Translated from GegenStandpunkt 2-25

The US Secretary of State visits Central America

“America First!” in its backyard

1. Secretary of State Rubio on the principles of US policy toward “our hemisphere”

In preparation for his trip to several Central American countries, Secretary of State Rubio published an article in the Wall Street Journal outlining the necessity of this trip and the principles that will be guiding the Trump administration’s future actions in “our own neighborhood.”

When Donald Trump won his sweeping victory in November, he received a mandate to put America first. In the realm of diplomacy, this means paying closer attention to our own neighborhood – the Western Hemisphere. It’s no accident that my first trip abroad as secretary of state, to Central America on Friday, will keep me in the hemisphere. This is rare among secretaries of state over the past century. For many reasons, U.S. foreign policy has long focused on other regions while overlooking our own. As a result, we’ve let problems fester, missed opportunities and neglected partners. That ends now.
President Trump’s foreign-policy agenda begins close to home. Among his top priorities is securing our borders and reversing the disastrous invasion abetted by the last administration. Diplomacy’s role in this effort is central. We need to work with countries of origin to halt and deter further migrant flows, and to accept the return of their citizens present in the U.S. illegally. Some countries are cooperating with us enthusiastically – others, less so. The former will be rewarded. As for the latter, Mr. Trump has already shown that he is more than willing to use America’s considerable leverage to protect our interests. Just ask Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro.
Yet even when circumstances demand toughness, the president’s vision for the hemisphere remains positive. We see a prosperous region rife with opportunities. We can strengthen trade ties, create partnerships to control migration, and enhance our hemisphere’s security. El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic – the countries I will visit on this trip – all stand to benefit tremendously from greater cooperation with the U.S. These nations were neglected by past administrations that prioritized the global over the local and pursued policies that accelerated China’s economic development, often at our neighbors’ expense.
We can reverse this. Covid exposed the fragility of America’s dependence on far-flung supply chains. Relocating our critical supply chains to the Western Hemisphere would clear a path for our neighbors’ economic growth and safeguard Americans’ own economic security. Closer relationships with the U.S. lead to more jobs and higher growth in these countries. This reduces incentives for emigration from these countries while providing governments with revenue to fight crime and invest at home. As our regional partners build themselves up, they can more easily resist countries such as China that promise much but deliver little.
Mass migration has destabilized our entire region. Drug cartels – now correctly categorized, thanks to the president, as foreign terrorist organizations – are taking over our communities, sowing violence and poisoning our families with fentanyl. Illegitimate regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are intentionally amplifying the chaos. All the while, the Chinese Communist Party uses diplomatic and economic leverage – such as at the Panama Canal – to oppose the U.S. and turn sovereign nations into vassal states.
I am confident that the countries I will soon visit will be ready partners. Like President Trump, their leaders are pragmatists who put their citizens first. And because they are pragmatists, they also know that there is much more to be gained from working with the U.S. than not. (Article by US Secretary of State Rubio in the Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2025)

When the new Secretary of State says on his first trip abroad that he will be “paying closer attention to our own neighborhood,” it’s not just the possessive pronoun that makes it clear that the US has a particularly demanding relationship with the countries of Central America. Rubio leaves no doubt as to what the “America first!” agenda means for countries “close to home”:

For the US government, the problems and interests of these countries with regard to the role they play for the US – as suppliers of raw materials and agricultural goods, as investment destinations dependent on the interests of dollar capital, and as objects of the strategic claims of US power – are inherently irrelevant. Rather, they are confronted with the “problems” they cause for the USA, and it is their obvious duty to resolve them. “America first!” is not just the motto of the Trump administration, but must also be the maxim of a region that is so comprehensively claimed by the US as its own, and whose states are so ill-equipped to oppose this claim, that it’s simply a scandal that they have been causing nothing but “problems” for the US for so long. Here the blame is put on previous US administrations for allowing this to happen by failing to perform their natural responsibility for conditions in their own backyard. “That ends now” because the US decides that it does, underlining the administration’s position that it depends solely and exclusively on its determination to ensure that the Central American realm of states will (again) be what it has always been: a bunch of countries dependent on the USA whose sovereignty is entirely committed to the services that the US defines for them. These services currently consist primarily of eliminating the two major affronts that, in the eyes of the US Secretary of State, they are posing for the bigger America.

