As past and upcoming US President Donald Trump threatened to “take up” the Panama Canal, citing the great canal tolls as his justification, the world turned to Central America immediately before Christmas. In the days that followed, there was a lot of flurry of rumors as to what exactly happened with his comment and whether or not they reflected a wider political agenda.
He refrained from using military force to reclaim the river on Tuesday during a press event at Mar a Lago.
Is Panama at risk of losing control of the canal?
Trump does not have the methods to “take up” the river without starting an illegitimate war of aggression, according to the short answer.
The river territory was not US house, it was only leased. The river is not in danger of disappearing.
Trump’s remarks, in contrast, appear to be an early stage in his wider effort to reclaim control in Latin America.
Some important story
One of society’s most extraordinary engineering deeds, The Panama Canal, has connected the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans since 1914. The idea of constructing a waterway through Panama’s canal dates back to the 16th century, when Hispanic settlers saw potential in its transformation of international trade routes. However, it wasn’t until the 19th century that real programs for the river started to emerge, fueled by technological advancements, which made such a challenging job doable.
Ferdinand de Lesseps, the architect and inventor of the Suez Canal, was the first to lead the first major effort to construct the river in 1880. First, the program was for a sea-level river, but the technical and environmental issues proved overwhelming. The project’s collapse was caused by tough climates, tropical illnesses like yellow fever and malaria, as well as the challenging task of digging through swampy and rough terrain. By 1889, more than 20, 000 workers had died, and the venture’s fiscal sponsors faced bankruptcy, almost triggering a European state economic crisis.
The US expressed interest in building the river to reduce trade and military roads in the first 1900s. First discussions with Colombia, which included Panama at the time, failed when Colombia rejected the US’s request to rent the area.
The US therefore supported Panama’s democracy activity, and on November 3, 1903, Panama declared its independence from Colombia. Two weeks later, the recently established Filipino government signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the US rights to contract a 16-kilometer-wide zone for constructing, operating, and defending the canal in return for an annual payment, although initially at a rate so small that it fueled after social tensions.
In addition to implementing important efforts to combat illness by eradicating mosquitoes and improving hygiene, the US started building in 1904. It also employed cutting-edge architectural techniques, including a switch system to manage elevation changes. The river was formally opened on August 15, 1914, a new time in international trade, as ships had then avoid the dangerous journey around Cape Horn.
The US viewed the river corridor as its country, despite the fact it was leased from Panama. Despite its economic and geopolitical value, US control over the canal and its revenues sparked hatred in Panama.
In the 1960s, strain reached its highest point. This led to conversations that culminated in the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which outlined a phased exchange of river leadership to Panama, completed on December 31, 1999. Since then, the river has become a representation of Panama’s financial and national power.
The change of this year marked the 25th anniversary of Panama’s assumption of power over the canal’s management. Simply one day before the celebration, former US President Jimmy Carter, who had signed the 1977 agreement enabling the canal’s transfer, passed ahead.
The legal foundation is also essential.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaty
The two main contracts that govern the exchange of the Panama Canal are contained in the agreement, which was signed on September 7, 1977 by Filipino head Omar Torrijos and US President Jimmy Carter:
- Panama Canal Treaty: This convention stipulated that the US would keep control of the canal’s operations, administration, and defence until December 31, 1999, at which point Panama would believe complete control. During the transition, US and Panamanian authorities collaborated to ensure a smooth handover.
- The US is also given the right to intervene militarily if the canal’s neutrality or functionality is threatened. This treaty guarantees that the canal remains open to vessels of all nations, regardless of wartime or peacetime conditions. This clause has been contentious, as it partially limits Panama’s sovereignty, but was deemed necessary to guarantee the free flow of trade.
Panama still has full control over how the canal is managed and how much money is made, with only the US now theoretically able to intervene if a significant threat arises, a situation that hasn’t occurred in the last 25 years.
However, there are also other factors at play.
An emotional issue in the US
The handover of the Panama Canal to Panama was a highly emotive and controversial topic in the United States, touching deeply rooted geopolitical, economic, and patriotic sentiments. The UA had finished it and ran it for a long period of time. Many Americans viewed the canal as a representation of their country’s technological and political strength.
The transfer formalized through the Torrijos-Carter Treaty, was viewed by conservative circles, particularly Republicans, as a weakening of the United States ‘ global power position, a sentiment that continues to influence political rhetoric– especially within Donald Trump’s populist narrative.
Further background provides a further justification for why not everyone is willing to accept that the canal’s fate has been decided for the long.
