China’s Disagreement with U.S. Statement on Peru’s Chancay Port
The Chinese Communist Party expressed strong disagreement on Thursday with a statement from the U.S. State Department’s Western Hemisphere Bureau. This statement criticized a recent court ruling that could place one of Peru’s key ports under the control of a company linked to the Chinese government.
Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, addressed the situation following a Peruvian court’s decision that limited the government’s control over the Chancay port. The U.S. claimed the statement of concern was “disinformation.” Lin countered, asserting, “China strongly opposes and deplores the U.S. false accusations and disinformation regarding Chancay Port.”
The Chinese Embassy in Lima, along with the state-run Global Times, criticized U.S. warnings to Peru about China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI, known for offering loans to poorer nations, has faced scrutiny for reportedly resulting in compromised infrastructure projects when countries struggle to repay.
Chancay port, located on Peru’s Pacific coast, stands as one of China’s major projects in Latin America, intended to connect its manufacturing industry with South America.
During a port opening ceremony at the end of 2024, President Xi Jinping emphasized China’s willingness to collaborate with Peru to establish a new trade corridor between China and Latin America.
China has reportedly invested around $1.3 billion in the development of Chancay, which is expected to be primarily owned by Cosco Shipping, a Chinese company, with Swiss commodity firm Glencore holding the remaining shares through a local affiliate.
Concerns regarding the port have arisen among Belt and Road observers, particularly regarding China’s escalating influence in South America and its implications for regional sovereignty.
Evan Ellis, a professor at the U.S. Army War College, noted the risks to Peru: “The first risk is that Peru does not benefit from its rich resources and geographic location, but rather the Chinese do,” he stated in 2024.
Recently, Lima’s Constitutional Court ruled that the Public Transport Infrastructure Investment Supervisory Authority (Ositran) would have no oversight or control over the Chancay port, despite its significance to the Peruvian government. The court concluded that Ositran “must refrain from exercising regulatory, supervisory, financialization, or sanctioning powers” of the port, as it was considered “privately owned” by Cosco.
The ruling triggered a response from Peru’s Presidential Cabinet, which expressed regret but also indicated a willingness to explore legal avenues for appeal.
The U.S. State Department’s Western Hemisphere Bureau brought attention to the situation on social media, raising tensions in Beijing. They stated, “Peru is concerned by recent reports that it may not have the authority to oversee Chancay, one of its largest ports under the jurisdiction of its predatory Chinese owners.” They reiterated support for Peru’s right to manage its critical infrastructure, cautioning that “cheap Chinese money comes at the cost of sovereignty.”
U.S. Ambassador to Peru, Bernie Navarro, echoed similar concerns, cautioning that “everything has a price, and in the long run, cheap becomes expensive.” He added, “There is no higher price than the loss of sovereignty.”
In response, the Chinese Embassy in Peru dismissed U.S. claims as unfounded, highlighting that cooperation between China and Peru has been predicated on mutual respect and benefits. They firmly opposed any actions perceived to undermine another nation’s sovereignty.
Meanwhile, the Global Times accused the U.S. of seeking “hegemony” and stated that the American perspective distorted the regulatory situation regarding Chancay. Observations from Chinese analysts indicated dissatisfaction with the U.S. attitude towards cooperation in their own hemisphere.
