Havana (CNN) – Secretary of State Marco Rubio soon embarks on his inaugural trip as the main diplomat of the United States. Its first stop in Panama could become the most controversial of the itinerary following the repeated demands of President Donald Trump to control the Panama Canal.
“Panamian sovereignty over the channel is clear. There is no discussion on this issue. The soul of a country is not under discussion, ”emphasized Panama President José Raúl Mulino, on Thursday, a few days before his meeting scheduled with Rubio.
However, the Trump administration does not seem to be letting this question pass. In his inauguration speech, Trump mentioned Panama six times, more than any other foreign country. The president and his republican allies are increasingly painting a dark scenario in which the Panama channel has secretly fell under Chinese military control – arguing that this is why the US needs to recover the Beijing Claws channel.
“A foreign power today has, through its companies, that we know not to be independent, the ability to transform the channel into a point of strangulation into a moment of conflict,” Rubio himself insisted during his Senate confirmation hearings this month.
“This is a direct threat to national interest and US security,” he added.
As sinister that all this seems, reality is not that direct. Here is a verification of the facts about the statements that Trump’s administration made about the Panama Canal.
Is the Panama channel under Chinese control?
Trump has long been complaining about the “bad deal” that Jimmy Carter did when he returned the channel to Panama in 1977. But he has increased rhetoric and falsehoods since the beginning of his second term.
“The promise Panama made us broken,” Trump said during his inauguration speech. “Above all, China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn’t give it to China, we gave Panama and we’re recovering it!”
In his social network Truth, Trump also stated – without proof – that Chinese soldiers were sent to the channel and that “Panama is very quickly trying to remove the 64% of signs that are written in Chinese. They are all over the area. ”
But the “zone” – an old American enclave next to the channel – has not existed since 1979.
And if the scenario Trump describes looks like the plot of a movie, well, it was. In the 2001 film “The Panama Tailor”, starring Pierce Brosnan and Geoffrey Rush, the US invade Panama after receiving false information that China is trying to secretly buy the channel.
In fact, since 2000, the channel has been managed by the authority of the Panama Canal, whose administrator, assistant administrator and board of directors of 11 members are selected by the Panama government, but function independently.
Most channel employees are Panamianos and Panama designates companies to whom port management contracts are awarded with the channel. Ships that move around the 50 -mile channel have to be piloted by local captains working for the channel’s authority.
Although there is a real concern about increasing Chinese investment in Latin America, including Panama, to date there is no evidence of Chinese military activity in Panama. At its press conference on Thursday, Mulino said the US government has not yet provided its administration any proof that Chinese control the channel.
Aerial view of the Panama Canal in the Pedro Miguel Eclusas Area, in Panama City, on December 13, 2022. Luis Acosta/AFP/Getty Images
What does Rubio mean “a foreign power” on the Panama Canal?
The Trump administration seems to be pointing to the fact that Panama Ports – part of a subsidiary of the Hong Kong -based CK Hutchison Holdings – operating terminals on the channel’s Atlantic and Pacific sides. The same happens with several other companies.
The concession of the two ports was assigned to Hutchinson in 1997, when Panama and the United States jointly run the channel. That same year, Hong Kong’s control – where Hutchinson has its headquarters – has been transferred from the United Kingdom to China.
Although under Beijing’s sphere of influence, Hutchison is not an obscure Chinese military company. It is quoted in the stock market, not in any black list of the US and its branch Hutchinson Ports is one of the largest port operators in the world, overseeing 53 ports in 24 countries, including other US allies, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the Canada.
Most importantly, Hutchinson does not control access to the Panama channel. The workers of their two ports are limited to carrying and discharging containers on ships and fuel them. And they are not the only ones – three other ports near the channel are operated by competing companies that provide similar services.
Since Trump’s comments, the Panama government has announced an audit to the ports of Panama, owned by Hutchison. The company claims that it is fully fulfilling its obligations and even invited Rubio to visit its ports.
“An invitation to the Secretary of State was made to visit our terminals in Panama during his scheduled trip to the country,” Hutchison Porte spokesman Anthony Tam said in an email sent to CNN.
The State Department declined to comment if Rubio planned to accept the invitation to visit what the Trump administration described – incorrectly – as a de facto Chinese military post in Panama.
Does the US have any legal legitimacy to confiscate the Panama Canal?
Under the 1977 Treaty with Panama, the US returned the channel with the understanding that the navigable road would remain neutral.
Under the agreement, the US could militarily intervene if channel operations were disturbed by internal conflict or foreign power. It seems to be that Trump is referring when threatening “taking the channel back.”
But it would be difficult to argue that navigable road operations are disturbed or in danger. Following the expansion of the channel, which began in 2007 and funded by Panama at a cost of over $ 5 billion, passes the channel plus cargo than ever passed during the years of American administration.
An American occupation of the channel would be contrary to international law and the treaty with which the US agreed.
Ok, but theoretically what would happen if the US tried to take the Panama channel?
Since the 1989 American invasion, which has deposed dictator Manuel Noriega, Panama has no army, but the Panamians fiercely protect the channel, which is fundamental to their national identity. And despite the noise of saber from Trump administration, trying to force the issue would bring major complications to two other major US priorities: migration and the economy.
The channel is not the only critical passage Panama controls. Militarly threatening Panama could open Darien’s breach, the jungle passage where hundreds of thousands of migrants make their way from South America to the US.
Mulino had promised to close the pit to the migrants who go north with Trump’s help – but do not count on him to honor old commitments if US boots play on Panamian soil.
Americans would also feel the impact. At least 25,000 US citizens live in Panama and would probably be endangered by any US military action to take the channel. The interruption of channel operations probably fires the prices of US products, from cars to tennis – about 40% of US container traffic is navigable.
And of course, giving up a decades agreement and trying to recover the canal by force of an ally would be an advertising gold mine for Russia and China, which both appealed to the maintenance of neutrality on the channel.
Any US military action would also further ignite tensions in Latin America, where mass deportations have already tested Washington’s partnerships in the region.
Trump’s dream of raising an American flag over the Panama channel would cost much higher than it seems to have calculated.
