By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Mulino firmly rejected any negotiation with the U.S. regarding Panama Canal ownership, stating definitively that the canal belongs to Panama. While acknowledging confusion surrounding China’s involvement in port management (separate from canal control), Mulino emphasized a desire for productive discussions with Secretary Rubio focusing on shared priorities like combating drug trafficking and migration. This visit follows President Trump’s repeated assertions that the U.S. should reclaim the canal, despite the 1977 treaty transferring control to Panama. Mulino hopes to use Rubio’s visit to dispel misunderstandings and foster closer cooperation.
Read the original article here
Panama’s president has firmly stated that there will be no negotiation regarding the ownership of the Panama Canal. This unwavering stance reflects a deep-seated national pride and a historical understanding of the canal’s significance to Panama’s identity and economic prosperity. The canal’s handover from the United States marked a pivotal moment in Panamanian history, solidifying national sovereignty and providing a powerful symbol of independence.
The suggestion that negotiations should occur often brings up the substantial human cost of the canal’s construction. While acknowledging the significant loss of life, particularly among West Indian laborers, it’s important to contextualize these deaths within the historical power dynamics of the time. The vastly different living conditions and medical care provided to American versus non-American workers highlight the inequalities inherent in the project. This disparity underscores the inherent injustice of the era and further strengthens Panama’s resolve to retain control over this vital national asset.
The historical context of the canal’s transfer to Panama is crucial to understanding the current situation. Omar Torrijos, the Panamanian leader instrumental in achieving this transfer, is revered as a national hero. His legacy is deeply intertwined with the canal, and any suggestion of relinquishing control would be met with widespread opposition and resentment. The unwavering support for Torrijos and the strong national sentiment surrounding the canal illustrate the impossibility of any negotiation on ownership.
The notion that the United States possesses any legitimate claim to the canal is fundamentally flawed. The canal is located entirely within Panama, and its ownership was formally transferred. Any attempt to reclaim it would be seen as a blatant act of aggression, undermining international law and diplomatic relations. Furthermore, any attempt at forceful seizure would be met with strong resistance and would be politically and logistically incredibly difficult. The canal’s complex infrastructure, its location within a dense jungle environment, and the lack of a standing army in Panama would all present significant challenges to any military action.
The current tensions surrounding the canal have also highlighted the growing influence of China in the region. While some suggest the United States has a right to be concerned about increased Chinese involvement in the canal’s operations, this concern shouldn’t justify any attempt to renegotiate ownership. Panama has the sovereign right to manage its own affairs and engage in mutually beneficial relationships with various international partners. The economic benefits derived from the canal’s operation are substantial, and Panama should have complete autonomy in deciding how to manage and benefit from this valuable resource. Attempts to pressure Panama through tariffs or other economic sanctions would be deeply counterproductive and would only serve to further damage international relations.
Ultimately, the president of Panama’s firm stance against negotiations is not simply a matter of stubbornness but a matter of national pride, economic security, and historical justice. It is a firm and understandable response to what is perceived as an illegitimate and aggressive demand, highlighting the importance of respecting national sovereignty and acknowledging the historical context surrounding the Panama Canal. Any alternative approach would risk destabilizing the region and setting a dangerous precedent for international relations. The current situation calls for diplomatic solutions rooted in respect for international law and the principle of national sovereignty, and an understanding of the long and complex history of this vital waterway.