When Panama's Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha took the podium at the United Nations Security Council in New York on May 26, he delivered a line that doubled as a diplomatic signal: 'Dialogue is not a sign of weakness.' The chamber was chaired by his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, whose country holds the Security Council's rotating presidency this month. The two men met bilaterally on the session's sidelines — the first high-level encounter between their governments since relations collapsed earlier this year into what is, by any serious measure, the worst bilateral crisis since Panama switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 2017.

The encounter was carefully choreographed on both sides, and the divergence between each government's readout is itself analytically instructive. Beijing's Foreign Ministry, citing Xinhua, reported that Wang pressed Panama to 'safeguard the legitimate rights and interests' of Chinese companies and insisted the bilateral relationship should not be 'disturbed by third parties' — unambiguous language directed at Washington. Panama's Cancillería, by contrast, emphasised maritime cooperation, mutual respect, and the rule of law, with Martínez-Acha reaffirming Panama's commitment to the one-China principle and its refusal to permit Taiwanese institutional representation on its soil. Two governments, one meeting, entirely different framings of what it was for.

The crisis that brought them to this point unfolded rapidly. In late January, Panama's Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the legal framework underpinning a 1997 concession — and its 2021 extension — that had allowed Panama Ports Company, a CK Hutchison subsidiary, to operate the Balboa and Cristóbal terminals flanking the Canal's Pacific and Atlantic entrances. PPC operated Balboa and Cristóbal for almost 30 years, until February 23, 2026. The Panamanian government moved swiftly: interim operational control was awarded to APM Terminals and Terminal Investment Limited, subsidiaries of European shipping giants Maersk and MSC respectively, for an 18-month transitional period. CK Hutchison responded by launching an international arbitration claim against the Panamanian state seeking damages exceeding $2bn.

Beijing's retaliation was swift and multi-pronged. Port inspection rates for Panama-flagged vessels in China surged dramatically: according to figures cited by Panama's government, 136 of 164 vessel detentions at Chinese ports in April alone involved Panama-flagged ships — over 82% of the total. Given that Panama operates one of the world's largest ship registries, China reportedly asked shipping companies to explore alternative routes to the Panama Canal and directed state-owned companies to pause investments in infrastructure in Panama. President José Raúl Mulino acknowledged the pattern was neither accidental nor random, calling it an explicit 'political message.'

Critically, Beijing also deployed a more targeted commercial lever. State-owned COSCO Shipping suspended all operations at the Balboa port in March, cancelling confirmed bookings and redirecting empty containers to terminals in Colón province on the Atlantic side. Panama's Minister for Canal Affairs José Ramón Icaza said the decision caught authorities by surprise, and the government publicly asked COSCO to reconsider. Icaza noted that COSCO's cargo accounted for 4% of Balboa's throughput — a significant volume — and expressed hope the company would eventually return. COSCO's exit was not expected to cause major operational disruption at Balboa, where Maersk already handles up to 80 per cent of containers, but the symbolism was unmistakable: a Chinese state enterprise withdrawing from a strategic facility as a political act.

The episode also illuminates the tortured backstory of the aborted BlackRock deal. In early 2025, CK Hutchison reached agreement with a BlackRock-led consortium to sell its global portfolio of over 40 port terminals — including Balboa and Cristóbal — for approximately $22.8bn. Trump hailed the deal as a geopolitical victory, framing it as removing Chinese influence from Canal-adjacent infrastructure. Beijing moved to block it. China's State Administration for Market Regulation launched a comprehensive antitrust review, effectively halting the sale, and warned that no concentration of undertakings could be implemented without regulatory approval — a move widely interpreted as a political intervention. To navigate the deadlock, CK Hutchison signalled it was in negotiations to invite COSCO Shipping as a 'major strategic investor' into the buying consortium, only for the Panama Supreme Court ruling to overturn the entire situation before any resolution was reached.

The financial stakes for Panama are considerable. Canal revenue accounted for over 7% of Panama's GDP in 2025, with canal dividends generating more than 20% of government revenue in the last fiscal year. Balboa and Cristóbal collectively handled close to 4mn TEUs in 2025, representing roughly two-fifths of Panama's total container throughput. A prolonged deterioration in relations with Beijing — Panama's second-largest trading partner — carries real economic risk that Panama City cannot afford to ignore.

Panama has simultaneously pursued a parallel diplomatic strategy, quietly building international legal backing for its canal sovereignty. Austria announced this week it would accede to the 1977 Treaty of Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, joining Switzerland and Portugal, which both signed earlier in May. More than 40 countries have now formally committed to the waterway's neutrality — China is not among them. The accession drive is a calibrated effort to internationalise Panama's legal position at precisely the moment both Washington and Beijing are seeking to shape the canal's strategic future on their own terms.

What the May 26 meeting in New York accomplished is, at best, a managed pause. Panama has demonstrated it will not be coerced into reversing a constitutional court ruling, whatever the economic cost. China has signalled it expects commercial redress and resists American framing of the dispute as a contest for strategic infrastructure. And Washington, having already achieved the removal of a Chinese-linked operator from Canal-adjacent ports, watches closely as the concession framework is renegotiated — with European shipping majors now, for the moment, holding the keys.

For Panama, a country whose entire economic identity is built on being a reliable node in global trade, the pressure from both directions is existential in a way that it is for neither of the great powers applying it. Martínez-Acha's invocation of dialogue as 'the highest form of trust in reason' may have been diplomatically measured. It was also, in the circumstances, a statement of necessity.

© 2026 bne IntelliNews, source Magazine