Does foreign power threaten the Panama Canal? Important information

rubios warnings and national security

"A foreign power has today about your companies, which we know that you are not independent, the opportunity to make the channel a bottleneck at the moment of a conflict," Rubio insisted during his confirmation lists in the Senate this month.

"This is a direct threat to the national interest and the security of the United States," he added.

fact check for the claims about the Panama Canal

so threatening that sounds, the reality is not that easy. Here are some facts about the claims that the Trump administration has set up via the Panama Canal.

is the Panama Canal under Chinese control?

Trump has long complained about the "bad deal" that Jimmy Carter made when he handed over the channel back to Panama in 1977. But since the beginning of his second term, he has reinforced rhetoric and false statements.

"Panama's promise to us was broken," said Trump during his inaugural speech. "Above all, China runs the Panama Canal, and we didn't give it to China, we gave him Panama and we'll get it back!"

The truth about the control of the channel

On his Truth Social platform, Trump also claimed-without evidence-that Chinese soldiers were sent to the channel and that “Panama tries to dismantle 64% of the signage that is written in Chinese at great speed. They are everywhere in the zone.” But the "zone" - once an American enclave on the channel - has not existed since 1979.

In reality, the channel has been operated by the Panama Canal Authority since 2000, whose administrator, deputy administrator and the 11-member board of directors are selected by the Panama government, but act independently.

The majority of the employees on the canal are determined by Panamais and Panama, with which the contracts for the management of the ports near the channel are withered. For the ships that pass the 50 miles long channel, it is mandatory to be directed by local captains who work for the sewer authority.

Current investments and Chinese military activities

Although there are real concerns about the increased Chinese investments in Latin America, including Panama, there has been no evidence of China's military activities in Panama. At his press conference on Thursday, Mulino said that the US government has so far not proven his administration to evidence of Chinese control of the canal.

What does Rubios refer to 'a foreign power'?

The Trump administration seems to point out the fact that Panama Ports- a subsidiary of the Hong Kong Ck Hutchison Holdings- terminals on the Atlantic and Pacific side of the channel operates. The same applies to several other companies.

The role of Hutchison at the port companies

Hutchison received the concession for the two ports when Panama and the USA managed the canal together. This year the control over Hong Kong - headquarters of Hutchison - was transferred from the United Kingdom to China.

Although Hutchison is in the area of influence in Beijings, it is not a non -transparent Chinese military front. The company is listed, not as part of a US block list and its subsidiary Hutchison Ports is one of the largest port operators in the world that manages 53 ports in 24 countries, including other US allies such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.

It is important that Hutchison does not control access to the Panama Canal. The employees at their two ports only invite containers to ships and refuel them. And they are not the only ones - three other ports near the channel are operated by competing companies that offer similar services.

legality of a possible US control

Under the contract with Panama signed in 1977, the channel was returned, provided that the waterway remains neutral. According to the contract, the United States could intervene militarily if the operation of the channel is disrupted by internal conflicts or foreign power. This seems to be what Trump alludes into when he threatens to "bring back the channel".

theoretical implications of a US invasion

But it would be difficult to argue that the operating processes of the canal are disturbed or endangered. Since the channel began to expand the channel, which began in 2007 and was financed by more than $ 5 billion, more freight has been transported by the channel than ever in the years of the US administration.

A US line-up of the channel would be contrary to international laws and the contract that the US has approved.

The geopolitical consequences of a US military action

Since the US invasion of 1989, which plunged the dictator Manuel Noriega, Panama has no army of its own, but the Panamais protect the channel passionately because it is central to their national identity. And despite the saber rattling of the Trump administration, an forced access to the channel would bring considerable complications for two other top US priorities: migration and economy.

The channel is not the only critical passage that Panama controls. A military threat to Panama could break down the Darién-Gap, the jungle crossing, where hundreds of thousands of migrants from South America are on the move.

Mulino had promised to close the gap for migrants pulling north with Trump's help-but it should not be assumed that he will comply with old obligations when US troops enter panamic soil.

Americans would also feel the effects. At least 25,000 US citizens live in Panama and could be at risk through any military campaign to recapture the canal. The disruption of the operating processes of the channel would drive up the prices for US goods from cars to sneakers-about 40% of US container traffic runs through this waterway.

and of course the withdrawal from a decades of a decade and the attempt to violently recapture the canal would represent a propaganda gift for Russia and China, both of which have pleaded for maintaining neutrality in the channel.

Every US military campaign would also heat the tensions in Latin America, where mass-like deportations have already tested the partnerships in Washington in the region.

Trump's dream to raise the US flag above the Panama Canal would lead to a much higher price than it apparently calculated.