By Matt Underwood Panama’s government has officially voiced its concerns to the United Nations regarding President Trump’s threats to seize control of the Panama Canal. Any use of force would represent a clear violation of international law, a point Panama is strongly emphasizing. The situation is generating significant anxiety within Panama, with some citizens believing Trump’s threats are mere posturing, expecting the issue to fade. However, a more pessimistic view prevails, rooted in the belief that Trump has harbored ambitions regarding the canal since before his presidency.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaty, a landmark agreement, is viewed by many Panamanians as a sacred pact that should not be unilaterally abrogated. There’s a fear that Trump’s actions represent a calculated attempt to force Panama into an unfavorable renegotiation of the treaty. The worst-case scenario, a US invasion and takeover of the canal, is a real concern for some, given the precedent of the 1989 US invasion, during which the Chorrillo neighborhood suffered devastating destruction and a significant, undocumented loss of life. This history fuels anxieties about the potential consequences of further US aggression.
Trump’s pattern of picking fights with various countries, from Canada to Mexico to Denmark, only serves to amplify these anxieties. International condemnation of Trump’s actions has been widespread, with even Russia urging him to back down. The contrast between prior, more covert US influence and the current open bullying tactics is striking. The potential for a drastic response from Panama, possibly involving the deliberate destruction of the canal itself, is considered a worst-case outcome. The potential ripple effects of such a conflict, even on mundane matters like the price of eggs, is a concern.
Many see Trump’s actions as part of a wider pattern of US behavior viewed as prejudiced and damaging. The existing Neutrality Treaty, however, contains a clause that grants the US the right to use military force in Panama, seemingly leaving Panama with little recourse through the UN. This legal ambiguity contributes to the intense feeling of vulnerability. Speculation abounds about the potential involvement of China and Russia, who could potentially be drawn into the conflict. China, for its part, has explicitly rejected Trump’s claims, stating that Panama’s sovereignty is non-negotiable and that China holds no direct or indirect control over the Canal.
The conflict’s roots appear to be connected to a tax dispute between Trump’s organization and the Panamanian government. The accusations of unfair overcharging of American ships using the canal also seem intertwined with this dispute. Some believe that Trump’s focus on the canal may be less about strategic control and more about settling a personal score. The security concerns regarding China’s involvement in Panamanian ports, though serious, do not appear to be the primary driving force behind Trump’s aggressive actions.
The sheer scale of modern container ships and the intricate logistics of the Panama Canal are frequently mentioned in the discussion. The monumental size of these vessels, some too large for the canal itself, emphasizes the canal’s strategic and economic importance. The possibility of closing the canal to US ships or ships bound for the US is being considered as a potential retaliatory measure by Panama. The idea of a defensive pact with China, potentially allowing Chinese military presence in Panama, is also floated as a potential deterrent to further US aggression.
The overall sentiment expressed is a mix of fear, anger, and determination. There’s a palpable sense of injustice at what’s perceived as bullying behavior from the US. The UN’s potential role is viewed with skepticism, given the US’s permanent seat on the Security Council. The concern that the US might not face consequences for violating international law adds to the urgency of the situation. The possible repercussions for American expats in Panama are also a source of concern. Trump’s actions are widely condemned as destabilizing, creating uncertainty and tension on the global stage.
The narrative surrounding the Panama Canal dispute is not solely about the canal itself, but about the larger context of global politics and power dynamics. It highlights anxieties surrounding the potential abuse of power by a major global actor, coupled with the inherent vulnerability of smaller nations faced with such aggression. The potential for escalation and the widespread implications underscore the seriousness and complexity of this ongoing situation.