Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2024, has sparked significant controversy with his assertive claim about regaining control of the Panama Canal. Addressing thousands, Trump stated, "We gave it to Panama and we’re taking it back," reviving past tensions surrounding the strategic waterway, which the U.S. handed over to Panama under the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977.
His remarks drew immediate backlash from Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino, who responded sharply to Trump’s assertions. "The Canal is and will remain Panama’s and its administration will remain under Panamanian control with respect to its permanent neutrality," Mulino declared, emphasizing the sovereignty of Panama and the historical significance of the treaty.
During his inaugural address, Trump alleged, "The purpose of our deal and the spirit of our treaty has been totally violated," insisting on the necessity of American control over the canal due to perceived mistreatment and alleged overcharging of American ships. He went on to assert, "China is operating the Panama Canal, and we didn’t give it to China; we gave it to Panama." This insinuation of foreign control signifies Trump's intent to reshape perceptions around U.S. foreign policy and trade.
Critically, Trump's claims echoed longstanding concerns about Chinese influence globally, utilizing the canal as a focal point. Hutchison Ports PPC, the Hong Kong-based company operating two port terminals near the canal, is not directly owned by the Chinese government, yet is subject to the national security laws of Beijing, ushering a complex narrative on control and influence.
Taking the debate back to fundamental historical roots, the Panama Canal, constructed significantly by the U.S. and completed by 1914, symbolizes generational struggles for sovereignty. "The Canal was not a concession from anyone. It was the result of generational struggles culminating in 1999," Mulino pointed out, situationally reminding audiences of the sacrifices associated with its construction, including the loss of tens of thousands of workers' lives.
Trump's rhetoric is reminiscent of expansionist thoughts he reiterated on campaign trails and prior addresses, where discussions of 'retaking' territory prompted mixed reactions at home and abroad. The previous remarks during his campaign lacked specific mention of the canal but resurfaced dramatically within the framework of his inaugural aspirations.
Mulino, advocating for constructive dialogue, underscored the historical importance of negotiations, stating, "Dialogue remains the ideal approach to address these issues without compromising our rights, full sovereignty, or ownership of our Canal." His emphasis on peaceful resolutions juxtaposed strongly against Trump's more confrontational and nostalgic positions reflecting American exceptionalism.
The idea of reclaiming the Panama Canal is not merely ideological but revolves around practical concerns like trade routes, national security, and America's role on the world stage. Trump's allies, including Marco Rubio, have hinted at using potential violations of the 1977 treaty as grounds for claims against Panama. "While technically, sovereignty over the canal has not been turned over to a foreign power..." Rubio commented during his confirmation hearings, illustrating the contentious grounds on which next steps might be argued.
Internationally, Trump's declaration has reaffirmed skepticism surrounding U.S. intentions toward foreign relations, stirring questions about how such assertive claims would play out diplomatically. Meanwhile, tied to this narrative exists sensitive discussions about the Pentagon's stance on military options, as Trump previously suggested not ruling out military force.
Overall, Trump’s vision as articulated was to position the U.S. once again as the central power, reshaping narratives around nations' sovereignty, trade fairness, and perceived threats from countries like China. The ramifications of these thoughts on U.S.-Panamanian relations could lead to escalated dialogues or increased tensions depending on forthcoming actions promised by Trump’s administration.
The ceremonial address, rooted deeply in themes of American greatness and historical reclamation, has ignited fervent discourse about the future of Panama Canal relations. Will the pathway lead to constructive dialogue or will it echo back to distant confrontations? Only time will reveal the true impact of these words.