China accused the US of hypocrisy over maritime trade concerns tied to Panama port control—sparking another sharp exchange amid broader US-China rivalry in Latin America.
PANAMA CITY — China and the United States traded fresh accusations this week after Washington said Beijing was violating Panama’s sovereignty in a dispute involving port access and ships near the Panama Canal.
The latest round followed comments from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said the US stance was about defending “the sovereignty of our hemisphere,” as tensions continue to simmer over how Panama-flagged vessels are treated and where authority lies.
At the center of the dispute is an early-April flare-up in which Rubio accused China of “bullying” by detaining or delaying dozens of Panama-flagged ships, even if the hold was described as temporary.. The allegation was linked to Panama’s decision to seize control of two key ports earlier this year from a subsidiary tied to a Hong Kong-based company.. China denied the claims, insisting the US narrative distorts what happened.
On Tuesday, the US State Department issued a joint statement with several smaller regional partners—Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago—arguing that the move was a “blatant attempt to politicize maritime trade.” Washington said the group stands “in solidarity with Panama,” framing the issue as more than a commercial disagreement and positioning it as a matter of rights and regional independence.
China’s response came quickly.. Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, told reporters Wednesday that the US-led statements were “completely unfounded and distort reality.” He argued that the dispute cannot be separated from historical questions about control of the canal and interference in Panama’s sovereignty—an argument aimed at shifting blame away from Beijing and back toward the United States and its allies.
Lin Jian also described the US role in pushing the port and shipping matter into a security and political framing.. “The one who has politicized and securitized the issue of ports is the United States,” he said, underscoring China’s view that Washington is using the episode to widen a geopolitical contest rather than address a narrow operational disagreement.
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino weighed in as well, expressing appreciation for the “solidarity of friendly countries” regarding Panamanian-flagged vessels in Chinese ports.. At the same time, he appeared to reduce the temperature, saying Panama does not want to “engage in controversy” and values respectful relations with all nations.
That mix—support from outside partners paired with Panama’s desire to avoid a direct escalation—reflects the balancing act facing countries that sit at the crossroads of global shipping.. The Panama Canal is not just infrastructure; it’s a central artery for international trade, and port decisions can ripple outward to shipping schedules, commercial contracts, and diplomatic relations.. For Panama, even a short-term operational dispute can quickly become a political problem.
The timing also matters.. The confrontation comes as the US under President Donald Trump has adopted a more assertive posture toward Latin America than many administrations before it.. The broader environment includes pressure across multiple fronts in the region, from Venezuela to Cuba, as well as strong rhetoric around security and influence.. Within that context, disputes connected to maritime routes and canal-adjacent logistics become symbols—whether Washington and Beijing intend them to be or not.
Both sides are effectively signaling that the canal’s future governance and commercial access are inseparable from power politics.. For the US, the concern is that China’s growing presence in Latin America could reshape leverage in a place the US has long regarded as strategically important.. For China, the concern is that the US is using sovereignty language selectively while ignoring past and ongoing issues that China says favor US interests.
Rivalry behind the rhetoric over canal-linked ports
Panama’s position—caught between major powers—helps explain why language on both sides has hardened.. When the US calls the situation “maritime trade” but frames it as solidarity with Panama, it invites a legitimacy argument that can be hard to roll back.. When China responds by questioning sovereignty claims and pointing to earlier US actions, it turns the dispute into a broader dispute about international order.
Why the port dispute matters beyond Panama
For shipping companies, port authorities, and regional governments, the practical stakes are straightforward: access, delays, and control.. For diplomats, the stakes are political credibility—who is defending small and medium countries, and who is using trade as leverage.. And for the wider region, the risk is that commercial disagreements will keep getting filtered through great-power rivalry, making future coordination more difficult even when disputes are ostensibly technical.
In a system where the canal connects global supply chains, even limited disruptions can create pressure for governments to take sides.. Mulino’s call to avoid controversy suggests Panama wants room to negotiate, but the exchange between Beijing and Washington indicates that negotiation space may be tightening.
As the dispute lingers, the question is not only whether any ships are detained or delayed, but whether both superpowers will treat the incident as a solvable operational problem—or as another front in a competition over influence in Latin America and the pathways that define world trade.