Editor's note: CGTN's First Voice provides instant commentary on breaking stories. The column clarifies emerging issues and better defines the news agenda, offering a Chinese perspective on the latest global events.

Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino's forceful rejection of what he termed a "threat" from the Chinese Government raises a serious question: Who is truly threatening Panama?

Panama's Supreme Court recently invalidated a contract held by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison to operate two key ports at the canal's entrance. While Mulino frames this as judicial independence and the rule of law, a closer examination of the geopolitical currents swirling around the issue reveals a familiar and historically entrenched source of pressure. The real threat to Panama does not emanate from a commercial partner respecting a contract, but from a century-old hegemon that has never truly reconciled itself to relinquishing control of the strategic waterway.

First of all, is the Supreme Court decision a purely domestic legal affair? It was explicitly celebrated by Washington. The most telling endorsement came from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was quick to voice his approval, stating that the United States was "encouraged" by the decision. His excitement was echoed by other U.S. lawmakers, who hailed the ruling as a victory for the United States.

After all, the ruling aligns perfectly with U.S. efforts to squeeze out other countries' presence in Panama, making the U.S. its real beneficiary, and arguably the real driver of this decision.

Second, the U.S. has never truly let go of its control over Panama and the Panama Canal, even after formally handing over the Canal to Panama in 1999. For nearly a century, the U.S. dominated the Canal, treating it as a strategic outpost to maintain hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The 1999 handover was never a genuine transfer of power; the U.S. has since sought every opportunity to reassert its influence.

This ambition is clearly spelled out in America's most recent National Security Strategy, which devotes substantial attention to the Western Hemisphere and puts forward the strategy of "Enlist and Expand." This strategy, in essence, is a modern iteration of U.S. hegemony, aiming to rally regional allies and expand U.S. control, ensuring that no other power can challenge its dominance in the region – including over Panama and its valuable asset, the Canal.

Third, the current U.S. administration has long dispensed with diplomatic subtlety, openly expressing a neo-colonial mindset toward the region and the Canal itself. U.S. President Donald Trump has openly mused about "taking back" the Panama Canal, a statement that sent shockwaves through Panama and laid bare a profound disrespect for Panamanian sovereignty. 

Plus, senior U.S. officials have publicly celebrated the "Monroe Doctrine," a 19th-century policy justifying American interventionism. Trump even asserted his "Donroe Doctrine" after the U.S. forcibly seized Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. This overt declaration of hegemony reveals the true nature of the pressure facing Panama. The threat is really a powerful neighbor that views the Canal as a national asset it "lost" by mistake and the region as its exclusive sphere of dominion.

Therefore, it is an inescapable conclusion that the threat to Panama stems from Washington, not Beijing. 

CK Hutchison's contract in Panama has always been based on mutual benefit and respect for sovereignty, focusing on economic cooperation and infrastructure development that benefit the Panamanian people. The U.S. posture, on the other hand, is a systemic, strategic campaign to dictate Panama's economic and diplomatic partnerships.

By yielding to U.S. pressure, Panama is inflicting pain on itself in two critical ways. The Supreme Court, by overlooking the fact that the contract had been approved and supervised by successive Panamanian governments for nearly three decades, with the operator complying with all legal requirements and making significant investments in port upgrades, is undermining its own authority. Also, it is sending out a dangerous signal to global investors that no agreement in Panama is safe. The decision will severely damage Panama's business environment and investment credentials.

Ironically, while celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Canal’s handover in 2024, President Mulino declared: "This Canal has to continue to be the Canal of our Panamanians, for Panamanians, at the world's service but above all, for Panamanians mainly." His current path deviates from this sentiment and he is risking leaving Panama's growth and prosperity at the mercy of external strategic calculations.

The author Liu Kun is a political analyst based in Beijing.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)