The United States and five Latin American countries signed a joint statement on April 28 in which they reject the “flagrant attempts to politicize maritime trade” by China, following the increase in inspections of Panamanian-flagged ships by the Asian giant. Why is Washington undertaking the defense of Panama, a year after threatening to regain control of the canal?

First modification: 04/29/2026 - 04:47 Last modification: 04/30/2026 - 00:13

China's maritime pressure on Panamanian-flagged ships was finally met on April 28 with opposition from the United States, which signed a statement along with five other countries on the continent, in which it defends the sovereignty of the Isthmus nation over the canal through which 5% of world trade transits.

The document, which was also signed by Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago, notes: “We are carefully monitoring the targeted economic pressure from China and the recent actions that have affected Panamanian-flagged vessels.”

To display this YouTube content, you must allow advertising and audience measurement cookies.

An extension on your browser appears to be blocking the video player from loading. In order to view this content, you must disable it on this site.

The text attributes the actions to retaliation "after the decision of the independent Supreme Court of Panama on the Balboa and Cristóbal terminals" and adds that they "constitute a flagrant attempt to politicize maritime trade and violate the sovereignty of the nations of our hemisphere."

The signatories add: “Any attempt to undermine Panama's sovereignty poses a threat to all of us” and add that the Isthmus nation's position as “a pillar of our maritime trade system” must be kept “free from any undue external pressure.”

The US position comes a little more than a year after President Donald Trump threatened to reverse the return of control of the Canal to Panama, to push for the annulment of growing Chinese influence over the interoceanic passage.

The reason for the change in position of the White House, which is now concerned about respect for Panamanian sovereignty, is due to pressure from the Asian giant that is affecting US maritime trade.

In response, the president of Panama, José Raúl Mulino, thanked the "friendly countries" on Wednesday, April 29, for the solidarity expressed.

To display this content from X (Twitter), you must allow audience measurement and advertising cookies.

"I appreciate the solidarity of friendly countries regarding the problem faced by Panamanian ships in Chinese ports. Our decisions are based on a ruling of the Supreme Court as an independent body of the State. We do not want controversies since we value respectful relations with all nations," the ruler wrote on his X account.

Read alsoThe Panama Canal, the big winner of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz

China: "A misleading statement"

Also on Wednesday, China's Foreign Ministry called the group of countries' statement "completely baseless and misleading," accused the United States of politicizing the ports and said it would take measures to safeguard China's interests in Panama.

"China also urges relevant countries not to be deceived or exploited by malevolent forces," added Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian.

End of almost 30 years of concession

It all began on January 30, when the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama annulled a contract through which the Panama Ports Company (PPC), part of the multimillion-dollar conglomerate CK Hutchison of Hong Kong, managed the ports of Balboa, in the Pacific Ocean, and Cristóbal, in the Atlantic entrance.

The agreement had been renewed continuously since 1997, but in its ruling the highest Panamanian court considered it “unconstitutional” due to its “disproportionate inclination in favor of the company” that was “detrimental to the State coffers.”

The ruling added that the last renewal had been done automatically, without review by the Comptroller's Office and without a renegotiation that adjusted to the new dimensions of the Panamanian port sector.

The judicial decision, which analysts relate to pressure from Washington to reduce Chinese influence over the administration of the canal, came at a time when CK Hutchinson had already decided to give up its participation and was negotiating it with an American consortium.

The Hong Kong company had already announced the sale of 90% of its shares in the PPC to the asset manager BlackRock, in a negotiation that included another 43 ports under its administration in 23 countries and whose value amounted to $22.8 billion.

The management, of course, was frustrated when the contract was declared invalid and the spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Guo Jiakun, announced that it would take "all necessary measures to resolutely protect the legitimate rights and interests" of companies in his country.

Although CK Hutchinson is not a state company, but private capital, it is subject to the supervision of Beijing, which had initially questioned the approaches with BlackRock, but later promised action to repudiate the ruling that ended the administration of the channel ports.

Read alsoTrump praises the 'reconquest' of the Panama Canal and the Panamanian president denounces his words

A range of repudiation actions

The Chinese reaction included fighting on several fronts. The PPC sued the Panama Maritime Authority for damages before the International Chamber of Commerce, based in Paris, demanding compensation of 2 billion dollars for the losses that the judicial decision caused it.

In response, the Panamanian entity denounced in a statement that the CFP had left the ports in a "significant deterioration" far from "the best practices and required international standards."

For its part, the Isthmus Comptroller's Office reported that it stopped receiving some 1.2 billion dollars that the Hong Kong company had to pay it for its operating license.

Additionally, China demanded that the Danish shipping company Maersk and the Italian-Swiss MSC suspend their operations in the ports of Panama with immediate effect, as reported in mid-April by the British newspaper 'Financial Times', urging them to respect "commercial ethics and international standards."

The order was prompted by President José Raúl Mulino's announcement that U.S. subsidiaries of those European companies would assume temporary control of the two ports previously managed by the PPC.

But China went beyond rhetoric, as denounced in a statement by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) of the United States, which accused Asian authorities of affecting "global conditions of maritime transport" by increasing "detentions of Panamanian-flagged vessels in Chinese ports under the pretext of port state control."

According to the FMC, the inspections “were carried out under informal guidelines and appear intended to punish Panama following the transfer of Hutchison port assets.”

On that occasion, the Commission declared itself directly affected by Chinese retaliation, due to the fact that "vessels flying the Panama flag carry a significant part of US trade in containers."

Now, the joint statement signed in defense of Panamanian sovereignty over the canal, which was published by the State Department, reflects an institutional escalation on the issue in Washington.

Read alsoThe sovereignty of the Panama Canal: another crossroads of the rivalry between China and the US.

With Reuters and local media

Related keywords

The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.