US Administration Issues Stern Warning to Peru Over Chinese Port Sovereignty Concerns
The Trump administration has delivered a direct and forceful warning to Peru, asserting that the South American nation is progressively losing its sovereignty over a major Chinese-owned port located near its capital city, Lima. This caution follows a recent ruling by a local Peruvian judge that exempts the port from certain critical regulatory oversight mechanisms.
State Department Voices Grave Concerns Over Port Oversight
In a pointed social media post, the US State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs expressed deep apprehension. "Concerned about latest reports that Peru could be powerless to oversee Chancay, one of its largest ports, which is under jurisdiction of predatory Chinese owners," the bureau stated. "Let this be a cautionary tale for the region and the world: cheap Chinese money costs sovereignty." This statement marks the most explicit criticism from the Trump administration regarding Peru's deepening economic and political ties with China, which currently stands as Peru's foremost trading partner, with the United States following closely behind.
The Chancay Port: A $1.3 Billion Strategic Asset
At the heart of this geopolitical dispute is the Chancay port, a colossal $1.3 billion infrastructure project inaugurated by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2024. Operated by the Chinese state-owned enterprise Cosco Shipping Ports, this facility is strategically designed to expedite shipments from South America directly to China, enhancing trade flows across the Pacific.
The controversy intensified when a Peruvian lower court ruled against state oversight by Ositran, the national infrastructure regulator. Veronica Zambrano, the head of Ositran, has been vocally critical of this judicial decision. "We understand that what has happened, because we have yet to be notified, is that there is a lower court ruling accepting their request, which is not to be supervised by Ositran," Zambrano explained. She emphasized that this exemption could leave port users without adequate protection, as Ositran oversees Peru's other major ports, which operate as concessions on public land, whereas Chancay is privately owned.
Corporate and Diplomatic Responses
In response, Gonzalo Rios, the general manager of Cosco's Peruvian unit, defended the port's legal stance. He clarified to local media that the port initiated legal action to uphold its rights as a private entity and assured that users would retain the ability to file complaints through judicial channels or with consumer protection agencies.
Simultaneously, diplomatic tensions have escalated. The newly appointed US Ambassador to Peru, Bernie Navarro, reinforced the administration's warning with a stark message on social media: "Everything has a price. In the long term, what was cheap is costly. There is no higher price to pay than losing sovereignty." Ambassador Navarro also made a symbolic gesture by posting a photograph with Peruvian President Jose Jeri, sharing cheeseburgers under the caption "changing the menu," an apparent allusion to unreported meetings the Peruvian president conducted in Chinese restaurants, highlighting concerns over transparency and influence.
Broader Context of Chinese Investments and US Strategic Interests
This incident unfolds against a backdrop of substantial Chinese investment in Peru, spanning critical sectors such as electricity, mining, and shipping infrastructure. In contrast, the United States has designated Peru as a major non-NATO ally and is actively negotiating a contract valued at up to $1.5 billion. This agreement would involve Peru funding the construction of a new naval base situated just a few miles from the Chancay port, underscoring the strategic competition between the two global powers in the Andean region.
The warning from the Trump administration serves as a potent reminder of the complex interplay between economic development, foreign investment, and national sovereignty. It raises pressing questions about the long-term implications of infrastructure deals with state-backed entities and the delicate balance nations must strike between economic growth and autonomous governance.
