By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) refutes White House assertions that it has waived transit fees for US government vessels, stating its authority to set tolls remains unchanged. This denial follows a US State Department announcement claiming millions of dollars in annual savings through this purported agreement. The dispute arises amidst broader concerns voiced by US officials regarding China’s influence over the canal and a demand for Panama to address these concerns. The ACP, while committed to dialogue with the US, insists no toll adjustments have been made.
Read the original article here
The Panama Canal Authority’s recent rejection of US claims for free ship passages highlights a significant diplomatic clash rooted in misinformation and a disregard for international agreements. The assertion that the US should receive free passage due to its role in defending the canal is fundamentally flawed. This isn’t a matter of simple fairness; it’s a misrepresentation of the existing treaties and the economic realities of the canal’s operation.
The idea that the US deserves free passage because it defends the canal ignores the specific terms of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties. These treaties grant the US the *right*, not the *obligation*, to defend the canal’s neutrality. The primary responsibility for the canal’s defense rests with Panama itself. This fundamental misunderstanding underscores the problematic nature of the US’s claim. It’s not a question of logic or fairness; it’s a distortion of the agreed-upon framework governing the canal’s operation.
Further compounding the issue is the economic reality of the canal’s significance to Panama. The canal generates billions in profit annually, contributing a substantial portion of the country’s GDP. Tolling US ships is not simply about collecting revenue; it’s about maintaining the canal’s infrastructure, supporting its operations, and ensuring its continued viability. For Panama to waive these tolls would represent a significant financial burden and a disregard for the economic principle of fair compensation for services rendered. It would also be a self-inflicted wound that undermines their economic sovereignty.
The perception of this dispute as a simple matter of “fairness” ignores the vast economic implications for Panama. The canal is not a charitable organization; it’s a critical component of Panama’s economy. Waiving tolls for US ships, especially on the scale implied, would be financially devastating and politically unwise. It would also, ironically, reinforce a narrative of US entitlement and undermine Panama’s own national interests.
The argument that the US provides significant protection to the canal while receiving no compensation overlooks the fact that Panama already pays a substantial sum for its own upkeep. This further weakens any claim to free passage. To suggest otherwise is to imply that Panama is incapable of self-governance and requires constant US intervention, a notion that is both patronizing and inaccurate. It is a clear misreading of the existing agreements and the realities on the ground.
Moreover, the very suggestion of free passage reflects a disturbing trend of ignoring factual information in favor of politically motivated narratives. The attempt to frame this as a dispute over fairness is a deliberate distortion of the situation, obfuscating the underlying power dynamics and economic considerations at play. This underscores a broader pattern of disregard for facts and international agreements, which further destabilizes the global political landscape.
The Panama Canal Authority’s decision to reject the US claims is not only economically sound but also a clear assertion of national sovereignty and independence. To yield to demands based on false premises would set a dangerous precedent, undermining Panama’s ability to conduct its affairs free from undue external pressure. This decisive rejection of unjustified demands should serve as a reminder of the importance of upholding international treaties and respecting the sovereignty of nations. The Canal Authority’s firm stance demonstrates its commitment to its own national interests and the principles of fair economic practice. The controversy serves as a stark warning about the dangers of prioritizing political posturing over factual accuracy and respectful diplomacy in international affairs.