Recently, Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino firmly dismissed claims made by US President-elect Donald Trump, asserting there are no Chinese soldiers controlling the Panama Canal. During a news conference, Mulino described Trump's statements as 'nonsense.' He insisted, 'You are free, the whole world is free to visit the canal if you please.'
The controversy ignited on Christmas Day when Trump, via Truth Social, sarcastically extended festive wishes to the 'wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal.' He accused Panama of 'ripping off' the United States and suggested it was unfair for the US to be spending 'billions of dollars' on maintenance without having any say in the operation of the canal.
Mulino stressed, 'The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable,' asserting Panama's rightful ownership and management of the canal, which is recognized as a pivotal trade route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Trump's criticisms of foreign policy are not new. His comments follow other controversial statements, including the suggestion of US ownership of Greenland. Likewise, he has previously criticized Canada and Mexico over trade and immigration policies, even mockingly proposing Canada could become the 51st US state.
Addressing the recent claims, Mulino emphasized, 'There are no Chinese on the canal. It's as simple as all of this. Neither the Chinese nor any other power are present within the channel.' He noted any Chinese presence would most likely stem from tourists or cruise ship passengers, rather than any operational involvement.
While there is a Hong Kong-based firm operating two ports near the canal entrances, Mulino was clear: 'There is absolutely no Chinese interference or participation in anything related to the Panama Canal.' This statement aimed to clarify misunderstanding about foreign influence, especially highlighting the firm’s role does not indicate control over the canal.
The Panama Canal has significant historical and economic value, having been under US control until 1977 when the Torrijos-Carter Treaties transferred authority to Panama. Since then, the canal has operated exclusively under Panamanian authority, which Mulino proudly reaffirmed.
By spotlighting this situation, the controversy also exemplifies Trump's broader narrative around foreign dominance and perceived inequalities. His comments hint at underlying fears of foreign influence within US interests, especially relating to strategic assets like the Panama Canal.
Mulino's resolute stance reinforces not only Panama's sovereignty but also serves as a reminder of the historical tensions between the US and Latin American countries. Here, the exchange highlights not only geopolitical dynamics but the importance of respectful diplomatic communication.
This incident may trigger more discussions surrounding the US involvement and the changing nature of diplomacy under the new administration. It invites questions about how future leaders will respond to similar narratives and whether this will affect international finance and trade relations as countries navigate their respective roles.
Overall, this spat between Trump and Mulino not only reflects the specifics of the Panama Canal but also serves as microcosm of larger themes pertaining to sovereignty, foreign influence, and the complex undertaking of international relations.
