the region, and they reflect a deep pride in Panama’s newfound autonomy.
The fear of another US military intervention is also palpable. Trump's refusal to rule out military action has stirred uncomfortable memories of the 1989 US invasion of Panama, a bloody conflict that resulted in the toppling of General Manuel Noriega. Former Panamanian congressman Edwin Cabrera, who lived through the invasion, shared his fear of reliving such traumatic events. "I wouldn’t like to live that again in the 21st Century, relive the imperial experience," he said. "Panama is in the middle of war between two powers, the USA and China, while we are looking at the sky." This lingering fear of imperialism is a sentiment that has gained traction among many Panamanians, as they feel caught in the crossfire of the US-China power struggle.
At the heart of these tensions is the growing concern over China’s influence in the region. Marco Rubio, known for his hawkish stance on Chinese investment, has been vocal about the potential risks of China using its interests in Panama to block US merchant or military vessels in the event of a conflict. "If China wanted to obstruct traffic in the Panama Canal, they could. That’s a fact," Rubio warned in a recent interview on The Megyn Kelly Show. This assertion underscores the United States’ anxiety over Chinese influence in such a critical global chokepoint. Rubio’s visit to Panama was not just about diplomatic engagement—it was a signal that the US administration is unwilling to stand by as China strengthens its grip on the canal’s surrounding infrastructure.
Despite the tensions, some Panamanians feel that their country is not benefiting as much as it should from the canal’s operations. Andre Howell, a hotel worker in Panama City, lamented that profits from the canal were not being properly channeled to ordinary Panamanians. "What you see here - that the United States and Donald Trump want to take back the canal - that’s what we call cause and effect," he said. "They’re not administrating the Panama Canal the right way... No Panamanians have [the] benefits." This sentiment reflects broader frustrations about the lack of economic development in certain sectors of Panamanian society despite the country’s control over the canal.
In the end, the situation around the Panama Canal is far more than just a dispute between two nations; it’s a reminder of the broader global power struggles and the complexities of international diplomacy. For Panama, the canal is not just a vital economic asset—it’s a symbol of sovereignty and national pride. For the US, it represents a strategic lifeline. But for both nations, the challenge lies in finding a way to navigate these waters without upsetting the delicate balance that has allowed the canal to serve its crucial role for decades.
The stakes are high, and the future of the canal—and the relationship between Panama and the US—will be determined by the choices both nations make in the coming months. Will Panama hold firm to its independence, or will external pressures force it to reconsider its ties to China? Only time will tell, but one thing is clear: the waters surrounding the Panama Canal are becoming increasingly choppy, and how both countries navigate them will shape the course of history.
Login