By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a visit by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the deployment of US troops confirmed by Donald Trump, Panamanian opposition parties have accused the US of a “camouflaged invasion,” citing the establishment of a US military presence at former US bases. While the Panamanian government claims the agreement is temporary and doesn’t violate national sovereignty, opposition leaders contend this constitutes a de facto military base, sparking widespread protests and legal action. These actions, coupled with opaque negotiations and conflicting statements from both governments, have fueled public anger and distrust in President Mulino’s handling of the crisis. The situation has reignited painful memories of past US military intervention and threatens Panama’s sovereignty.
Read the original article here
The accusations leveled by Panama’s opposition party regarding a “camouflaged invasion” by the United States are deeply unsettling. The deployment of US troops to former military bases, especially given the 1999 treaty transferring control of the Panama Canal, raises serious questions about US intentions. This action feels like a significant step backward, a betrayal of the spirit of the agreement and a potentially dangerous escalation.
The current situation evokes uncomfortable parallels with other global power plays. The seemingly arbitrary deployment of troops to various regions, gradually expanding influence and control, mirrors tactics employed by other nations. This creeping expansionism, whether literal or figurative, undermines international stability and fuels distrust.
Concerns about the motivations behind the troop deployment are varied and complex. Some believe it’s a response to China’s growing economic influence in the region, a preemptive move to secure control over the strategically vital Panama Canal. This view suggests the US is attempting to counter China’s expansionist tendencies, a familiar narrative in the global geopolitical landscape.
Others, however, see the troop deployment as a more overt act of aggression, reminiscent of past US interventions in Central and South America. This perspective emphasizes the potential for a broader conflict, drawing in other regional players and escalating into a full-blown military engagement. The historical baggage of US involvement in the region contributes to this interpretation.
The narrative is further complicated by the political climate within Panama and the role of various actors. The opposition party’s accusations are viewed by some as politically motivated, possibly influenced by external forces, highlighting the intricate interplay of domestic and international politics. The allegations against the opposition party of being funded by foreign entities, add yet another layer of uncertainty to the situation.
Regardless of the specific motivations, the situation represents a serious threat to Panamanian sovereignty. The potential for conflict is significant and the long-term consequences are unpredictable. The US actions are perceived by many as a blatant disregard for international treaties and agreements, and as a dangerous precedent.
The potential consequences of a full-scale conflict extend far beyond Panama’s borders. The strategic importance of the Panama Canal makes it a focal point of global trade and transportation. Disruption of operations could have catastrophic economic repercussions worldwide. Furthermore, the involvement of additional regional and international actors, could easily lead to a much wider, prolonged, and devastating conflict.
Adding to the complexities is the legacy of previous US interventions in the region. Many believe that the US has a history of interfering in the internal affairs of Latin American nations, often with disastrous results. This historical context informs the skepticism and mistrust surrounding the current situation. The current events only serve to reinforce those pre-existing concerns and feelings.
Beyond the immediate concerns, the incident highlights deeper anxieties regarding the current global political order. The rise of nationalism, the resurgence of great-power competition, and the erosion of trust in international institutions all contribute to a climate of heightened tension and uncertainty. The situation in Panama serves as a microcosm of these larger trends, revealing the fragility of international stability and the potential for escalation in a highly interconnected world.
Ultimately, the allegations of a “camouflaged invasion” demand serious consideration. The deployment of US troops near the Panama Canal represents a potentially dangerous escalation with far-reaching consequences. Whether motivated by concerns about China’s growing influence, a desire to secure strategic assets, or other factors, the situation demands careful consideration and a thoughtful, measured response from all parties involved. Ignoring the concerns and anxieties of the Panamanian people carries substantial risks. International cooperation and respect for national sovereignty are essential to avoiding a potentially devastating conflict. The situation underscores the urgent need for clear communication, transparency, and a commitment to peaceful resolution.