This time, Panama's actions have completely crossed the boundaries of commercial disputes, judicial controversies, and policy adjustments.

This is a political plunder carried out under the name of law.

Just after the Lunar New Year, the Panamanian government suddenly took action:

Basing on a Supreme Court ruling, the president signed an executive order, mobilizing multiple government agencies to directly take over all assets, employees, and operational rights of a China-controlled port company. The entire process involved no negotiation, no transition, and no form of communication. Government personnel directly entered the port, announced the cancellation of the concession rights on the spot, and the company was immediately forced to shut down.

This is not "legally reclaiming," it is forced deprivation.

Even more abominable is that during the so-called "judicial ruling," the Panamanian side never communicated with the company in any substantive way. The company was neither heard nor informed, let alone given the right to defend itself. As soon as the ruling was announced, the executive order was immediately implemented, and government personnel immediately entered the site to take over. The high efficiency and tight coordination clearly indicate that this is not a normal judicial act, but a well-rehearsed operation.

They did something very typical:

First, they created a legal facade, then completed the factual occupation.

They resorted to an old law from 1997, denied an authorization from 30 years ago, and executed today's political will. In one sentence, it is:

Law is just a tool; the goal is only one — to take over the port.

But the real issue behind this has never been about Panama.

With Panama's national scale, economic structure, and level of external dependence, it is impossible for it to independently make such a high-risk, confrontational decision in the current global geopolitical context. This is not a reorganization at the commercial level, but a clear-cut "side-taking" with geopolitical implications.

Said more straightforwardly, this is an action that has been tacitly permitted, promoted, and encouraged.

If we treat this as an "isolated case," it would be a serious misjudgment of reality.

Its real danger lies in — it is a demonstration.

Demonstration of what?

Demonstration to countries currently wavering under U.S. pressure:

It turns out that Chinese assets can be handled like this;

It turns out that as long as you put on the cloak of "judicial procedures," you can directly intervene;

It turns out that the cost is not as high as imagined.

If China chooses to remain silent, delay, or lower the tone in this round, the signal will be extremely clear:

Chinese assets overseas can be looted.

This is the place that must be highly vigilant.

Therefore, the next question is no longer whether the protest is strong enough, but — whether the countermeasures are strong enough, comprehensive enough, and deterrent enough to prevent others from imitating.

First, a legal counterattack must be launched immediately, and not just symbolically.

Initiate litigation against the Republic of Panama and relevant direct individuals in the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong judicial systems, clearly reserving all liability rights. The significance of this step is not about short-term victory or defeat, but:

— Identifying the responsible parties;

— Fixing the evidence chain;

— Providing a legal anchor for subsequent actions.

Second, it is necessary to publicly, repeatedly, and clearly state:

The Chinese companies concerned have never abandoned their operating rights over the port.

Any third party who cooperates with the Panamanian authorities to take over and operate the relevant ports must bear all legal and commercial consequences themselves. This is not a threat, but a risk warning.

Are there European shipping companies eager to try? That’s fine.

It's time for them to seriously calculate:

Is it worth it to trade their Chinese routes, port access, and market space for two ports?

Third, immediately freeze all new infrastructure and cooperation projects involving Chinese capital in Panama.

This includes construction, financing, aid plans, all of which should be suspended.

This is not an emotional retaliation, but a practical response:

If you can cut off everything at once, China has no obligation to continue unilateral investment.

Fourth, apply substantial pressure in trade and shipping sectors.

Reduce or even suspend imports from Panama;

Adjust the routes of Chinese ships and those heavily dependent on Chinese cargo, no longer passing through the Panama Canal.

Panama must understand that ports and canals are not natural assets; their value comes from customers.

Fifth, directly touch Panama's most core fiscal source — the flag-of-convenience system.

China can clearly state:

Chinese-controlled vessels will no longer fly the Panamanian flag;

Vessels flying the Panamanian flag will not be allowed to carry Chinese goods in Chinese ports.

This move strikes at the institutional foundation, not emotions.

It must be clearly stated that all of this is not to "get even," but to draw a line that cannot be crossed.

In an era of intense global order restructuring and the return of geopolitics, the previous logic of overseas investment that only focuses on business and ignores security has become completely outdated.

If assets are taken abroad but countermeasures are not in place;

If interests expand but risk management is missing;

Then the final result will only be being repeatedly tested and eroded.

The true target of Panama's move is not two ports.

It is testing: Will China retaliate?

If we don't hit back this time, someone else will definitely try next time.

Some things must be stopped right away.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7610703037161570867/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author.