The Panama Canal, a historic artery of global trade, is once again at the center of a geopolitical storm. As U.S. Senator Marco Rubio engaged in high-level discussions with Panamanian officials, the Trump administration is pushing for stronger American influence over the canal, citing concerns about China's deepening presence. The diplomatic confrontation signals a broader shift in Washington’s foreign policy—one that views critical infrastructure as a frontline in the great-power competition with Beijing.
For decades, the Panama Canal has embodied strategic neutrality. The Carter-Torrijos Treaty of 1977 guaranteed its transfer to Panamanian control in 1999, with the understanding that it would remain free from political entanglement. But under the Trump administration’s new foreign policy doctrine, neutrality is no longer enough. President Donald Trump has publicly suggested that the U.S. should consider “taking back” control of the canal if Panama fails to curb China’s influence. His comments have sent ripples through diplomatic circles, raising fears of a return to 20th-century interventionism.
“The status quo is unacceptable,” Rubio declared during his meeting in Panama City. “The United States cannot afford to let China compromise one of the most vital maritime corridors in the world.” The source of Washington’s alarm is Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, which operates key ports at the Pacific and Atlantic entrances of the canal. The U.S. intelligence community has warned that such control, though technically commercial, could provide China with strategic leverage over global trade flows.
Beijing has spent years expanding its footprint in Latin America, pouring billions into infrastructure projects under its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Panama signed onto the BRI in 2017, a decision that former Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela hailed as a move toward economic diversification. But under mounting U.S. pressure, newly elected President José Raúl Mulino now appears to be reconsidering that commitment. “Panama is a sovereign nation, and we will make decisions in our best interests,” Mulino stated in a press briefing following his meeting with Rubio. However, he also hinted that the country is reviewing its agreements with Chinese firms.
With China entrenched in the region, Washington’s strategy appears to rely on economic and diplomatic coercion rather than direct intervention. The U.S. has floated new investment deals aimed at countering China’s economic influence, proposing infrastructure projects that would rival those funded by Beijing. At the same time, Washington is subtly signaling that failure to comply with its demands could have consequences. The U.S. exerts significant influence over the Panamanian economy, particularly in the banking sector, where the dollar is the country’s official currency. By leveraging economic pressure, the Trump administration may be laying the groundwork for a forced pivot away from China.
Caught between two superpowers, Panama faces a difficult balancing act. China remains its largest customer for canal traffic, while the U.S. is its biggest security partner. Any decision to roll back Chinese influence could have economic repercussions, but failure to appease Washington could invite even greater consequences. The broader implications of this power struggle are clear: the Panama Canal is no longer just a waterway—it is a battleground in the fight for global supremacy. What was once a symbol of international cooperation is now a litmus test for how the world will navigate an era of rising tensions between Washington and Beijing.
For now, the canal remains in Panamanian hands. But as history has shown, sovereignty over this vital passage has never been permanent—and in today’s geopolitical climate, nothing can be taken for granted.
Comments