As U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio demands Panama take action against Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, reactions from Panamanian officials and citizens reveal deep-seated resentment towards potential U.S. military intervention.
Tensions Rise as US Demands Panama Address Chinese Influence Over Canal
Tensions Rise as US Demands Panama Address Chinese Influence Over Canal
Rubio's visit to Panama ignites controversy and protests amid calls for reduced Chinese presence.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent visit to Panama City has set off waves of discontent as he urged the Panamanian government to take "immediate changes" regarding what he labeled as China's "influence and control" over the strategic Panama Canal. Rubio's demands echo President Donald Trump's earlier remarks about reclaiming the canal, leading to tense discussions with Panama's conservative president, Jose Raul Mulino.
Despite their two-hour meeting, the interpretations of their discussions diverged sharply. Mulino expressed confidence that military intervention was not imminent and called instead for technical talks to quell U.S. concerns about China’s growing presence. Growing anxiety surrounding Trump's lofty claims has sparked public displeasure, highlighted by protests in Panama City where demonstrators burned effigies of both Trump and Rubio.
The sentiment of many Panamanians aligns with Mulino’s assertion that the canal, which has been under Panamanian control since 1999 following a treaty with the U.S., is not for negotiation. "It's sealed, the canal belongs to Panama," Mulino firmly stated. Under the treaty established decades ago, the waterway is under the jurisdiction of the Panamanian government, despite heavy investments from Chinese firms in nearby port facilities.
Local residents, including hotel worker Andre Howell, voiced frustrations about the lack of local benefits stemming from canal profits, responding to fears that U.S. desires to curb Chinese influence might resurface historic grievances linked to U.S. control over the canal. Howell remarked, "No Panamanians have [the] benefits," while others recalled the restrictions of U.S. governance prior to 1999.
Reflections upon the U.S. military invasion of Panama in 1989 further stoke nationalist sentiments. Many Panamanians remain sensitive to the implications of U.S. military aggression on their sovereignty, with former congressman Edwin Cabrera reliving the traumatic memories of conflict.
Rubio, who is recognized for his hawkish stance on China, underscores U.S. vulnerability regarding its maritime interests. "If China wanted to obstruct traffic in the Panama Canal, they could," he asserted, presenting a potential threat to U.S. merchant and military vessels if the geopolitical landscape were to shift unfavorably.
As this situation unfolds, the divide between U.S. policy aims and Panamanian sovereignty highlights the complexities of international diplomacy, each side holding firm to their respective priorities.