The first ‘problem’ that the Trump administration is pushing to resolve once and for all is the “catastrophic invasion” of migrants which it sees as an existential threat to the security of the USA arising specifically from its neighbors: It sees the masses fleeing their home countries and seeking refuge in the USA as more than just an attack on the USA’s sovereignty over its own borders. By equating migrants from the poorhouses of Central America with criminals and drug traffickers who are taking over its “communities” and poisoning its people, the caravan of misery from the south becomes a systematic attack on the American national community which the Trump team sees embodied in good, hardworking American competitors – it’s a form of terrorism against America, and the fight against it a fundamental, non-negotiable demand on the countries from which this attack originates.[1] And so the US government is commanding the countries of origin not only to “stop” the ‘flow’ of migrants, i.e., use force to prevent their citizens from heading to the US so that they remain in the ‘shitholes’ where they belong, but demanding they “reverse” it, i.e., bring back all those who made it to the US and who the US government now refuses to tolerate. In any case, it has already officially declared several hundred thousand such cases. The US Secretary of State is, of course, well aware of what the return of masses of starving people who have fled their countries for good reason means for these countries, not to mention the loss of ‘remesas,’ i.e. remittances from successful migrants, which in some countries account for a quarter of GDP.[2] He defines these problems as a mere question of the necessary willingness of the relevant governments to take them back; and for this, “diplomacy” has a “role” to play. This consequently consists in formulating the non-negotiability of the relevant US demands as an offer of “cooperation,” while immediately adding the blatant threat that nothing will depend on the consent of those addressed, and what will happen to those who think they can reject this ‘offer’: They should “just ask Colombian President Gustavo Petro.”[3]

The second security “problem” that the previous administration “let fester” and that Rubio is now presenting to the Central American states for correction comes from a completely different dissatisfaction having to do with the Trump administration’s imperialistic claim to a monopoly on this region: China’s presence in “our hemisphere.” The fact that China is increasingly taking root in Central America as a trading partner and investor, albeit one still far behind the USA, and in this way winning political influence in the countries there, is viewed by the Trump administration as an unacceptable security problem: In its immediate sphere of dominance, the state it is explicitly targeting as its greatest, indeed only, challenger and threat to American global dominance is gaining ground. The Central American states, through their relationships with China, are letting themselves be turned into its “vassals” and providing the USA’s great rival with nothing but leverage that it is using to “oppose” the US. The US cites the Panama Canal in particular and the fact that Chinese companies are also doing business there as a sign of China’s attack on its security.[4]

For the Trump administration, Panama is merely the most obvious evidence that China’s growing influence in “our hemisphere” is completely intolerable. This is the sense in which the Trump administration essentially views all countries in the region: as loyal agents of the US interest in containing China. The damage this will cause them – after all, China is of increasing importance for their national growth and is very welcome in most countries as an additional business option to US capital – must be accepted not only in the interests of the world power’s higher security, but also their own. For Rubio, it is simply clear that China’s undermining of the USA’s strategic sovereignty is simultaneously “at our neighbors’ expense.” That, in any case, is how they should see it; and they should make the USA’s demand that they cut their growing cooperation with China into their own cause – the leverage that the US is prepared to use to force this understanding has already been demonstrated.

But the US government has not only “toughness” to offer the countries of the region, but also a “vision” – as a kind of reward for ‘partners’ who more or less “enthusiastically” comply with US demands. On the one hand, however, the promised benefits of “closer relationships with the United States” are somewhat vague; on the other, the “higher growth” that may occur is still registered as functional for the interests of the USA itself: It can reduce the “dependence [of the US] on far-flung supply chains,” and thus “safeguard Americans’ own economic security,” provide states with the means to reduce “incentives for emigration” and enable them to “more easily resist” the lure of China. No matter how realistic or unrealistic these conjured up positive effects of the new partnership decided on by the USA may be – they make it clear how it is meant: The interests of the states blessed by this will be fully served when they fully embrace the role they have to play for the USA; e.g., as a neighborly supply chain link whose function for America’s capital cycle should earn them all the resources they need to perform the services they currently owe the USA. If these states, instead of becoming “vassals of China,” subordinate their sovereignty entirely to US demands, nothing will stand in the way of a positive relationship between the US and the countries of the region as their only meaningful prospect.

