Trump Hopes to Talk with Mulino Friday to Discuss the Panama Canal

US President Donald Trump said on Monday that he plans to speak with his Panamanian counterpart, José Raúl Mulino, on Friday to discuss the Panama Canal and the commitments announced following Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to the country. “I think we’re going to talk to Panama on Friday. Essentially, they’ve committed to certain things, but I’m not happy with it,” the president said from the Oval Office in the White House. “We are trying to reach an agreement on the Panama Canal,” said Trump, who again criticized the fact that China’s influence in this important maritime passage has increased in recent years, despite the fact that the United States, he said, built it and wrongly ceded it to Panama with the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977. Mulino announced on Sunday that he will let the new Silk Road agreement with China expire, after meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who visited Panama to lobby against alleged Chinese influence in the canal and its ports.
New Relationship Direction with the US and China: Trump Sets the Pace, Panama Adjusts

Trump announced that he will hold a telephone conversation with Mulino Friday, a call that could define the course of the relationship between both countries and the strategic future of the Canal. Although Panama announced a series of measures that include distancing itself from China and expedited passage for United States (US) warships through the Panama Canal, this is not enough for the president of that nation, Donald Trump says he is not happy.
Trump Tightens the Screws: Panama Must Navigate Turbulent Waters with the US and China

Although Panama announced a series of measures that include distancing itself from China and expedited passage for United States (US) warships through the Panama Canal, this is not enough for the president of that nation, Donald Trump, who stated. “China is involved with the Panama Canal. They won’t be there for long, and that’s the way it should be,” he said from his office in the White House.
The Author of the Following Story is a Lawyer in Panama
Regardless of the patriotic speeches of politicians and citizens in both countries, the Panamanian government must be clear about the true intentions behind the sabre rattling in the north in order to draw up an intelligent and effective strategy. Above national pride, the principle of realpolitik must prevail ; that is, pragmatism above ideologies or emotions, without harming the interests of the country or renouncing our sovereignty throughout the national territory.
Since the hearing of the US Senate Trade Committee and in the content of the resolution proposed by Senator Eric Schmitt, the concerns and aspirations of the United States Government have become evident, with the fact that the ports of Balboa and Cristobal, at both ends of the canal and with direct access to the locks, are managed by the conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings Limited, prevailing for reasons of national security.
It is true that Hutchison is not part of the People’s Republic of China. However, although it is registered in the Cayman Islands, its operations centre remains in Hong Kong and under the protection of Chinese security laws, which oblige the company to cooperate with the State in military, intelligence and counterintelligence matters. It is also key to bear in mind that Hutchison’s president, Victor Li Tzar-kuoi – the eldest son of Li Ka-shing, a Hong Kong businessman and tycoon – was a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) for several terms. The CPPCC is an official body of the Communist Party, which helps determine policies favourable to the interests of China.
What happened during the Senate hearing and Marco Rubio’s visit should make it clear to the American public that the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) has been carrying out an outstanding administration of the interoceanic route, independently of the National Government, whose authorities, ultimately, and not the ACP, were the ones who granted, in a very questionable manner, the concessions for these ports and the construction of the fourth bridge.
By the way, during the hearing, an expert in international law explained that if the United States decided to rescind the Neutrality Treaty , this would not have the legal effect of automatically returning the Canal to American hands.
On the other hand, we do not have to fear an armed intervention, as there is no imminent danger. However, according to Washington, there is a latent risk of a future global conflict if the status quo is maintained in the controversial ports of Hutchison and its subsidiary Panama Ports Company (PPC). According to several sources, this fear is bipartisan in the United States and a similar apprehension is also perceived in the European Union regarding the telecommunications, energy and port infrastructures operated by Chinese companies.
At the dawn of a new cold war and the gestation of a geopolitical realignment, we must learn to live with a paradox: on the one hand, we have the duty to maintain a neutral role for the Canal and as a country, and, on the other, one of the two leading powers in the world conflict is precisely the United States, our counterpart in the Neutrality Treaty, whose DeConcini Reservation grants it the unilateral power to determine which acts represent a risk to the neutrality and operation of the canal.
Even before the visit of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the government seemed to be appealing to the principles of realpolitik with concrete actions, such as announcing an American company as the one in charge of the David-Panama train project – after having flirted for months with two Chinese companies – and the sudden audit by the Comptroller General of PPC, whose concession, according to this official, is equivalent to a “colonial enclave.”
Following the meeting with Rubio at the Palacio de las Garzas, Mulino announced that Panama will not renew the Silk Road agreement signed with China in 2017. It was undoubtedly imprudent to join that project, especially since China has not adhered to the Neutrality Treaty. Anyone who carefully analyzes the proposals contained in Senator Schmitt’s draft resolution will find that the United States appears willing to provide financial assistance on decisions on infrastructure issues that terminate the relationship with Chinese companies, including the legal costs of a potential arbitration with Hutchison or its corresponding compensation.