← Back to Latin America News

On January 30, Panama's Supreme Court ruled the port concessions granted to Hong Kong-linked CK Hutchison at Balboa and Cristóbal unconstitutional and void. Behind the decision was pressure from President Trump, who insists China controls the Panama Canal. Panama handed interim operation of both ports to Denmark's Maersk (APM Terminals) and to MSC-linked Terminal Investment of Switzerland. China called this a capitulation to Washington and moved to retaliate.

The number 70

The main method of retaliation was detaining Panama-flagged vessels at Chinese ports under the guise of safety inspections. The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) found that of 123 vessels detained at Chinese ports in March 2026, 91 were Panama-flagged, a level the FMC called far above the historical norm. A separate count put detentions at about 70 in March alone. Panama is the world's largest ship registry, so the effect reaches all of international shipping.

On April 29, the United States and six countries, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago, issued a joint statement criticizing China's economic retaliation. It is unusual for Latin American nations to line up with Washington on China, and that alone drew notice.

From containment to substitution

In a June 8 essay, Foreign Policy argued that strategic containment, aimed at shutting China out of Latin America entirely, is unrealistic and ends up backfiring. It offered instead strategic displacement. By giving the region more competitive options that do not lean on Chinese infrastructure, you thin out China's influence without forcing an either-or choice.

Panama's ports showed the early proof of this. Panama could let go of China's stake because Maersk and MSC stood ready to take it. Where nothing stands ready, the pressure to pick one side spins in place. Whether the region can ready substitutes across infrastructure, telecoms and energy is where the next round of the U.S.-China contest will turn.

Panama could let go of China's port stake because Maersk and MSC were there to take it. A country with no one ready has no such choice.

📚 Go deeper · Related books

Want to explore this topic further? Find related books on Amazon.

Find related books (Amazon) →

This article contains Amazon affiliate links. See our Privacy Policy for details.

References

※ This article is the author’s commentary based on public information. Please confirm the latest figures, dates and procedures with governments and primary sources. Quotations are kept minimal and sources are cited.