The ‘partnership’ being propagated here is as one-sided as the power relations underlying it. The power of the USA and President Trump’s blatant threat to use it ruthlessly to punish insubordination, on the one hand, and the powerlessness of the “partners” on the other, form the basis for the (self-)confidence with which Rubio spells out the required obedience as a “pragmatic” insight on the part of those being blackmailed. They “know that there is much more to be gained from working with the U.S. than not,” that the only reasonable use of their sovereignty is submission to the supremacy of the US with its unequivocally declared need for increased services that benefit America, because refusal would only hurt themselves: Serving US interests must be regarded by them as the only “promising” service to “their citizens.” It won’t spare them from blackmail and harassment by the US, because and insofar as the US feels ill-served and insists on more ‘cooperation,’ that is, American direction and secure strategic military protection; but it will, at best, spare them the costs of the hostility with which America views others.

For beyond his announcements aimed at persuading friends and partners in the region, to whom he is drawing America’s attention with his visit, to “enthusiastically” “cooperate” with the USA, Rubio does not forget about the states that are also located in “our hemisphere” and that are clearly to be regarded and treated as enemy states. In his view, these states not only cause problems in all respects for US security as a result of their refusal to be useful to the US in the required ways, but want to damage the leading power in, of all places, its very own state sphere. These “illegitimate regimes” are “intentionally amplifying the chaos” of the migration issue by creating conditions in their countries that drive thousands out of their countries[5] and by unleashing criminals and drug traffickers on the US. In addition, they are making common cause with US rivals and acting as bases for their actions against US security[6] – in short, these are terrorist states that seek to destroy the US.[7] So MAGA policy with its interpretation of anti-American activities is renewing the USA’s old enmities in the region. Accordingly, these states get to experience the USA’s power to harm them and thus serve as a deterrent example of what awaits countries that do not want to submit to the USA’s natural dominance over the region.

2. Rubio’s trip to the realm of states in “our own neighborhood”

During his trip, Secretary of State Rubio makes it clear how the principles of the USA’s new approach to Central America will be put into practice, and what this means for the states there, by confronting them with the tasks and demands they have to fulfill in the interests of the USA. A key location in this regard is

Panama

On the one hand, there is the US demand for special privileges for its ships passing through the canal, i.e., to pay no fees, or significantly lower fees than other nations. On the other hand, this request is only one aspect of a much more far-reaching demand for Panama’s obedience, which clearly shows the Trump administration’s general position on the sovereignty of the states in its backyard in general, and on Panama and its sovereignty over the canal of the same name (which is now called something else) in particular:

“Rubio’s visit to Panama caused some tension. Trump had previously threatened to bring the canal, which was ceded by the US in 1999, back under American control, if necessary by military force. This was because the presence of Chinese companies at the canal, which is administered by Panama, threatened the security of the US, for whose fleet the connection between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is indispensable. Trump also claimed that the Panamanian authorities were charging American ships excessive transit fees.” (NZZ, February 7, 2025)

As for as the issue of fees: Trump considers it an indisputable fact that Panama is ripping off the USA by charging fees for its ships, given that it was ultimately the US that built the canal. While management and ultimately official ownership rights were handed over to the Panamanian state[8] – which was already a mistake – for Trump, this does not change the fact that if Panama is allowed to operate and maintain a US inland waterway, it is a US concession. In view of this, it seems completely absurd to him that in this case it is not the concession holder who pays fees, but rather demands them from the concession grantor, of all people, who allows it to do business with this service by taking advantage of third parties. In this respect, here – too – fact-checking criticisms that point out that American military and civilian canal users do not pay more fees than others are completely misguided, and in this respect, Trump’s complaint that the USA is being ripped off is once again typical Trumpist “fake news”: From Trump’s point of view, the fact that the USA even has to pay so that Panama can make money from its canal is the real absurdity.

