By Matt Underwood Panama’s president has made it abundantly clear: there will be no negotiation regarding the Panama Canal. This firm stance, issued in advance of Senator Rubio’s visit, signals a potentially significant escalation in the ongoing tension between Panama and the United States. The president’s unwavering position leaves little room for compromise, suggesting a determination to resist any perceived pressure from the US.
The idea of the US taking over the canal is unrealistic. It’s a notion that only those lacking a sound grasp of geopolitical realities would seriously entertain. Any attempt to seize control would face significant logistical hurdles, not to mention provoking widespread international condemnation. Panama holds all the cards in this situation, as the simple act of delaying or obstructing US ships would incur significant economic penalties on the United States. The time spent waiting translates directly into financial losses, making a forceful takeover a far less attractive option.
The notion that the US could simply impose tariffs to exert pressure is equally flawed. While tariffs might cause some economic disruption, Panama possesses diverse trade relationships with numerous countries, including China, Europe, and others. They could easily redirect their trade to mitigate any negative impact from US tariffs. Panama’s strategic location as a major shipping hub guarantees a steady flow of goods and revenue, regardless of US trade policies. Furthermore, the volume of Panamanian goods exported to the US is relatively small, limiting the effectiveness of any such punitive measure. This lack of significant trade dependency weakens the US’s leverage substantially.
The current Panamanian government’s actions are fostering an aversion to dealing with the US. This approach, while possibly risky, is a viable strategy to assert national sovereignty. The president’s resolute stance might be interpreted as a calculated move to solidify Panama’s position and possibly leverage international support. This strategy makes any attempt at coercion, economic or otherwise, less likely to succeed.
The suggestion of leasing the canal, similar to Guantanamo Bay, ignores the fundamental differences between the two situations. Guantanamo Bay is a territory obtained under vastly different historical circumstances. The Panama Canal, situated entirely within Panamanian territory, is governed by a treaty that explicitly grants Panama sovereignty. Any attempt to circumvent this treaty would invite immense international backlash and severely damage US credibility on the world stage. Additionally, the precedent this would set could impact relationships with other nations and further complicate foreign policy.
Some commentators suggest the potential for military intervention, yet this is highly improbable and would carry devastating economic consequences for both countries. Such an action would likely solidify international opposition and rally other nations against the US. The possibility of Panama retaliating by halting or restricting canal traffic—a maneuver that could cripple global trade—makes military intervention an exceedingly risky and counterproductive option. A military solution is therefore far more expensive than the economic benefits that could possibly be gained.
Furthermore, the Panama Canal Authority operates independently from the government, and any attempt to control the canal would involve disrupting this already well-established system. This would not only face bureaucratic obstacles, but it might also alienate the workforce and the shipping industry, resulting in a self-inflicted economic wound that could significantly outweigh any potential gains from a takeover.
A more constructive approach would be focusing on maintaining a positive and mutually beneficial relationship. The current situation underscores the need for diplomacy and respectful dialogue rather than resorting to coercive tactics. Panama’s intransigence demonstrates that the US needs to carefully reconsider its approach to international relations, especially in regions with complex historical ties. The path forward requires a concerted effort to understand and address the underlying concerns, rather than relying on outdated, heavy-handed approaches. The current situation presents a powerful opportunity to build stronger, more equitable partnerships built on mutual respect and cooperation.