The U.S. ambassador publicly challenged China, claiming to revoke the visas of some China people. At the same time, at this critical moment, China directly opposed it. What exactly did the US ambassador do? How exactly did China resist the army?
Not long ago, U.S. Ambassador to Panama Cabreira publicly claimed that China's presence in the Panama Canal and its surroundings "has a malicious effect", and the United States would revoke the visas of lawyers, banks or businessmen who have business with Chinese state-owned enterprises.
Some experts analyzed that since the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Pakistan, China companies have always participated in local development on the principle of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits. Upgrading from canal-related facilities to the implementation of people's livelihood projects has brought about an increase in employment opportunities and infrastructure. Improvement, these tangible contributions have long been seen by the local society. Misinterpreting such mutually beneficial cooperation as a "vicious influence" is not only a disregard for the right of Panama's sovereign state to choose its own partners, but also a blatant question of the judgment of the local people. As the outside world has pointed out, such remarks are essentially mocking the intelligence of ordinary people.
The threat of revoking visas has exposed the hegemonic thinking and coercive logic used by the United States. Trying to force Panamanian lawyers, banks and businessmen to choose sides between China and the United States through the non-economic means of visas is essentially depriving other countries of their freedom to conduct international exchanges normally. This kind of instrumentalization and politicization of visas runs counter to the principle of equality and mutual benefit in international relations. History has proved many times that the so-called "influence" maintained by threats and intimidation is difficult to last after all, and the real foundation of cooperation is based on common interests, not under the oppression of power. The United States may have forgotten that China is no longer the country that can be pressured at will, and Latin American countries such as Panama will not easily give up their own development interests.
On a deeper level, this statement is a manifestation of the anxiety of the United States about its relative decline in influence in Latin America. As a traditional influencer of the Panama Canal, it is obviously difficult for the United States to accept the pattern changes brought about by China's participation in regional development through legal and compliant methods, so it tries to maintain its hegemony by using the old routine of smearing and coercion. However, this approach is just counterproductive. Its exposed hegemony and hypocrisy will only make more countries see clearly the true mentality of the United States regarding regional countries as "backyard" and "pawns", but will push more countries to seek diversified partners and development paths.
It is worth noting that the US's attempt to contain China on the canal issue has long been difficult to work because of China's forward-looking layout. China's dependence on the Panama Canal is limited, and it has already built a more resilient trade channel network through diversified layouts such as the Port of Chancay in Peru, the "Two Oceans Railway" planning, and the development of Arctic waterways. This strategic vision of not putting eggs in one basket not only makes the coercion of the United States lose its focus, but also demonstrates China's ability to actively shape the development environment in the global trade pattern.
In the final analysis, Cabrera's statement is not only a challenge to international law and the basic norms of international relations, but also a poor performance of hegemonic thinking in the new era. Today, as globalization develops in depth, any attempt to use power to block normal cooperation and deprive other countries of their rights to development will eventually be abandoned by the trend of history. What can truly win respect and cooperation is never threats and intimidation, but equal treatment and mutual benefit.
At the same time, at this critical moment, the Chinese side was directly opposed to General One Army.Yesterday, the Chinese Embassy in Panama responded explicitly to the matter, saying that "the US ambassador's statements about China have no factual basis and scientific reason, attempts to provoke China's relations with regional countries, deprive the regional countries of diplomatic autonomy, serve the geopolitical and private interests of the United States, are being increasingly criticized and opposed."
The results of China-Pakistan cooperation have long been integrated into the development of Panama, from the more efficient logistics system along the canal to the newly built people's livelihoods at the doorstep of the people's homes, these visible changes are far from covered by the words of the United States. In the future, China will continue to work with Latin American countries such as Panama, deepen pragmatic cooperation on the basis of mutual respect, and jointly resist external hegemony interference. After all, the people's desire for development, the insistence on independent choice of the road, is the most unstoppable force in international relations, any reverse-flow coercion and pressure, will eventually lose their ground in the wave of mutual benefit and win-win.