This is especially true given that Panama is also abusing the concession granted to it by allowing China, the USA’s biggest economic and strategic rival, to do mischief with the connection between the Atlantic and Pacific for its unfair business practices and its attempts to establish itself not only economically, but also strategically in the US’s hemisphere.[8] The Chinese operator of the canal ports is particularly in its sights.[9] The Trump administration views China’s involvement as an economic and strategic encroachment on the US and thus as a no longer acceptable threat to US security which Secretary of State Rubio expresses as follows: “China could use ports to shut down the canal, a vital route for US shipping, in the event of a conflict between Beijing and Washington.” (The Guardian, February 2, 2025). First, Panama must ensure that Chinese companies are removed from the canal and stop viewing China as an economic and political partner altogether – keyword: Silk Road. Secondly, President Trump is thinking through his criticism of Panama and the US claim to secure a monopoly on oversight of the canal and make China’s exclusion from any influence irreversible: then the Panamanian state must be stripped of its sovereignty over the canal.

The Trump administration is considering a transition to a form of imperialism that isn’t content with using blackmail to coerce other countries into “deals” that guarantee American benefits at their expense. It aims to revoke Panama’s formal sovereignty over this key strategic asset, granted by the USA, and thus the rest of the world’s free use of it, by placing the canal, which is vital to all world trading nations, directly under US control – which, in Trump’s view, actually belongs to the US anyway. In doing so, the US government is revoking the concession to Panama which allows it to act like a sovereign, that uses its authority over the canal as a means of business in its relations with other states. At least, Trump is making credible threats to do so.

And the reactions to this prove that, while Trump’s behavior may be outrageous, it cannot be denied that he has a real balance of power on his side and is putting it to use:

“To appease Trump, Mulino agreed on Sunday to investigate Chinese activities in the canal ports and announced Panama’s withdrawal from Beijing’s ‘New Silk Road’ infrastructure program. Rubio celebrated Panama’s rejection of China as a ‘big step forward’ toward better bilateral relations.” (NZZ, February 7, 2025)[10]

The fact that this does not settle the matter is demonstrated by the special brand of diplomacy being practiced by the US government: it treats its demands, which go beyond Panama’s commitments, as if they were already accepted reality simply because it has announced them. It publicly states that Panama has agreed to its demand to grant the US Navy free access to the Panama Canal and to allow US troops to be stationed there for the purpose of enforcing control of the canal, something the Panamanian government indignantly rejects.[11] Given the balance of power, it is simply logical to the Trump administration that a country like Panama has no choice but to accept the US demands – even if this means accepting a huge relativization of its sovereignty: the government just needs a little more time and some diplomatic coaching to come around to this view. This is how Rubio responds to Panama’s outrage:

“Later that day, Rubio said the U.S. had made its expectations ‘clearly understood’ in conversations this week, though he conceded Panama had a legal process to work through.” (Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2025)[12]

Guatemala

stands out for sparing the US the security problem of undesirable connections to China from the outset, “as the country maintains official relations with Taiwan. This rules out diplomatic relations with China, the USA’s major competitor in the region.” (NZZ, February 7, 2025) That leaves “mass migration,” which the country contributes significantly to and therefore has a lot to clean up. As a result, the president of Guatemala has promised a drastic expansion of deportation flights carrying migrants from the USA and has been granted financial support in return for this and his willingness to cooperate in other areas. This is then “development aid that is in our national interest” (Rubio in Guatemala), while Trump’s America has otherwise radically cut its foreign aid because it does not obey the principle of advancing American interests.[13] And in order to make better economic and military use of Guatemala, the Trump administration is supporting “an ambitious infrastructure project that will enable the country to improve its air, sea, and land transport systems. Both sides agreed on cooperation between the Guatemalan government and the US Army Corps of Engineers in planning the expansion of two strategic ports.” (NZZ, February 7, 2025) So the country is not only being further developed as a strategic base for the USA, but the US Army itself is taking on the task of setting up the necessary infrastructure.

