China fires back after Pete Hegseth calls country a threat to Panama canal
US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth said on Tuesday that the Panama canal faces ongoing threats from China but that together the United States and Panama will keep it secure.
Hegseth's remarks triggered a fiery response from the Chinese government, which said: 'Who represents the real threat to the Canal? People will make their own judgement.'
Speaking at a ribbon cutting for a new US-financed dock at the Vasco Nuñez de Balboa Naval Base after a meeting with Panama president, José Raúl Mulino, Hegseth said the US will not allow China or any other country to threaten the canal's operation.
'To this end, the United States and Panama have done more in recent weeks to strengthen our defense and security cooperation than we have in decades,' he said.
Hegseth alluded to ports at either end of the canal that are controlled by a Hong Kong consortium, which is in the process of selling its controlling stake to another consortium including BlackRock Inc.
'China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area,' Hegseth said. 'That gives China the potential to conduct surveillance activities across Panama. This makes Panama and the United States less secure, less prosperous and less sovereign. And as President Donald Trump has pointed out, that situation is not acceptable.'
Hegseth met with Mulino for two hours on Tuesday morning before heading to the naval base that previously had been the US Rodman naval station.
On the way, Hegseth posted a photo on Twitter/X of the two men laughing and said it was an honor speaking with Mulino. 'You and your country's hard work is making a difference. Increased security cooperation will make both our nations safer, stronger and more prosperous,' he wrote.
The visit comes amid tensions over Donald Trump's repeated assertions that the US is being overcharged to use the Panama canal and that China has influence over its operations – allegations that Panama has denied.
Shortly after the meeting, the Chinese embassy in Panama slammed the US government in a statement on X, saying the US has used 'blackmail' to further its own interests and that who Panama carries out business with is a 'sovereign decision of Panama … and something the U.S. doesn't have the right to interfere in'.
'The US has carried out a sensationalistic campaign about the 'theoretical Chinese threat' in an attempt to sabotage Chinese-Panamanian cooperation, which is all just rooted in the United State's own geopolitical interests,' the embassy wrote.
After Hegseth and Mulino spoke by phone in February, the US state department said that an agreement had been reached to not charge US warships to pass through the canal. Mulino publicly denied there was any such deal.
The US president has gone so far as to suggest the US never should have turned the canal over to Panama and that maybe that it should take the canal back.
The China concern was provoked by the Hong Kong consortium holding a 25-year lease on ports at either end of the canal. The Panamanian government announced that lease was being audited and late on Monday concluded that there were irregularities.
The Hong Kong consortium, however, has already announced that CK Hutchison would be selling its controlling stake in the ports to a consortium including BlackRock Inc, in effect putting the ports under US control once the sale is complete.
Secretary of state Marco Rubio told Mulino during a visit in February that Trump believes China's presence in the canal area may violate a treaty that led the US to turn the waterway over to Panama in 1999. That treaty calls for the permanent neutrality of the US-built canal.
Mulino has denied that China has any influence in the operations of the canal. In February, he expressed frustration at the persistence of the narrative. 'We aren't going to speak about what is not reality, but rather those issues that interest both countries,' he said.
The US built the canal in the early 1900s as it looked for ways to facilitate the transit of commercial and military vessels between its coasts. Washington relinquished control of the waterway to Panama on 31 December 1999, under a treaty signed in 1977 by Jimmy Carter.
