Recently, the Supreme Court of Panama ruled that the concession contract for Panama Ports Co, a subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based enterprise, to operate two ports at the Panama Canal was “invalid”, citing “unconstitutionality”. Disregarding facts and acting in bad faith, the court decision seriously undermined the legitimate rights and interests of the port operator. It has naturally met with the resolute opposition of both the Chinese government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, as well as strong condemnation from Hong Kong society.

The ruling is absurd to the extreme, devoid of legal basis and logical support. The said concession contract for the two Panama Canal ports, Balboa and Cristobal, has been in effect for nearly 30 years. And Panama’s auditing and regulatory authorities confirmed that the port operator had substantially complied with the contract terms and fulfilled its contractual obligations — both before and after the renewal of the contract in 2021. In the absence of any fundamental changes to the relevant legal provisions and any evidence of illegal conduct on the part of the operator, the Supreme Court of Panama declared the contract “unconstitutional”. The ruling constituted a flagrant trampling of the rule of law and the spirit of the contract. The port operator has invested over $1.8 billion in the operation of the two ports, creating thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Instead of cherishing these contributions, Panama has stripped the enterprise of its operational rights in a reckless and brutal way, which will ultimately harm Panama’s own interests as well.

The concession contract was entered into by both parties on fair terms, and has been recognized by successive Panamanian administrations and legislatures. By declaring the contract “unconstitutional”, Panama has signaled to international investors that it could nullify any franchise awarded at any time, demonstrating an inability to provide any assurance for investors. The move will damage the country’s credibility, with far-reaching adverse effects on its business environment and economic development, while seriously undermining international trade rules. Panama’s authorities, ignoring widespread concerns, are in effect shooting themselves in the foot.

The court ruling starkly reveals that Panama’s judicial independence has become a joke, devoid of credibility. Such actions are bound to severely damage Panama’s relations with other members of the international community. History has repeatedly proved that any country insisting on going against the tide of the times will ultimately be left behind in the wave of global progress, and its accomplices will suffer from backlash. Panama’s authorities should take warning from history

The ruling is a shameful and lamentable capitulation to hegemony. Panamanian media have incisively criticized the hegemonic behavior of certain countries on port issues. As some observers have pointed out, the ruling reflects the Panamanian authorities’ complete subservience to and fawning on hegemony, as evidenced by the fact that a certain country’s politicians jubilated immediately after the ruling, hailing it as “encouraging”. For a long time, that country has adhered to a hegemonic logic, and kept bullying other countries into submission under the guise of “national security” and “geostrategy”. It has repeatedly coerced other nations into suppressing enterprises from third-party countries, politicized commercial issues, provoked conflicts and confrontations, and initiated containment and “decoupling”, undermining the international political and economic order and running counter to the trend of peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit. As a sovereign state, Panama should have upheld its independence and equal status in international relations. Unfortunately, it has succumbed to hegemonic coercion.

The court ruling starkly reveals that Panama’s judicial independence has become a joke, devoid of credibility. Such actions are bound to severely damage Panama’s relations with other members of the international community. History has repeatedly proved that any country insisting on going against the tide of the times will ultimately be left behind in the wave of global progress, and its accomplices will suffer from backlash. Panama’s authorities should take warning from history.

The Chinese government is firmly committed to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises and will never turn a blind eye to hegemonic acts and bullying. On the day the ruling was issued, the spokesperson of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated at a news conference that China will take all necessary measures to resolutely protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises. The Hong Kong SAR government subsequently issued a statement strongly opposing any foreign government’s use of coercion, pressure, or other unreasonable means in international economic and trade relations that seriously undermine the lawful operational rights of Hong Kong enterprises. Prior to this, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson had repeatedly emphasized China’s firm opposition to the use of economic coercion and bullying to violate and undermine the legitimate rights and interests of other countries. This clearly demonstrates that the Chinese government’s stance on protecting the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises — including those from the Hong Kong SAR — and opposing economic coercion and bullying is unwavering.

China will never turn a blind eye to acts that violate the country’s or its enterprises’ legitimate rights and interests. China has never yielded to power politics and hegemony, and possesses sufficient means, tools, strength, and capabilities to uphold fairness and justice in the international economic and trade order. Panama’s authorities should figure out the situation correctly and reverse their course. They will pay a heavy price politically and economically for sure should they insist on going their own way.

(Source: Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council)

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.