In the

Dominican Republic,

Rubio arranges for the “permanent presence of US Customs and Border Protection on the island,” so that control of migration flows remains entirely in the hands of US authorities, who are the only ones capable of doing so. In return, the country is offered – in line with America’s new sense of humor – a “positive vision”: In order to secure important supply chains for the US civilian and military industries, Rubio offers it a “unique opportunity” for “economic development with a focus on the energy sector and the semiconductor industry. Rubio explained: ‘This is a unique opportunity for this country to develop into a semiconductor hub, so close to the US and in a stable environment.’” (amerika21.de, February 9, 2025) The US claim to the functionalization of the countries of Central America for its various interests must be taken as an irrefutable condition for its national calculations,[14] which includes removing reservations about the jurisdiction of US law enforcement agencies in their countries.

Under Trump, the US is simply at will taking control of the services and/or military oversight it demands from the states in the region. To do so, it does not necessarily have to revoke their formal sovereignty, but rather freely decides whether to threaten the use of force[15] to crush resistance to US claims, as in the case of Panama, or to directly occupy parts of the local government with its own personnel in order to ensure that its backyard serves the interests of the US.[16] In keeping with this,

the declared enemy states in the region

are not neglected on Rubio’s trip: “The US Secretary of State also used his visit to position himself on Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. He warned of the international connections of their governments. ‘In the case of Venezuela, which cooperates with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. In the case of Cuba, which has hosted Chinese espionage and a Russian presence,’ he explained.” (amerika21.de, February 9, 2025)

The US government reserves the right to decide how to deal with them. As for their contribution to mass migration to the US, the least they can do now is to take back their citizens who were once accepted into the US. Their significance for US policy has fundamentally changed in the meantime: A year ago, refugees from enemy states such as Cuba and Venezuela were accepted into the US and given preferential treatment over other migrants because they could be used to delegitimize these declared enemy states of the US as unjust regimes.[17] Now, however, they are largely viewed as the enemy’s personified weapons against the US, destroying the American people, and are treated accordingly. The fact that their countries of origin should take them back at their own expense is not negotiable, but a given.[18] Furthermore, the US government wants to make it clear to these countries that they are harming themselves by choosing false friends and that they can only save themselves by making a fundamental change and switching to the right side. With this in mind, sanctions against Cuba and Nicaragua are being tightened once again in order to further ruin the little that still functions economically in these countries,[19] while noting that they have “got off lightly” with only slightly higher base tariffs than the rest of the countries – 10% for all, “only” 15% for Nicaragua, and 18% for Cuba. Apparently, the Trump administration is very precisely gauging the balance between practical damage and a clear warning as to what leverage the US would still have if these run-down countries do not finally realize where their future lies.

The situation in Venezuela is somewhat different: as an oil producer, the country has resources that have been significantly reduced by sanctions, but it still has them to a certain extent due to the circumvention of the sanctions, primarily by China, Russia, and Iran. These resources must be taken away from this enemy of the USA, which should also affect its friends with whom it conducts its illegal, US-sanctioned business. To this end, the US president is using the levers he loves so much – economic damage and blackmail – and is expanding their arsenal with “secondary tariffs,” which make entire countries liable for all their export transactions if one of their companies buys Venezuelan oil. The oil producing country, which is colluding with false friends, is thus to be deprived of royalties and export revenues as much as possible, and its buyers, especially in China, are to be denied access to Venezuelan oil:

“US President Donald Trump has announced that the US will impose a 25 percent tariff on all trade with countries that import oil from Venezuela. Trump's executive order issued on Monday states: ‘On or after April 2, 2025, a 25 percent tariff may be imposed on all goods imported into the United States from a country that imports Venezuelan oil, whether directly from Venezuela or indirectly through third parties.’” (amerika21.de, March 26, 2025)[20]

