What is Panama's public interest, really?

Editor's note: CGTN's First Voice provides instant commentary on breaking stories. The column clarifies emerging issues and better defines the news agenda, offering a Chinese perspective on the latest global events.

Panama's Supreme Court justified its decision to void Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison's port operation contract at the Panama Canal by claiming the deal failed to "serve the public interest and social welfare."

This assertion raises a critical question: What is Panama's public interest, really? If the court's ruling is meant to safeguard the national welfare, it has instead ignored decades of tangible benefits from the contract, exposing a gap between legal rhetoric and the actual needs of Panamanians.

To begin with, the decision ignores two critical facts that are central to any honest assessment of what Panama has gained – or lost – under CK Hutchison's tenure.

First, the concession wasn't some fleeting or faulty arrangement hastily imposed on Panama. The contract has been in place since 1997 and was repeatedly supervised, audited, and renewed by successive Panamanian authorities. Official audit and certification processes in 2020 and 2021 reaffirmed that Panama Ports Company (PPC) – CK Hutchison's subsidiary – is in substantial compliance with the clauses and obligations of the concession contract. For nearly 30 years, the partnership operated within Panama's legal framework, making the court's sudden rejection of its validity arbitrary and inconsistent with historical facts.

Second, the ruling disregards the enormous economic and social gains the contract delivered. CK Hutchison has invested over 1.8 billion dollars in Panama, creating thousands of local jobs and transforming the ports into premier container hubs in the Western Hemisphere.

As a major taxpayer, the company has contributed to Panama's economic prosperity, while the ports have strengthened the country's position as a global logistics leader with the Panama Cannal now handling about 5% of global maritime trade. These benefits are not abstract; they have improved livelihoods for ordinary Panamanians and boosted the nation's competitiveness in international trade.

Ignoring these facts, the Supreme Court's decision undermines its own authority and the credibility of Panama's judicial system. A ruling that prioritizes vague claims over concrete public benefits erodes trust in law and justice. It also sends a chilling message to foreign investors: even long-term, compliant partnerships can be arbitrarily terminated, threatening Panama's ability to attract future investment – a key pillar of its economic stability.

And, of course, the political context cannot be ignored. As the Wall Street Journal noted, "For Panama's Supreme Court justices, the political pressure was significant, as the port operations put Panama center stage in the rivalry between the U.S. and China." Following the Panama Supreme Court's announcement of the decision, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly expressed his approval, saying he was "encouraged" by the decision.

That reaction is telling. It suggests that Panama's internal legal decisions are being interpreted through, or even influenced by external political pressure and Panama's sovereign definition of its own welfare is being coerced by external geopolitical agendas. 

But Panama's real public interest lies in centering the daily welfare of its people and pursuing fair, balanced economic partnerships. This means safeguarding stable jobs, attracting reliable investment, and leveraging its strategic location to benefit from cooperation with all major economies – including China. Yielding to U.S. demands to oust a proven partner risks isolating Panama, losing economic opportunities, and sacrificing the livelihoods of its citizens for geopolitical games.

Real public interest for Panama is not about advancing narratives that pit Washington against Beijing,  Brussels against Moscow, or Nation A against Nation B. It's about securing Panama's place in the world as a sovereign, economically vibrant, and just nation – one that welcomes investment on terms that benefit its people without surrendering its autonomy to external powers.

Panama can, and should, engage the world boldly. And it must do so with its people's welfare as its guiding compass.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)