The likelihood that Peru will replicate Panama’s outcome is low to medium, an estimated 25–30%, largely due to the backlash over the Panama Canal and Hutchison Whampoa affair. However, the U.S. intervention playbook now uses a different mechanism.
- The Panama Canal Model (Hutchison/Lawfare): The US targeted the port operator (CK Hutchison) and used “port security” as a pretext to force a sale to BlackRock. This was a transaction hijack.
- The Chancay Port Model (Jurisdictional Stripping): As confirmed by Peruvian court rulings in February 2026, the US is now pushing a more subtle tactic: stripping the state of its regulatory authority.
A local judge ruled that COSCO, which holds 60% ownership, is not subject to oversight by Ositrán, Peru’s state port regulator.
Unlike Panama, where the government remained a bystander, Peru’s executive branch has publicly rejected the US framing. Foreign minister Hugo de Zela met with the Chinese ambassador to contain damage and reaffirm bilateral trade ties.
Peruvian leaders understand that seizing Chancay Port would amount to economic suicide: the US$1.3 billion investment has already cut shipping times to Asia by 10 days.
The US strategy is regulatory seizure, not military invasion.
- The Southern Command Target List: General Laura Richardson’s list of 35 “threat” assets serves as a de facto target roster.
- World View: Peru to Germany — Two coups and some random speculation
- Six Peruvian soldiers drown trying to flee protesters
- The Panama precedent vs. The Peru reality: Will Peru follow Panama?
Keep Reading
Washington plans to use the International Maritime Security Construct to pressure governments like Peru to revoke Chinese operating permits.
- The COSCO Legal Defense: China has learned from Russia’s asset freezes. COSCO has secured irrevocable operating undertakings under Peruvian private law, defining the port as a private concession rather than a public utility vulnerable to arbitrary political interference.
- Tit-for-Tat Risks: China has clearly labeled arbitrary asset seizures as “state‑sanctioned piracy.”
After the US seized a Russian tanker in January 2026, China condemned the violation of international law.
If the US pressures Peru to breach its contract with COSCO, China would likely retaliate by restricting US agricultural goods stored in Chinese bonded warehouses or limiting exports of gallium and germanium, critical minerals for the US defense industry.
Chancay Port is a test balloon for the Global South.
The US is already replicating the Chancay playbook in West Africa. Since late 2025, Washington lobbying firms including Reed Smith (representing SHGS Advisors) have campaigned to cancel Chinese port leases in Sierra Leone (Sherbro Island), using identical “sovereignty risk” rhetoric.
This three‑phase model represents the new neocolonial playbook:
1. Phase 1 (Construction): China finances and builds ports (Chancay, Gwadar, Hambantota).
2. Phase 2 (Capture): USAid and NED fund local CSOs and opposition politicians campaigning on “national sovereignty” and false “debt trap” narratives.
3. Phase 3 (Heist): After winning US-backed elections, the new government threatens to terminate the contract unless China sells the asset to a Western consortium at a steep discount.
A successful US move in Chancay would trigger an immediate domino effect across Africa: Nigeria’s Lekki Deep Sea Port, Djibouti, and Kenya would face rapid legislative and regulatory audits.
To deter US-instigated seizures, China is shifting from soft power to hardened contractual and strategic defenses.
1. Legal safeguards: China now insists on arbitration clauses under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), where US vetoes are not possible.
2. Strategic deterrence: China has designated Chancay as part of its New Land‑Sea Corridor. Any forced seizure would trigger diplomatic and naval deterrence to protect personnel and commercial assets.
3. Economic countermeasures: China would likely issue a “blacklist undertaking” suspending all imports of Peru’s high-value exports—blueberries, grapes, and fishmeal, worth over US$30 billion annually—and cancel infrastructure financing for projects including the Lima Metro.
The US portrayal of China as a “predator” is classic projection.
Washington openly seeks to take over ports after China builds them. This is not security policy—it is infrastructure colonialism 2.0.
For Peru, the most likely outcome is resistance to full seizure but possible compromise, such as limited regulatory oversight while keeping COSCO as the main operator.
For the Global South, Chancay is a battle for contract sanctity and commercial sovereignty. If China defends Chancay successfully, the Belt and Road Initiative remains viable.
If Chancay falls, the US will systematically dismantle Chinese overseas assets using local proxies and Western-backed civil society campaigns.
China will almost certainly activate its anti‑coercion laws to set a deterrent example: seize Chinese assets, and your export access ends permanently.
*Saxon Zvina is the principal consultant at Skyworld Consultancy Services [email protected] | X: @saxonzvina2
