Russian media analysis: What conclusions can the international community draw from the situation at the Panama ports?

In January 2026, Panama’s Supreme Court ruled that the contract leasing the ports of Balboa and Cristóbal by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings was unconstitutional and therefore nullified. Subsequently, CK Hutchison filed a lawsuit against the Panamanian government demanding $2 billion in compensation.

Chaos and the Battle Over Assets

The partial outcome of the battle over Panama Canal assets has been mixed. While Beijing officially opposes politicizing and militarizing investments, from Washington’s perspective, the U.S. achieved a significant objective—driving a Chinese company out of the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal is the maritime chokepoint of the Western Hemisphere, through which approximately 5% of global maritime trade passes, including about 40% of U.S. container traffic. John Moolenaar, Chair of the U.S. House Committee on China, hailed the court ruling as "a victory for America." However, this decision became one of the main obstacles to a previously announced transaction between CK Hutchison and an investor group led by American investment firm BlackRock and the Italy-Swiss MSC Group. Under the proposed deal, the Hong Kong-based company had planned to sell most of its overseas port assets—including Balboa and Cristóbal ports—across 43 ports, for a total value of $23 billion. After losing control of the Panama Canal ports, negotiations continue regarding the company’s remaining 41 port assets. Yet Beijing’s stance has become another constraint: China has urged CK Hutchison to consider involving a Chinese investor (possibly COSCO Shipping) in the transaction.

As a result, the United States did not directly take control of the Panama Canal. Instead, during an 18-month transition period, the temporary operators of Balboa and Cristóbal ports were European firms—APM Terminals (a subsidiary of Denmark’s Maersk) and Terminal Investment Ltd. (a subsidiary of MSC). CK Hutchison has separately sued Maersk, accusing the Danish company of colluding with Panamanian authorities to seize its assets.

Panama: The Misfortune of a Small Power Playing Balancer

The situation in Panama illustrates that as long as at least one major player on the world stage adheres to zero-sum game logic, a small nation cannot remain neutral when it becomes a stage for geopolitical conflict. Panama’s leadership, like many other countries, once attempted to balance cooperation with the United States as a secondary partner while also accepting Chinese investment. However, under political pressure from Washington, Panama ultimately capitulated completely. To eliminate triggers and appease American anger, Panama sacrificed Chinese investors and symbolically withdrew from the Belt and Road Initiative. Yet these sacrifices are unlikely to yield returns. Although President José Raúl Mulino recently stated that Panama continues to maintain active engagement with China, the situation has inevitably damaged bilateral relations. In October last year, Mulino himself complained about U.S. pressure on Panamanian politicians, threatening to revoke their U.S. visas—a clear indication that siding with the U.S. does not guarantee dignity or peace. Meanwhile, reports alleging that Chinese ports have "detained" dozens of ships flying the Panamanian flag indirectly reflect Beijing’s dissatisfaction—though China’s Foreign Ministry denies these reports. In this context, the U.S. has criticized China, while Beijing counters by accusing Washington of hypocrisy.

Ultimately, Panama now faces an unpredictable U.S., an offended China, and a $2 billion lawsuit directed at itself. The harsh reality is that Panama likely had no real choice.

Implications for the U.S. and China

The Panama situation exemplifies Trumpism and can be seen as a tactical success for the current administration. However, in the long term, U.S. actions in Panama—especially when combined with other diplomatic moves (Venezuela, Iran, the blockade on Cuba, etc.)—have damaged its reputation, instilling fear and distrust among its partners. The chaos caused by U.S. actions has resulted in losses for most international trade and economic actors.

In contrast, China has avoided direct confrontation and adhered to rules, thereby establishing itself as a stable supporter and a flexible, convenient partner.

Yet the U.S. has made clear that in their world, rules are not designed for everyone. The fate of the Panama Canal ports, CK Hutchison’s other assets, Australia’s Darwin Port, and the experiences of numerous Chinese companies in the U.S. and Europe demonstrate that Chinese companies’ overseas assets and operations are vulnerable in geopolitical games. Conversely, in the absence of common rules applicable to all, and given China’s own avoidance of conflict and inability to provide protection guarantees, even neutral developing countries facing U.S. pressure will hesitate before partnering with Chinese entities. In today’s reality, without established temporary rules for competing with the U.S., in a constantly changing world, China must either reevaluate its approach to foreign investment or simply accept losses.

Source: sputniknews

Original: toutiao.com/article/1864333780560900/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.