U.S. President-elect Donald Trump delivers remarks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 16, 2024. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo
Trump’s Remarks on Panama Canal Spark International Controversy
President-elect Donald Trump drew sharp criticism on Sunday after suggesting that the United States could reclaim control of the Panama Canal, accusing Panama of charging excessive fees and raising concerns about potential Chinese influence over the strategic waterway.
Speaking to supporters in Arizona at AmericaFest, an event organized by the conservative group Turning Point, Trump questioned Panama’s handling of the canal and implied the U.S. was being unfairly treated. “The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, highly unfair,” Trump said. “If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, quickly and without question.”
Panamanian Government Responds
Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino issued a strong rebuke to Trump’s comments in a recorded message released Sunday, asserting that Panama’s sovereignty and control over the canal were non-negotiable. “Every square meter of the Panama Canal and the surrounding area belongs to Panama and will continue belonging (to Panama),” Mulino said. He dismissed Trump’s claims of unfair fees, emphasizing that rates were set systematically and not arbitrarily.
Mulino also denied allegations of Chinese influence over the canal’s operations, a concern raised by Trump. While a Hong Kong-based subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings manages ports at the canal’s entrances, the Panamanian government retains full administrative control of the waterway.
Historical Context of the Canal
The Panama Canal, which facilitates the transit of up to 14,000 ships annually and accounts for 2.5% of global seaborne trade, is a vital economic artery. It is particularly important for U.S. imports of automobiles and containerized goods from Asia, as well as for the export of commodities like liquefied natural gas.
The U.S. constructed and administered the canal for decades, following its completion in 1914. However, two treaties signed in 1977 established a process for transferring the canal to Panamanian control, culminating in full handover in 1999. Since then, Panama has managed the canal autonomously, leveraging it as a significant source of national revenue.
Diplomatic Implications
Trump’s remarks, which some analysts view as unprecedented for a U.S. leader, underscore an anticipated shift in diplomatic tone under his administration. Trump has historically employed bellicose rhetoric and threats in dealings with both allies and adversaries, and this latest episode adds to concerns about how his approach might impact international relations.
This is not the first time Trump has expressed interest in territorial expansion. During his first term (2017–2021), Trump openly discussed purchasing Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, and more recently has joked about turning Canada into a U.S. state. These remarks, while largely dismissed by foreign governments, signal Trump’s willingness to challenge international norms.
Legal and Practical Challenges
Trump’s suggestion to reclaim the canal faces significant obstacles. Under international law, the U.S. has no legal basis to assert control over the Panama Canal, given the binding nature of the 1977 treaties. Additionally, any move to pressure Panama could severely strain bilateral relations and provoke international condemnation.
Broader Reaction
Panamanian politicians, including members of the opposition, criticized Trump’s statements on social media, uniting in defense of the country’s sovereignty. Meanwhile, international observers have noted parallels with Trump’s past rhetoric on territorial expansion, questioning how such statements align with broader U.S. strategic interests.
As Trump prepares to assume office, his remarks on the Panama Canal highlight the potential for heightened tensions in U.S.-Latin American relations and raise questions about the long-term implications of his unconventional diplomatic style.
COMMENTS