By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Panama’s President Mulino vehemently rejected President Trump’s claim to “take back” the Panama Canal, asserting Panama’s unwavering sovereignty over the waterway, secured by the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaty. Trump’s assertion, made during his inaugural address, contradicts the treaty’s terms and disregards Panama’s decades-long responsible management of the canal. Mulino warned against any actions violating Panama’s sovereignty, emphasizing the country’s commitment to international law and dialogue. Trump’s statements have sparked international condemnation and raised concerns about potential conflict.
Read the original article here
Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino swiftly and decisively rejected Donald Trump’s claim that the United States would “take back” the Panama Canal. Mulino’s response underscored Panama’s unwavering commitment to its sovereignty over the canal, firmly asserting that it would remain under Panamanian control. This assertion is based on the legally binding Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977, which formally transferred control of the canal to Panama. The treaty clearly established Panama’s right to govern the waterway, effectively refuting any suggestion of a legitimate US claim to reclaim it.
The president’s strong stance serves as a clear message to the international community, reinforcing Panama’s determination to maintain its territorial integrity and its commitment to the terms of the treaty. This decisive rejection not only protects Panama’s national interest but also stands as a defense of international law and the sanctity of treaties. The incident highlights the potential for significant international repercussions if such assertions were to be acted upon, given the established legal framework governing the canal’s operation and governance.
Trump’s assertion, made during a public address, sparked immediate outrage and condemnation, particularly given the historical context of US involvement in Panama. The US invasion of Panama in 1989 casts a long shadow over any suggestion of a forceful takeover. The strong reaction from President Mulino reflects the sensitivities surrounding this historical event and the implications for US-Panamanian relations. Any attempt to reclaim the canal by force would be met with strong resistance and potentially trigger serious international conflict.
The timing of Trump’s statement, and the manner in which it was presented, further fueled concerns about its underlying motives. The potential for using the statement to distract from other pressing domestic issues cannot be ignored. The suggestion that the statement was a calculated attempt to shift public attention away from potentially damaging news or controversial policy decisions is a valid point to consider. This is a tactic often employed by political leaders to manage negative narratives and control public discourse.
Furthermore, the financial implications are significant. Trump’s business dealings in Panama, including reported tax disputes, add another layer of complexity to the situation. These outstanding financial issues raise questions about the nature of Trump’s motivations and whether personal financial interests might be intertwined with his political pronouncements. The potential for conflicts of interest adds to the gravity of the situation and underscores the importance of a transparent and accountable approach to resolving these issues.
The Panama Canal is far more than just a waterway; it’s a crucial strategic asset for global trade and a significant symbol of Panamanian national pride. This is why Mulino’s response is not merely a political statement but rather a critical assertion of national identity and self-determination. The canal’s neutrality, guaranteed under the 1977 treaties, is a cornerstone of regional stability and international cooperation. Trump’s claim directly challenges this established framework.
Considering the ongoing geopolitical tensions and the increasing strategic importance of the canal in a globalized world, the incident warrants close attention. This situation highlights the complex dynamics of international relations and the potential risks of unilateral actions that disregard established treaties and norms. This event serves as a reminder of the importance of peaceful diplomacy and upholding international law in resolving disputes and maintaining global stability.
The incident also casts a spotlight on China’s growing economic and political influence in the region. China’s significant investments in Panamanian infrastructure, including ports and bridges near the canal, have added a new dimension to the geopolitical landscape. The potential for increased Chinese influence in the region underscores the importance of the canal’s neutrality and raises questions about the interplay of regional and global power dynamics.
Ultimately, President Mulino’s firm rejection of Trump’s claim demonstrates Panama’s resolute commitment to its sovereignty and the rule of law. His response, in the face of a provocative and unsubstantiated statement from a former US president, is a critical affirmation of international norms and the importance of respecting established treaties and agreements. This incident serves as a clear indication that attempts to undermine the sovereignty of nations and disregard existing international agreements will meet strong resistance from the global community.