Mmm, who to align with? You mean Taiwan or China, right? That is the choice. Which one will benefit which Panamenians more? The ones in power? Or the majority of the population? That is another good question.
If I understand you correctly, you are telling me that the politicians in Panama would chose China to benefit their country. However, I would counter that this is not the way things are done in Latin America in general, as these choices are made by the sort of individuals who think about the benefits to their clique first and foremost. If they have to worship the Great Ewe of Amun-Ra to benefit themselves, they will. But you would say that is my “feeling”, and I would need some time to get data to support my claim, so, OK, this is not a good argument.
I think choosing between China and Taiwan is not a matter of who’s best for the country, as it is a matter of a conjunction of developments. It simply looks more attractive, but it may not be beneficial in the long run.
I agree with you in that the relationship with Taiwan was limited and handicapped from the start. Has the average Joe benefited from having Taiwan? A few limited investments, shipping and commerce mostly. Donations. Have they benefited from Chinese trade, investment? Not yet, but everyone says its good and promising. So most people believe it, in spite of competing directly in several sectors, which means great loses because the Chinese always produce cheaper. And getting barriers up will only cause political friction.
With the previous policy of taking the best from both sides, Panama was, to put in a way, in a position of relative power. By taking one side only, will it be foresaking any benefits or gaining from the alliance? Politically speaking, it was OK as it was. Economically, Chinese investments are already there.
I believe that economically speaking improving the middle of the road “game” might have been more beneficial, by buildfing a fence around Chinese investments and purchases, allowing Panamenians to be more selective, and not giving up control. But Chinese goods and money find a way, and as we saw let’s say with the poisoned toothpaste, this separation is no line of defense againt shoddy merchandise pandered by intermediaries.
For a supermarket chain, like Martinelli’s, having more Chinese suppliers means less costs, but those costs are not translated to the consumer. They haven’t in all the years they have been trading.
Now, 60% of the population voted Martinelli in. If you see his campaign, again, it was based on denouncing corruption and promising not to go down the same road. The feeling and perception in Central America is that Taiwan facilitates this corruption. So, logically, Taiwan has to go. However, without Taiwan, what barganing chip can the government offer?
How much of the help that Taiwan gives reaches the majority of the Panamenians? Not much. Help is constrained now especially because great efforts are being taken to make it as transparent and honest and clean as possible. Nevertheless, past actions of previous local governments have tainted the reputation of Taiwanese aid. Furthermore, the politicians, if they do not get their bite, are also not “motivated” to keep appereances.
Furthermore, the large Chinese Overseas popultion favors a conservative “China will be greater when unified and no one will hummiliate us anymore” thinking, and since they are a significant voting population, answering to their concerns is also a priority for any savvy government.
As to your comment about communism, I don’t get it. True, some effort has been undertaken against money laudering, but the poison of corruption and illegal trade still looms on. They do catch big loads from time to time, and seize the deposits at the banks, I concede, but it is a tough ongoing fight. And they do not win most of the time. We’ll talk about the inflation later.