And then Venezuela must be deterred from its ambitions to annex parts of neighboring Guyana, where US oil companies operate:

“At a joint press conference with Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali in Georgetown on Thursday, Rubio warned Caracas against attacking the oil-rich small country. ‘I have full confidence in saying now as the Secretary of State: There will be consequences for adventurism. There will be consequences for aggressive actions.’ When asked what the US would do in the event of an attack by Venezuela on the facilities of the oil company ExxonMobil in Guyana, Rubio replied: ‘It would be a very bad day, a very bad week for them.’ He said ‘We have a big navy and it can get almost anywhere in the world.’” (stern.de, March 28, 2025)

When the USA threatens to use its superior power to warn another country against conquering foreign territories, it is no longer concerned with preventing or punishing violations of the principles of competition and respect for state sovereignty asserted by America: Under President Trump, the US has abandoned this type of hegemonic imperialism and has even considered, in some cases, simply taking the object of its desire by force. But this way of asserting its interests as absolute and enforcing them by threatening superior force is – even in “our hemisphere” – something that only the US can do: its unquestionable superiority gives it the right to determine the conditions in its backyard entirely according to its own interests and undisturbed by the encroaching claims of other states.

It remains to be mentioned that the Trump administration is once again considering the Guantánamo prison camp as an option for tucking away undesirable migrants, whom it identifies as criminals of the worst kind,[21] outside of US jurisdiction. The fact that courts in the US homeland are putting obstacles in the way of the administrations’s efforts to ensure the safety of its citizens[22] is being dealt with by resorting to Venezuela as an alternative location for getting rid of these ‘elements’. Incidentally, this administration considers judicial intervention in its own country a domestic political scandal of the highest order – but that belongs in another chapter of the Trump administration’s fight for national security...

Footnotes

[1] Of course, the US government does not make keeping out intruders contingent on the required contributions from countries of origin and transit. Under Trump I and then under Biden, the US fortified its southern border and monitored it with security forces to such an extent that the influx of unwanted migrants has been greatly reduced: “US President Donald Trump took office this week and inherited the most secure southern border in decades, as the number of registered illegal border crossings fell dramatically last year.” (FR, January 26, 2025) In addition, they moved visa applications to Mexican territory in order to prevent people from entering the country who are not wanted and who may be difficult to get rid of. President Trump abolished this possibility of entering the US legally immediately after taking office until further notice: “Despair is spreading at the Mexican border. Donald Trump stopped entries from Mexico right at the beginning of his term in office. Appointments already made for asylum procedures were canceled.” (tagesspiegel.de, January 21, 2025)

[2] “In Guatemala and Haiti, remittances accounted for 20 percent of GDP [in 2024], in Nicaragua 27 percent, in Honduras 26 percent, in El Salvador 24 percent, and in Jamaica 19 percent.” (amerika21.de, May 26, 2025)

[3] He was punished for refusing to allow US military aircraft carrying deported Colombians to land in Bogota on the grounds that this violated Colombia’s sovereignty, with immediate restrictions on access to the US market, which had the desired effect and brought the country to heel: “Brought to its knees – How Trump brought Colombia in line” (FAZ, January 28, 2025). Trump ordered “punitive tariffs of 25 to 50 percent, visa restrictions for government officials, financial sanctions, and increased inspections of Colombian persons and goods at the border.” “‘This is just the beginning,’ Trump threatened. Later, he posted a picture of himself on social media ... with a sign in the background reading FAFO, the slang acronym for ‘Fuck Around and Find Out’ – meaning ‘If you mess with me, you’ll see!’” (Ibid.) Petro relented. “‘Today's events make it clear to the world that America is respected again,’ according to a statement released by the White House.” (Ibid.)

[4] The ways in which the US government is pressuring Panama to eliminate this nuisance, and the peculiar brand of diplomacy it is employing in doing so, is discussed in section 2: “Rubio's journey into the world of states ‘in our own neighborhood’.”

