Key takeaways:

• Trump's comments on China's influence over the Panama Canal have reignited nationalist feelings among Panamanians.
• The canal, strategic for both the US and China, is crucial for global trade and energy shipments.
• Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has recently distanced the country from China's Belt and Road Initiative.
• Analysts suggest Trump's rhetoric targets broad geopolitical tensions rather than reflecting commercial realities.

The Panama Canal, an essential artery for global trade, has become a focal point of geopolitical contention following President Trump's claims that China is operating the canal. His allegations have spurred significant debate about Chinese investments in the country, with many analysts cautioning that this narrative overlooks the complexity of the actual situation. The canal is vital for US energy exports and as a crucial shipping route, with approximately 75% of its traffic tied to the United States.

Amidst rising tensions, Trump dispatched Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Panama to address concerns about Chinese influence. Rubio emphasized that this situation poses a threat to the canal's operation and the long-standing principles set by the Neutrality Treaties. Following Rubio's visit, Panama declared its withdrawal from China's Belt and Road Initiative, marking a significant shift in its diplomatic stance.

According to analysts, Trump's remarks are stoking Panamanian nationalism. During Rubio's visit, protests erupted, with citizens declaring, “The canal is ours!” as the revival of historical grievances regarding US influence in the region resurfaced. Political analysts suggest that while there is a perception of increased Chinese investment, the actual control in the canal operations is largely held by Hutchison Ports, a Hong Kong-based company, along with other international firms, comprising Taiwanese and Singaporean interests.Source.

The U.S. has historically maintained a strong narrative regarding the canal's sovereignty, as it was built with American funding and engineering prowess between 1904 and 1914. However, critics of Trump’s approach caution that such dramatics may mask intricate realities of international commerce and diplomatic relations, particularly given that both the US and China rely heavily on the canal for trade.

Furthermore, many Panamanians view the canal not just as a shipping route but as a symbol of national identity and independence. In response to foreign intervention fears, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has openly challenged the notion of relinquishing control, reaffirming that “the canal belongs to Panama.” This statement echoes throughout the political landscape, uniting diverse ideological groups against any perceived external threats.

The intricate balance of influence over the Panama Canal exemplifies broader geopolitical tensions as both the US and China vie for dominance not only in trade but also in strategic international alliances throughout Latin America. This ongoing tug-of-war raises questions about the future of foreign investments in Panama and the implications for regional stability in the face of shifting alliances.

For more on this unfolding situation, visit LA Times and SCMP.