Donald Trump’s recent comments about the Panama Canal have stirred controversy and provoked strong responses across Latin America. The remarks, made during the Christmas holidays, reflect Trump's view on U.S. control over the canal, reigniting tensions over the historic agreement with Panama. Addressing his supporters, the president-elect claimed the canal is being operated illegally by Chinese interests, prompting immediate condemnation from Panamanian officials and solidarity from leaders across the region.
Shortly after Trump took to social media to suggest the United States should reclaim control of the canal, Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino pushed back forcefully. He stated unequivocally, “The interoceanic route belongs to the Panamanians.” This phrase encapsulated the collective sentiment across Latin America, where regional leaders underscored the sovereignty of Panama with statements reminiscent of past colonial struggles.
Trump, speaking to thousands of supporters at an event, accused Panama of charging excessive fees for the canal’s use and suggested, “This complete rip-off of our country will immediately stop.” He went so far as to threaten to demand control of the infrastructure back, linking his comments to broader concerns about Chinese influence and U.S. losses during the canal's construction over 100 years ago.
Historically, control over the Panama Canal has been a touchy subject. The Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977 facilitated the gradual transfer of control from the United States to Panama, which was fully realized on December 31, 1999. Trump’s resurgence of this topic sent ripples through diplomatic channels, raising fears of possible repercussions for trade and the delicate balance of power within the region.
Leader after leader from Latin America rallied to Mulino’s defense, with officials from Mexico, Colombia, and Chile echoing sentiments about the territorial integrity of Panama. Even the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, emphasized the need to respect existing agreements. Mulino’s assured stance, supported by his government’s firm position, demonstrated pride and national unity among Panamanians.
Trump’s comments didn’t stop at Panama. He addressed Canada and Greenland as well, hinting at the annexation of these territories. His tone fluctuated from criticism of Canadian leadership to advocating for their joining the U.S. as its 51st state, remarks viewed as rhetorical theatrics rather than serious policy proposals.
The Panama Canal is not merely a shipping shortcut; it is pivotal for global trade, especially for U.S. exports including agricultural products like pork. Disruption of operations or changes to management could raise costs and impact U.S. competitiveness. Experts have emphasized how Trump's rhetoric could destabilize trade relations and affect industries reliant on smooth cargo transitions through the canal.
Beyond the economic ramifications, Trump’s assertions tapped deep-seated historical grievances. Although he spoke of American sacrifices during the canal's construction—stated figures of 38,000 dead—scholars argue such numbers are grossly exaggerated. According to historian Julie Greene, actual American fatalities were much lower than Trump's claims, and this exaggeration only serves to politicize historical narratives.
Support for Trump’s comments found little footing outside his immediate political circle. The Colombian President Gustavo Petro remarked on the value of dignity and mutual respect, stating unequivocally, “If the new United States government wants to talk business, we will talk business, face to face, and for the benefit of our people, but dignity will never be negotiated.” This sentiment captures the unease many have with Trump's combative approach.
Panama's leadership emphasized the next steps moving forward, asserting the independence and control Panamanians have over their territory is non-negotiable. Mulino’s position highlights the intent of the current administration to maintain sovereignty and engage cooperatively with the U.S. on issues like security and illegal migration, not territorial disputes.
With Trump set to assume office shortly, this issue will likely remain on his agenda as he navigates relationships with neighboring countries. The embers of controversy over the Panama Canal not only reflect current political sentiments but also reawaken historical disputes significant to many within the Americas.
Following this contentious dialogue, Trump’s administration may need to tread carefully if it hopes to maintain positive relations with its southern neighbors. Leaders across Latin America have made it explicitly clear: the sovereignty of the Panama Canal is not up for debate.
