In a display of neo-colonial audacity, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has intruded into Panamanian sovereignty, threatening President José Raúl Mulino with repercussions if Panama does not sever its economic ties with China concerning the Panama Canal.

This canal, a symbol of Panamanian independence since it was handed over in 1999, now faces new U.S. aggression under the Trump administration's belligerent foreign policy.

Rubio's visit, described by some as a diplomatic blunder, was marked by an ultimatum that Panama must reduce Chinese influence at the canal or face unspecified "measures" from Washington. This comes despite the canal's management being a matter of Panamanian jurisdiction under international law, specifically under a treaty that ensures its neutrality - a treaty now being twisted by U.S. interests to justify interference.

Mulino, maintaining a diplomatic stance, refuted the notion of any real threat to the canal's neutrality or sovereignty, suggesting Rubio's statements were more about exerting U.S. dominance than addressing genuine security concerns.

This intervention is part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration, which has seen the U.S. impose tariffs on neighbors like Canada and Mexico, actions that have destabilized trade relations and provoked retaliatory measures. It's a clear signal of an administration more interested in unilateral control than in fostering mutual respect among nations.

The meeting, while termed "good-faith" by Mulino, was set against a backdrop of public outrage in Panama City, where hundreds protested, decrying the U.S. for infringing on Panamanian rights with slogans like "Marco Rubio out of Panama" and "Long live national sovereignty." The protest underscored a public rejection of what many see as an attempt to revert to a time when the U.S. controlled the canal, ignoring over two decades of Panamanian administration.

Rubio's agenda seemed to prioritize U.S. domestic political points, focusing on migration and drug trafficking, issues where U.S. policy has been notably obstructive by cutting aid, thereby hampering regional cooperation. His push for Panama to align with U.S. immigration policies underlines a transactional approach to diplomacy, where cooperation is expected in exchange for political support rather than out of shared global responsibility.

In his Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Rubio painted China as a bogeyman, ignoring the economic benefits Panama has reaped from its pragmatic engagements with various global powers. His claim that the canal is "vulnerable" to Chinese pressure is more reflective of U.S. anxiety over losing global influence than any actual threat to Panamanian or international interests.

Mulino's decision not to renew with China's Belt and Road Initiative might be seen as a concession, but it also highlights Panama's careful navigation of international pressures rather than capitulation to U.S. demands. The ongoing audit of port concession could be a strategic move to maintain control over national assets, but whether this will placate Trump's broader, more imperial ambitions remains doubtful.

The U.S. stance, demanding control over the canal's operations or even its sovereignty, not only disrespects Panamanian independence but also risks international backlash for its overreach, echoing the colonial practices of the past rather than the partnership of equals that modern diplomacy should represent. (ILKHA)