By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump threatened “powerful” US action against Panama over China’s influence near the Panama Canal, vowing to “take it back.” Following a meeting between US Secretary of State Rubio and Panamanian President Mulino, Panama agreed to end its participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative and is auditing a Chinese-linked port company. Mulino asserted Panama’s sovereignty over the canal, while also expressing willingness to increase US investment and collaborate on migrant repatriation, with the US covering all costs. The 1977 treaty allows US intervention if the canal’s operation is disrupted, though Mulino downplayed the risk of US military action.
Read the original article here
Panama’s recent decision to not renew its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) agreement with China is a complex issue, sparking heated debate and raising significant geopolitical questions. The stated reason centers on the United States’ desire to reduce Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, a strategically vital waterway. This action, though seemingly a win for the US, could have far-reaching consequences.
The immediate reaction is one of mixed feelings. While some see this as a victory, achieved through pressure from the US, others express concern about the implications of succumbing to such pressure. This act of appeasement could embolden the US to make further demands in the future, establishing a dangerous precedent where smaller nations feel compelled to comply with US interests, regardless of their own long-term strategic benefits.
The central issue is the perceived threat of Chinese influence over the Panama Canal. However, it’s crucial to note that the BRI is a broad investment initiative, not solely focused on the Canal. Many see the US’s reaction as disproportionate, an overreaction fueled by anxieties regarding China’s growing global presence rather than a real threat to the Canal’s neutrality or operation. This creates concerns about the fairness and potential for future US actions.
The argument for Panama’s choice also hinges on the belief that the BRI has been largely unsuccessful, failing to deliver on its promises. However, dismissing the entire initiative because of perceived shortcomings overlooks the potential benefits it could offer to developing nations. If the focus is solely on perceived failures, a significant opportunity to foster modernization and development for many nations may be missed. This short-sighted approach prioritizes geopolitical posturing over sustainable development.
Concerns exist about the overall approach of the US. While some applaud the firm stance against Chinese influence, others worry that the tactics employed are those of a bully. The fear is that this “win” could simply be a step towards further demands, creating a cycle of concessions from smaller nations, rather than a fair and mutually respectful resolution of the issue. This kind of behavior could potentially push nations closer to China in a kind of self-preservation response.
There is also the underlying question of whether this decision sets a precedent for future US actions. If bowing to pressure is deemed successful, other nations may face similar demands, potentially creating instability and disrupting the global balance of power. The US’s approach risks undermining international partnerships and cooperation.
The controversy extends beyond the implications for Panama. The incident highlights the broader tensions between the US and China, the competition for global influence, and the difficult choices facing smaller nations caught in the middle. It is not a simple win or loss situation, but an episode with far-reaching, potentially negative impacts, impacting global trade and political alliances.
Furthermore, the discussion highlights the inherent contradictions in US foreign policy. The insistence on reducing Chinese influence contrasts with the US’s own significant global presence, raising questions of hypocrisy and double standards. This inconsistency could cause countries to question US motives and further erode trust in international relationships. The Panama decision, therefore, is a symptom of a larger geopolitical struggle, not an isolated event.
The argument that the US is merely protecting its interests ignores the potential for long-term damage to its relationships with allies and emerging markets. Short-term gains through strong-arm tactics may ultimately lead to decreased global stability and a more polarized world, where cooperation is replaced by coercion. The situation calls for a more nuanced approach, prioritizing collaboration and mutual respect over pressure tactics.
In conclusion, Panama’s decision, while framed as a victory for the US, is a complex and potentially risky move. The potential consequences—increased US assertiveness, diminished international goodwill, and a solidifying of alliances against the US – far outweigh any short-term benefits gained through pressuring smaller nations into compliance. It’s not simply a matter of China’s influence but a cautionary tale about the long-term implications of geopolitical power plays.