[5] “Rubio accused Nicaragua and the two other left-wing dictatorships, Cuba and Venezuela, of being responsible for the migration crisis. ‘They create these crises because their systems simply don't work,’ Rubio said.” (NZZ, February 7, 2025)

[6] “China sells weapons to various countries, especially Venezuela. China is also said to have strengthened its intelligence cooperation with Cuba. China is ‘on the 20-yard line to our homeland,’ said Laura Richardson, commander of the US Southern Command, last year.” (FAZ, February 4, 2025)

[7] It is therefore clear that the Trump administration will, for example, put Cuba back on the list of “state sponsors of terrorism.”

[8] “Since its transfer from the United States to Panama on December 31, 1999, the canal has been the inalienable property of the Panamanian people and is administered and operated by the ACP (Spanish: Autoridad del Canal de Panamá, English: Panama Canal Authority). The ACP is an independent Panamanian authority... It is bound by the agreement on the neutrality of the canal, which is part of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties concluded between the United States and Panama on September 7, 1977. Therefore, the ACP is obliged to grant access to ships of all nations (including warships) without discrimination and on equal terms against payment of transit fees.” (wikipedia.de, Panama Canal)

[9] “Large ports are located at both entrances to the Panama Canal: on the Atlantic side in Colón and on the Pacific side in Balboa. The two container ports there are operated by the Chinese company Hutchison Ports, a subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holding.” (Ibid.)

[10] “One month later, the Trump administration also achieved success with regard to China’s no longer tolerated involvement in the canal. Trump’s threats had an effect – the Chinese multinational handed over its canal business to American ownership: “On March 4, 2025, Hutchison announced that 90 percent of its shares in Panama Ports Company and shares in other ports outside the PRC would be sold to a group of companies led by investor BlackRock for $19 billion. US President Donald Trump had exerted massive pressure on Hutchison.” (wikipedia.de, Panama Canal)

[11] “Panama’s president accused the Trump administration of lying about a deal that would give the U.S. Navy free access to the Panama Canal, intensifying tensions around negotiations about the future of the canal following President Trump’s threats to seize it.” (Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2025) The nature of the “enhanced military cooperation” between the US and Panama is also controversial. While the US is demanding a permanent troop presence and considers this demand to have already been granted, the Panamanian government sees things differently: “Among other things, Panama agreed to strengthen military cooperation. However, Defense Minister Ábrego contradicted Hegseth’s statements that Panama welcomes US troops on its soil ‘at the invitation of rotating joint exercises’. ‘Panama has made it clear through President Mulino that we cannot accept military bases or defense installations,’ Ábrego said.” (zdf.de, April 10, 2025)

[12] Another detail regarding US diplomacy with Panama is the joint statement published during Defense Secretary Hegseth’s visit to Panama, in which the Panamanian government insisted that, among other things, the US recognize Panama’s sovereignty over the canal. “There is a striking contradiction between the different versions of the joint statement. The Spanish version published by Panama states: ‘Hegseth recognizes Panama’s leadership and inalienable sovereignty over the Panama Canal and its adjacent territories.’ This line does not appear in the English version published by the Pentagon.” (dw.com, April 12, 2025)

[13] Guatemalan President Arévalo “promised Rubio that he would create a special unit to protect the border with Honduras and El Salvador. Its purpose is supposed to combat transnational gangs. Rubio, for his part, promised to provide Guatemala with financial support for this and for the repatriation of migrants. ‘This is an example of development aid that is in our national interest,’ Rubio said.” (NZZ, February 7, 2025)

[14] One person who has fully embraced this approach is El Salvador’s President Bukele – thanks to his offer to provide the US with free prison space, he is a true beacon of cooperation in the US government’s efforts to reverse migrant flows: “‘No country has ever made such an offer of friendship. We are deeply grateful.’ With these words, Marco Rubio praised El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele on Monday.” (NZZ, February 7. 2025) See the article in GegenStandpunkt 1-25: “El Salvadors Präsident Bu­­kele bietet Trump einen Deal zur kostengünstigen Entsorgung von kriminellen Ausländern – Jemand hat’s verstanden!” [untranslated]

[15] The US has never left any doubt that it is willing and able to shape the balance of power in Central American countries entirely according to its own needs. It has demonstrated this in practically every country in the region (e.g., Grenada, Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador) through several invasions and military coups. Moreover, it has completely aligned their national militaries with its own: through equipment, training, regular exercises, etc., the institutions of violence in these countries are a product of the US and so inextricably linked to it that they are virtually a subdivision of the US Army.

