In a notable diplomatic exchange, Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino firmly rejected former US President Donald Trump’s assertion that America could “take back” control of the Panama Canal. This statement came in the wake of Trump’s remarks during his inaugural speech where he accused Panama of violating a promise to maintain neutrality regarding the canal and alleged that China improperly operated the vital waterway.
The Panama Canal, which serves as a crucial trade conduit for roughly 40% of all US container shipping traffic between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, has a complex ownership history. In his inaugural address, Trump expressed grievances about American shipping practices, emphasizing that American vessels, including those of the United States Navy, were allegedly facing unfair fees under the current management of the canal. He argued that control had shifted to China, exclaiming, “We didn’t give it to China; we gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”
In response, President Mulino categorically dismissed Trump’s claims, stating that there is no foreign interference in Panama’s administration and that the canal’s management has been self-determined by the Panamanian people. The canal was constructed by the United States in the early 20th century; however, following extensive protests from Panama, a treaty was signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter that initiated a gradual transfer of control to Panama. This transfer culminated in 1999 when Panama finally took full control, with agreements stipulating the canal’s neutral status.
After Trump’s remarks, Mulino took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to affirm that the canal wasn’t a result of concession or handover from another country; its control was the result of long-standing struggles in Panamanian history that reached fruition in 1999. The canal’s operational significance cannot be understated, with an impressive 5% of global maritime trade traversing its 51 miles.
In further discussions surrounding the topic, Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, voiced concerns during his Senate confirmation hearing about the potential economic and national security risks posed by Chinese entities controlling critical entry and exit points of the canal. Rubio underscored the possibility of economic ramifications should geopolitical tensions escalate, especially if such companies, including Hong Kong’s Hutchison Whampoa which operates two key ports at either end of the canal, were to comply with directives from China during conflicts.
Moreover, while Trump touted his ambitions of being a “peacemaker,” critics voiced their disbelief, with former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul highlighting the contradictions of claiming peaceful intentions while pursuing potentially aggressive reclamation strategies for international assets such as the Panama Canal. Additionally, the former president had previously expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, which was dismissed outright by Denmark. In his second term address, Trump articulated a broader expansionist vision for the United States, declaring an intention to reinvigorate national growth by enhancing territory and infrastructure.
This exchange highlights the intricate dynamics involved in the relationships between the United States and Latin American countries, particularly regarding historic colonial legacies and modern geopolitical strategies. Panama’s strong response to Trump’s rhetoric has reinforced its sovereignty over the canal, showcasing how nations interact within the context of globalization and historical grievances. As assertions of national pride clash with expansionist rhetoric, such dialogues will likely continue to resonate in international relations.
