By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House has ordered the U.S. military to develop plans for increasing troop presence in Panama to counter China’s influence and secure the Panama Canal, per President Trump’s directive. These plans range from enhanced military partnership with Panama to a less likely military seizure of the canal, contingent upon Panamanian cooperation. The administration aims to diminish China’s access to the waterway, a move that Panama and China both deny is necessary. This follows Trump’s assertion of reclaiming the canal, although the specifics remain unclear.
Read the original article here
The Trump White House has reportedly requested the U.S. military to formulate plans concerning the Panama Canal. This request, seemingly out of the blue, has ignited a firestorm of speculation and concern, especially given the administration’s history of unconventional and often controversial foreign policy decisions.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that Panama is experiencing a water shortage impacting the Canal’s operations. This scarcity is not a new issue, and the lack of U.S. acknowledgment of this fundamental problem suggests a disregard for the complexities of the situation, focusing instead on what appears to be a purely power-driven agenda. This water shortage is at the heart of the Canal’s current operational limitations. Instead of addressing the underlying problem, the U.S. appears to be considering a forceful response, completely ignoring the significant environmental and humanitarian implications of diverting the Canal’s freshwater supply for other purposes.
The suggestion of a military intervention raises serious questions about the administration’s commitment to peaceful resolutions. This is especially concerning in light of previous actions and rhetoric suggesting an aggressive approach to foreign policy, contradicting earlier promises of promoting peace and avoiding conflict. The White House’s actions don’t align with their past statements. The rhetoric from the administration regarding peace and avoiding wars rings hollow when considered alongside the potential for military action against Panama, a country that poses no direct threat to the United States. This creates a disconcerting image of a government that prioritizes its own perceived interests above international cooperation and diplomacy.
The idea of a forceful takeover of the Canal is not only morally questionable but also strategically unwise. The Canal is operated by Panamanians, and a hostile takeover would almost certainly result in immediate and extensive disruption. A forceful seizure would likely lead to the Canal’s shutdown for an extended period, due to the highly specialized training of the Panamanian Canal pilots and the intricate nature of the Canal’s operation. Furthermore, the vast cost of securing and maintaining such a geographically challenging area would be massive and outweigh any perceived benefits. The implications of such an action extend beyond the immediate consequences; it could trigger significant international backlash and damage the already strained relationships with other nations. Such an action would be far more disruptive than merely addressing Panama’s water shortage.
Furthermore, the claim that the U.S. has a historical right to the Canal because it was originally built by American engineers is misleading. The current locks, crucial for modern-day shipping, were not built by the U.S. Panama is actively working on solutions to address the water shortage. These independent efforts to improve the Canal’s infrastructure are completely overlooked in the U.S. plan. The proposed U.S. action demonstrates a disregard for Panama’s sovereignty and its own efforts to maintain the Canal’s efficiency and viability. The suggestion that seizing the Canal is somehow justified by historical claims is a gross oversimplification, ignoring the considerable advancements and upgrades made by Panama since the handover of the Canal.
The true motives behind the White House’s interest in the Panama Canal remain ambiguous. While official statements mention “reclaiming” the waterway for national security, the lack of clear articulation of this strategy suggests a less transparent agenda. There are concerns that this might be a tactic to exert greater influence over shipping routes, possibly restricting access for certain countries or promoting greater U.S. military presence in the region. Such a move, however, could have far-reaching geopolitical consequences, potentially destabilizing the region and prompting other nations to pursue their own inter-oceanic transit projects.
The potential for a military intervention against Panama sends a chilling message regarding the stability of international relations. It undermines confidence in the predictability and trustworthiness of U.S. foreign policy. The prospect of a U.S. invasion would not only severely damage international relations but also risk creating a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. The potential economic repercussions of such a reckless action are also substantial; a global boycott of American goods is a very real possibility. The long-term damage to the U.S. reputation and global standing would far outweigh any short-term strategic gains.
This whole situation underscores the need for careful consideration and restraint in international affairs. The potential consequences of a forceful seizure of the Panama Canal are too significant to be treated lightly. The focus should be on diplomacy and cooperation, addressing the underlying issues rather than resorting to provocative and potentially disastrous actions. Ignoring the environmental and political complexities of the situation seems short-sighted, with potential implications that could severely destabilize the region and damage America’s standing on the world stage.