[16] Incidentally, when it comes to migration, the US creates conditions and concessions that suit its own security needs. This is evident in President Trump’s recent executive order denying entry to all citizens from ‘shithole countries’ such as Haiti or from countries that “harbor terrorists on a large scale” and “do not cooperate” with the US on visa security: “‘We cannot allow open migration from countries where we cannot safely and reliably screen and verify those who want to enter the US,’ Trump said.” In the same decree, the president also wants to “deny entry to almost all foreign nationals who want to study at the elite Harvard University” (br.de/nachrichten, June 5, 2025).

[17] “The focus on deporting Venezuelans marks a reversal for the Trump administration. The president offered most Venezuelans reprieves from deportation shortly before the end of his first term, saying the situation in their country was ‘catastrophic.’ Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when he was a U.S. senator, said in a 2022 letter that deporting Venezuelans would be a ‘death sentence.’” (Washington Post, February 1, 2025)

[18] “‘This is not a negotiation,’ he [Mauricio Claver Carone, the US State Department's special representative for Latin America] told reporters. ‘The Venezuelan criminals of Tren de Aragua and other groups have to be deported and Venezuela has to accept them. That is their responsibility... That is non-negotiable... And if they don’t comply with these requirements, obviously, as President Trump himself has said, there will be major consequences.’ ... ‘Venezuela has agreed to receive, back into their Country, all Venezuela illegal aliens who were encamped in the U.S., including gang members of Tren de Aragua,’ Trump wrote Saturday morning on Truth Social. ‘Venezuela has further agreed to supply the transportation back.’” (Ibid.)

[19] “Tourism is one of the most important sources of foreign exchange for the Cuban economy, but it is also proving to be its Achilles heel. In recent years, it has been the target of a series of attacks, including a steady tightening of the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the US government, targeted media campaigns, and increasing harassment of travelers and Cuba as a travel destination. Restrictions on air travel, the ban on cruises from the US, the refusal to grant visa-free entry to the US for tourists who have visited Cuba, and the re-inclusion of Cuba on the US list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’ – one day after Donald Trump took office – make bookings and international financial transactions more difficult.” (junge Welt, May 22, 2025)

[20] In addition, Chevron, which had been allowed by the Biden administration to conduct limited business in Venezuela, must withdraw again; and the business of the Italian energy company ENI, which operates as a gas supplier in Venezuela and is paid in oil, will also be made impossible if the oil it earns cannot be exported and converted into cash, as this would fall under the 25 percent secondary customs penalty.

[21] “The individuals concerned were therefore classified by the authorities as ‘high-risk illegal aliens’. Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, described the prisoners who were brought to Guantánamo as ‘the worst of the worst’.” (amerika21.de, February 21, 2025)

[22] “Abrupt turnaround: Guantánamo detainees from Venezuela back in Caracas: 177 Venezuelan nationals who were detained at the US naval base in Guantánamo, Cuba, have been back in Venezuela since 5 a.m. (local time) on Friday... The New York Times commented on the event: The Trump administration has abruptly ended a detention operation that it began just as abruptly this month. This sudden transfer comes at a time when numerous questions have arisen about whether the Donald Trump administration has the legal authority to transfer people from US police and customs facilities to the base in Cuba for prolonged detention. Immigration rights lawyers have filed lawsuits to gain access to the migrants. A more comprehensive lawsuit against the Trump administration is expected to be filed, according to the NYT. The transfers are therefore ‘a way to prevent the litigation from gaining momentum,’ said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor at Yale Law School who has long been familiar with litigation involving Guantánamo detainees.” (junge Welt, February 3, 2025)