The Panama Canal: 25 Years of Panamanian Success While Colombia Claims Sovereignty
The expansion of the Panama Canal was initiated by former President Martín Torrijos in 2007, but it was the government of Ricardo Martinelli that promoted it, while his successor Juan Carlos Varela finished it and inaugurated it on June 26, 2016. In 25 years of their possession, the technicians and all the native personnel have demonstrated more efficiency and knowledge in the complex management of the interoceanic route than did the Americans in those previous years. Trump does not take into account the costs of operations, maintenance and modernization of the Canal, its expansion with new, wider locks that favor commercial navigation from the United States, or other activities that involved changes in pricing policy.
In September 2007, the ACP began expansion works, which allowed Panama to double the capacity of the old Canal to 600 million tons and the transit of wider and longer vessels, and this fact whets the ever-present appetite of the new US president Donald J. Trump. It is important to know that this last set of locks, or expansion of the Canal as the Government called it, not only allows the transit of post-Panamax and a few neopanamax ships, but also large-tonnage American warships such as destroyers and submarines, although their use should be limited by the neutrality condition of the interoceanic route, and that could be one of the interests behind Trump’s new threat.
Because of that expansion advantage, bridges were raised to accommodate large container ships, and new port facilities were built on the East Coast with higher-capacity cranes from New York and New Jersey. With the Canal, Panama made a major contribution to the development, expansion and modernization of a global services platform that linked the Asia-Pacific region with the American Atlantic, which enabled the growth of trade. On Truth Social, Trump’s account showed an image of an American flag being planted in the middle of the Panama Canal. His second-eldest son, Eric Trump, posted an image on X that showed the US adding Greenland, the Panama Canal and Canada to an Amazon online shopping cart. Trump floated the idea of purchasing Greenland in 2019, during his first term as president, and it never came to fruition. Greenland’s Prime Minister, Múte B Egede, responded to Trump’s latest comments: “We are not for sale and we will not be for sale.” Still, Trump continues emphasizing his public statements online.
President Mulino responded forcefully that “every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas belongs to Panama and will continue to do so. The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable.” Trump’s response was to mock the Panamanian leader to emphasize his contemptuous and supremacist character. For your information – since Trump surely doesn’t know a thing about the Canal and its history – the United States, in its 85 years of administration, changed the financial policy and its toll structure in its favor on nine occasions, and charged small and medium-sized ships of all categories, as if they were enormous ocean liners. It earned billions of dollars and gave military belligerence to its “property.” They themselves designed a toll system so that the total operating and investment costs would be recovered and they would leave a large profit through their rates and tolls.
For these and many other reasons, Trump’s threats, which fit into his favorite dangerous slogan, “America First,” should not be taken lightly. Panama has just commemorated the vile and genocidal military invasion of 1989, planned and executed during the government of George Bush senior whose objective was precisely to maintain control of the Canal. What Bush really tried to do in 1989 was to destroy what Donald Trump now also intends to do: ignore the Torrijos-Carter Treaty and take the Canal and its exclusion zone from its legitimate owners. Panamanian analysts have repeated it hundreds of times over the past 35 years and there is nothing to add to their conclusions: the real objective of the invasion was to annihilate the Panamanian forces that would have to take care of the surveillance of the Canal alone from 2000 onwards, thanks to the Torrijos-Carter Treaty.
Once the local army was eliminated, the American troops would remain in the Zone and a government would be sought that would support the annulment of the agreements that recognized and accepted Panamanian sovereignty of the Canal, the Panamanians themselves considered at the time. That did not happen because the people defended their property with courage and patriotism. From the point of view of its objectives, the military invasion was a failure, although it was still a brutal genocide, particularly among the residents of the populous El Chorrillo, where the bombings were concentrated. In 1999, the Canal became truly Panamanian property, as Carter had promised Torrijos and as everyone wanted, and was operated by its legitimate owners. At that historic moment, the Panamanian flag, which stands out for its enormous size, flew more freely than ever atop Ancón Hill. It was raised there on October 1, 1980, when the Torrijos-Carter agreements of 1977 came into force, returning the Canal and its military zone to Panama, which Trump now threatens to take back from the people of the isthmus.
In an unexpected turn in international politics, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has made a statement that has generated an intense discussion in diplomatic forums: the possibility of Colombia playing an active role in managing the resources of the Panama Canal. The statement came in response to the recent announcement by former US President Donald Trump, who suggested that Washington should regain strategic control of the channel to protect economic and national security interests. Former President Trump, known for his nationalist stance and his criticism of international handling of strategic resources, asserted at a recent rally that “The United States should never have ceded control of the Panama Canal.” This declaration has aroused tensions in the region and reopened a debate that was considered closed since 1999, when the channel officially passed into Panamanian hands.
In a statement transmitted from Bogota, Petro argued that the Panama Canal not only has implications for Panama and the United States, but it directly affects the interests of all of Latin America. The Colombian mandate proposed to establish a multilateral administration of the resources derived from the canal, in which Colombia, as a close neighbor and strategic actor of the region, played a prominent role. Petro justified his proposal by pointing out the historical and geopolitical importance of the canal for Latin America and arguing that his administration should respond to the principles of regional equity and sustainability. “The Panama Canal cannot continue to be perceived as a tool of economic domination of a few countries.” Their management must reflect the interests of our whole region and ensure that the benefits are distributed fairly,” Petro said in his speech.
Petro’s proposal has generated a wave of reactions at international level:
United States: State Department spokespersons called the proposal “an unnecessary interference” and reaffirmed their support for the Panama administration of the canal. The Panama government categorically rejected Petro’s proposal, calling it “interference in sovereign affairs”. While some progressive governments in the region, such as Mexico and Bolivia, have expressed their support for the idea of a more inclusive administration, others, such as Chile and Peru, have avoided speaking on it, emphasizing the importance of respecting Panama’s sovereignty.
Petro’s announcement comes at a time of growing political polarization in Latin America, and his proposal could be seen as a strategy to strengthen its regional leadership. However, it also faces significant challenges, such as tensions with Panama and opposition from key international actors like the United States. On the other hand, geopolitical experts point out that the Colombian proposal could open a necessary debate about the future of the canal and its role in regional economic integration. However, they warn that any change in their administration would require extremely delicate negotiation and a consensus that is difficult to reach. Meanwhile, the Panama Canal remains one of the most strategic and controversial points in international relations, a reminder of the intricate balance between national sovereignty and global cooperation.
