Opposition leaders in Panama have voiced strong objections to the recent announcement of a military deployment by the United States, characterizing it as a “camouflaged invasion.” This response follows the signing of a new security pact between Panama and the U.S. Earlier this week, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the Pentagon is enhancing its military collaboration with Panama as part of an initiative aimed at strengthening control over the strategically vital Panama Canal.
In a statement during his visit to Panama, Hegseth emphasized the canal’s importance: “The Panama Canal is key terrain that must be secured by Panama, with America, and not China.” This remark underscores the U.S. government’s approach to safeguard its interests in the region, particularly amid concerns over growing Chinese influence.
As part of the security agreement, U.S. forces will be deployed to three former military installations in Panama: Fort Sherman, Rodman Naval Base, and Howard Air Force Base. This move has reignited concerns regarding the historical U.S. military presence in Panama, as the last troops were withdrawn in 1999. Critics, including Ricardo Lombana, leader of the opposition Another Way Movement, have expressed unease about what they perceive to be a substantial military foothold reestablished in the country. Lombana referred to the memorandum of understanding as a form of invasion without direct military conflict.
Despite assurances from the Panamanian government that the U.S. presence will not equate to permanent military bases, the opposition remains skeptical, suggesting that the nuances of the agreement indicate a significant shift in military dynamics. Lombana highlighted the government’s struggle to maintain its composure under public scrutiny, expressing a growing discontent among citizens regarding transparency in governance.
The backdrop to this military partnership is a complex history, with the U.S. previously invoking military action in Panama during “Operation Just Cause” in 1989, which aimed to unseat leader Manuel Noriega but left a controversial legacy of civilian casualties and infrastructural damage. Thus, President Donald Trump’s current rhetoric about “taking back” the canal has evoked historical grievances and prompted unease among citizens about potential foreign interference.
Local advocates, including a chapter of Transparency International, have called for a clear disclosure of the agreement’s contents to ensure accountable governance in Panama. Meanwhile, the U.S. initiative is met with scrutiny from rival global powers. Notably, China has denounced the pact, asserting its interest in the canal as a neutral international waterway, essential for global commerce.
As the discussions evolve, this situation exemplifies the intricate interplay between national security, international relations, and local sovereignty. The deployment of U.S. troops serves not only as a strategic decision for Washington but also raises critical questions about the future of Panamanian autonomy and regional stability.
#PoliticsNews #WorldNews