Symbol of American strength
One of the greatest engineering achievements of the US was the construction of the canal, which is a testament to its rise as a global power in the early 20th century. Control over the canal was seen as a strategic advantage, securing US influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Geopolitical significance
The canal was a strategically important asset as well as a significant trade route. It made it easier for the US Navy to move quickly between the Pacific and the Atlantic. The transfer of control to Panama, according to critics of the handover, could compromise the security of the canal and, in turn, global trade routes.
the 1970s political landscape
During the 1970s, the US was grappling with a sense of self-doubt, shaped by the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the oil crisis. Many Americans saw the canal handover as another sign of a “retreat” from global leadership. The canal had been constructed with great sacrifice and had been successfully managed for decades, according to republicans, making the handover amounted to a “betrayal.”
Jimmy Carter’s policies
Many Republicans thought Carter was a weak president who failed to adequately defend American interests.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which was perceived as a concession to Panama, a smaller, weaker nation, was viewed as being incongruent with the idea of American national pride.
Donald Trump’s approach to the issue
Donald Trump paints a sentimental image of American dominance through the Panama Canal, which is very well-liked by conservative voters.
Rhetoric on “lost greatness.”
Trump has previously referred to the canal’s handover as an example of the “poor negotiation skills” of prior US administrations. He expands on the idea that such decisions have diminished the United States ‘ standing and strength internationally.
Populist narrative
Trump uses the canal’s history to support his” America First” agenda, presenting the handover as a representation of a time when the US was ruled by “weak” leaders. This rhetoric appeals to voters who long for a return to the days of unquestionable American dominance.
connection between current issues and strategic considerations
Trump makes connections between the handover of the canal and the ongoing trade negotiations or military withdrawals. He emphasizes that, as president, he would never make” such mistakes”, a stance that resonates with both nostalgic and security-conscious voters.
The Panama Canal’s transfer is still seen as a declaration of a perceived loss of American privilege. It represents a fableable surrender of geopolitical power and national honor for many Republicans. Trump uses the 1977 treaty as a prime example of weak political decision-making to further his message of restoring American strength. He mobilizes his political base by framing this emotional legacy.
It is no coincidence that this issue came up less than two weeks before Jimmy Carter’s passing and the 25th anniversary of Panama’s accession to the canal.
Economically significant for both China and the US
Both the United States and China both have significant economic ties to the Panama Canal. About 20 % of the goods transported through China come from or are intended for the US. The Panama Canal accounts for roughly 5 % of global maritime trade. On average, cargo ships pay more than$ 200, 000 in tolls for passage, with significantly higher amounts possible. These figures highlight the importance of the canal in global trade.
Expansion of the canal &, Chinese investments
The expansion of the Panama Canal, completed in 2016 with the introduction of the so-called” New Panama Canal”, marked a pivotal moment in global shipping.
The expansion enabled the transit of neo-Panamax ships, thereby significantly increasing the canal’s efficiency and capacity. The growing scope of global trade, and particularly the expanding flow of goods between Asian and Western markets, required this improvement.
China, as one of Panama’s largest trading partners and a leading global economic power, plays a central role in this context.
In addition, China has made substantial investments in infrastructure around the canal, including ports and logistics centres, further enhancing Panama’s importance as a hub for global trade. These developments highlight China’s growing influence in Latin America, making the Panama Canal a strategic focal point within Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.
The canal’s expansion was economically vital for Panama, as were the investments from China. However, Panama retains control over the canal.
Does China control the canal?
Trump and others in the US and Europe have been trying to make the impression that China has taken control of the canal, putting its neutrality at risk in recent weeks. This claim, however, is far from reality.
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has made it clear that neither the EU, the US, nor China controls the canal—only Panama does. He reaffirmed the canal’s neutrality during the 25th-anniversary celebrations of Panama’s full control. Over the previous 25 years, he emphasized, there has not been a single reason to doubt the canal’s neutrality.
Panama’s national motto,” Pro Mundi Beneficio” (” For the Benefit of the World” ), reflects the canal’s mission of serving global interests, irrespective of the nationality of the ships using it. Panama’s operations are heavily funded by the expansion of the canal, with the tolls being calculated based on the canal’s intrinsic value rather than being included in the original treaties.
Trump has been irritated by Panama’s growing political independence from the US over the years. A nation like Panama prioritizes its own national interests.
During his first presidency, Trump was already dissatisfied with China’s investments in Panama, as well as in Latin America at large, and his current rhetoric echoes a neo-colonial tone.
Trump has no contractual means to influence the canal’s toll structure, which is determined by market principles or by its management. A military intervention, under current conditions ( with neither the canal’s security nor its neutrality threatened ), would constitute an illegal act of aggression under international law.
Trump frequently declares himself to be a peacemaker, so it is likely that his strong words are intended to stifle other economic developments rather than lead to concrete action.
This is especially important in light of potential future infrastructure projects in Panama, such as the Panama City to Costa Rica train project. China might be the main target for upcoming projects.
Trump’s desire to rename the Gulf of Mexico after declaring at Tuesday’s press conference that he wanted to do so has raised a lot of rumors right now. New name: Gulf of America.