'I want to be very clear, China did not build this canal,' Hegseth said on Tuesday. 'China does not operate this canal and China will not weaponize this canal. Together with Panama in the lead, we will keep the canal secure and available for all nations through the deterrent power of the strongest, most effective and most lethal fighting force in the world.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Israel strikes Beirut's suburbs to target what it calls drone production
The strikes, which hit eight buildings at four locations, marked the first time in more than a month that Israel had struck on the outskirts of the capital and the fourth time since a US-brokered ceasefire agreement ended the latest war between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah in November.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Americans are wearing biggest smiles in NATO defence spending battle
Everyone at NATO knows about battles. Sometimes you come out on top and sometimes you have to know when you're beaten. And here, it's the Americans who are wearing the biggest smiles. It has long been a mantra of President Trump that European nations should spend a lot more money on defence. During his first term, when he seemed to be deriding NATO on a regular basis, he amplified a debate that had long rumbled; now it feels like it's coming to a resolution. 1:30 Certainly there was a bounce in the step of US defence secretary Pete Hegseth when we spoke. "We all need increased capabilities and we all need to spend more," he said. "Thank you to President Trump for reviving this alliance. It was an alliance that was sleepwalking to irrelevance and President Trump, in his first term, said you need to step up and spend more. And he has in this term done the same." "What I saw in there", gesturing to the meeting rooms where all the ministers had met, "were countries prepared to step up to push the limits of what they can do. That's a good thing. That's friends helping friends." Poland gears up Mr Hegseth came into this meeting with one big demand - for NATO allies to bump up their defence spending to a total of 5% of GDP - more than any of them are spending at the moment. Of that, he believes that at least 3.5% should be going towards core defence spending - soldiers, planes, guns and so on - while a further 1.5% could be spent on other "defence-related" elements - infrastructure, espionage, civil defence. Pot one is clear. Pot two is vague - nobody seems quite sure what counts as "defence-related". Climate change resilience, for instance, has been suggested by some countries. That one will need clearing up. But even the 3.5% demand is a huge one. Third of worldwide defence spending by US According to the latest data I've seen, only one NATO member presently spends above that target - and no, that isn't America. 5:09 It's Poland, which has ramped up military spending ever since neighbouring Ukraine was invaded. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia have all done the same, nervously looking towards Russia. The United States sits at 3.4% of GDP. But that's 3.4% of a very big number, so it equates to an awful lot of spending. To put that in context, more than a third of worldwide spending on defence is carried out by America. Look at the top 10 nations in the world for defence spending, and America is top by a mile. It spends more than the other nine countries on that list put together. What's more, the vast majority of that money goes to American companies, and a great deal of it is shared among a relatively small number of those companies. Increased military spending may well be good for global security, but until such time as Europe expands its own defence industry, it's also excellent news for the American economy. Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, admitted that it was a huge challenge, but said that he would not accept countries simply kicking the financial can down the street. Countries will be monitored constantly to ensure they are making annual progress towards the 5% target. A finishing line hasn't been established yet, but it's probably going to be 10 years from now. Still, Rutte said he didn't want "hockey sticks" - the statistical model where things stay flat for a long time, and the big rise only comes at the end.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US law firm Seyfarth to exit Shanghai in latest China market retreat
June 5 (Reuters) - Law firm Seyfarth Shaw is planning to close its Shanghai office later this year, as major U.S. law firms continue to reduce their footprints in the Chinese legal market. The Chicago-founded firm, which has about 900 lawyers globally and is known for its labor and employment work, will continue to serve clients in the region by consolidating its presence in Hong Kong, a firm spokesperson said in a statement on Thursday. Seyfarth's website lists six lawyers in Shanghai, where it opened in 2013, and several of the lawyers are co-located in Hong Kong or elsewhere. The team advises clients on cross-border transactions, among other areas such as real estate and employment, according to the website. Large U.S. law firms for more than two years have been shuttering offices in Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong amid muted deal activity, geopolitical tensions and growing pressures on foreign businesses in the country. Earlier this year, firms including Wilson Sonsini, Cleary Gottlieb and Winston & Strawn have said they would close offices in at least one of those locations. The United States and China struck a 90-day deal on May 12 to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since President Donald Trump's January inauguration. Though stocks rallied, the temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship. Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday agreed to further talks between the countries to hash out differences on tariffs. The highly anticipated call came amid accusations between Washington and Beijing in recent weeks over "rare earths" minerals in a dispute that threatens to tear up the fragile truce in the trade war between the two biggest economies.
