President Defies US on Chinese Canal Influence

Panama City — Panama's President has instructed the country's Foreign Minister to refrain from discussing the US government's allegations of Chinese interference in the operations of the Panama Canal with the visiting head of US Southern Command, Admiral Alvin Holsey.

The comments came after a statement from the US Embassy in Panama mentioned that one of the agenda items for Admiral Holsey's visit would be discussing "efforts to protect the canal area from Chinese Communist Party influence & control." The Chinese Embassy in Panama quickly responded, stating that China has "never participated in the management nor operation of the Panama Canal" and calling allegations by the Trump administration that China controls the canal “pure lies.”

The Chinese Embassy also accused the US government of trying to "sabotage" relations between China and Panama. However, President Laurentino Cortizo, also known as Nito Cortizo or simply "Nito", expressed exasperation over the persistence of the issue, stating, “We are not going to speak of lies... For the love of God.”

Earlier, President Cortizo tried to calm the situation with a post on the social platform X, writing, "The bilateral agenda with the US is important and relevant... However, for Panama, that does not mean analyzing situations that aren't true." He emphasized that Panama would not discuss issues that are not based in reality.

Meanwhile, Admiral Holsey met with the Panama Canal's administrator to discuss its strategic importance. The admiral's visit comes after Secretary of State Marco Rubio's visit to Panama earlier this month. US concerns focus on a Hong Kong-based consortium that runs port facilities at either end of the canal. Panama has stated that the consortium's 25-year extension to run the ports is being audited.

The US-built canal was relinquished to Panama on December 31, 1999, under a treaty signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. Former US President Donald Trump has complained that US warships are charged for transiting the canal while also being obligated to protect it.