China has expressed deep regret over Panama’s decision to withdraw from the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), accusing the United States of using pressure and threats to influence Panama’s sovereign choices. Beijing emphasized its commitment to respecting the sovereignty of nations and fostering equal international relations, a stance it claims stands in stark contrast to U.S. actions.
During a press briefing, Assistant Foreign Minister Zhao Zhiyuan reiterated China’s position, stating, “We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Panama, and we believe that all countries, big and small, should be equal, respect each other, and fulfill their commitments.” He further emphasized that Panama had previously benefited from the infrastructure and economic advantages provided by the BRI, which was launched to improve global trade, development, and connectivity.
The U.S. has been accused by Beijing of interfering in Panama’s internal affairs, particularly after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent visit to the country. Rubio, speaking on behalf of the Trump administration, explicitly stated that the U.S. intended to “take control of the Panama Canal,” a remark which critics argue left Panama with little choice but to distance itself from the Chinese-led initiative.
Panama had initially joined the Belt and Road Initiative in 2017, with the aim of boosting infrastructure and economic growth through increased trade links with China. However, growing concerns over national sovereignty and economic risks, compounded by external pressure from the U.S., led to Panama’s decision to pull out of the project last week.
This move marks a significant shift in Panama’s foreign policy, as it navigates the delicate balance between its economic interests and the geopolitical influence of global powers like China and the United States. China, while regretful, maintains that the BRI has offered Panama tangible benefits, including enhanced trade opportunities and infrastructure development. However, Panama’s concerns about the long-term risks, particularly in relation to sovereignty and economic dependency, appear to have swayed the nation’s decision.
