Donald Trump is threatening to invade to re-steal the Panama Canal in defiance of the Torrijos-Carter Treaty. He would do well to learn the history and not have the US break yet another treaty.
Another Panama Invasion?
Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
Summary:
The video offers a detailed historical account of the establishment of the Panama Canal, the U.S. involvement in Panama’s independence, and the inequalities experienced by Panamanians under U.S. control of the Canal Zone. It highlights the apartheid-like conditions within the zone, Panamanian resistance, and the eventual signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which returned the canal to Panama. The speaker also critiques contemporary rhetoric, such as Donald Trump’s suggestion to “take back the canal,” as a regressive stance ignoring history and sovereignty.
- Panama’s Historical Struggles: Panama gained independence from Spain in 1821 and later joined Colombia before becoming a U.S.-engineered independent nation to facilitate canal construction.
- Construction Challenges: The French failed to build the canal due to Panama’s rugged terrain and diseases, paving the way for U.S. intervention.
- Apartheid-Like Conditions: The U.S.-controlled Canal Zone segregated Panamanians, providing them with inferior housing, schools, and resources compared to Americans.
- Panamanian Resistance: Protests and riots, including the Flag Riots 1964, drew attention to the injustices and eventually led to the Torrijos-Carter Treaty.
- Modern Implications: Climate change poses new challenges for the canal, while Trump’s rhetoric to reclaim it threatens to undermine Panama’s sovereignty and international treaties.
The history of the Panama Canal is a cautionary tale of imperialism, inequality, and resilience. For progressives, it underscores the need to respect sovereignty, honor treaties, and prioritize international cooperation over militaristic dominance. Leaders like Trump must recognize that global progress requires equitable partnerships, not a return to exploitative practices. The Panamanian struggle for justice and sovereignty should inspire efforts to build a fairer world order.
[ppp_patron_only level=2]
The story of the Panama Canal is one of ingenuity, resilience, and colonial exploitation. It is a story that reflects the broader patterns of imperialism and systemic inequality. As a vital trade route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the canal embodies engineering marvels and the Panamanian people’s political and social struggles. For Donald Trump—or any leader—to suggest reclaiming the canal is to ignore the hard-won sovereignty of Panama and the grim history that underpinned the canal’s construction and control.
The Historical Context
In 1821, Panama gained independence from Spain, only to voluntarily join Gran Colombia, a union of South American states. By the mid-19th century, Panama became a province of Colombia. Its geographical location, however, marked it as the ideal site for an interoceanic canal, leading global powers to eye the region hungrily.
The French initially attempted to construct the canal under the direction of Ferdinand de Lesseps, who had successfully built the Suez Canal. However, Panama’s dense jungle, mountainous terrain, and diseases like malaria and yellow fever derailed the French project. The United States, seeing the canal’s strategic and economic potential, intervened in ways that reshaped Panama’s history.
The Creation of Panama: A Manufactured Sovereignty
Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. government played a pivotal role in Panama’s independence from Colombia. When Colombia refused to agree to terms for canal construction, the U.S. orchestrated a rebellion in the Panamanian province. In 1903, U.S. naval forces blocked Colombian troops from suppressing the uprising. Almost immediately after Panama declared independence, the U.S. negotiated the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the U.S. control of the Panama Canal Zone—a 10-mile-wide strip of land across the country.
The treaty was profoundly unequal. No Panamanian official signed the agreement, which perpetuated the U.S. near-sovereign control over the Canal Zone. The zone operated as a segregated, apartheid-like region, with American officials and workers enjoying superior housing, schools, and resources while Panamanians were relegated to second-class status.
Apartheid in the Canal Zone
The U.S.-controlled Canal Zone became a microcosm of colonial inequality. Panamanians living within or near the zone were subjected to discriminatory policies. Housing, education, and job opportunities for Panamanians were vastly inferior to those available to Americans. Schools for Panamanians were often poorly equipped and had outdated materials, while American schools in the zone enjoyed modern facilities.
Despite these disparities, Panamanians and West Indians, many of whom were descendants of workers brought to build the canal, fought for equality. By the 1960s, persistent protests and riots brought international attention to the apartheid-like conditions. One of the most notable events was the 1964 Flag Riots, when Panamanian students demanded the right to fly their national flag in the zone, a symbolic stand against U.S. dominance.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaty: A Step Toward Justice
The persistent resistance of the Panamanian people culminated in the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, signed in 1977 by Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos and U.S. President Jimmy Carter. These treaties paved the way for the gradual transfer of the canal and the Canal Zone back to Panama, a process completed on December 31, 1999. The treaties represented a significant victory for Panamanian sovereignty and a repudiation of colonial exploitation.
Lessons Ignored
Despite these hard-won gains, Donald Trump’s rhetoric about “taking back the canal” underscores a profound ignorance of history and a disregard for international law. Such a move would violate the Torrijos-Carter Treaties and the principles of sovereignty enshrined in the U.N. Charter. Furthermore, it reflects a broader pattern in U.S. history of breaking treaties when they no longer serve American interests—reminiscent of the U.S. government’s actions toward Native American nations.
The canal’s current challenges, such as water shortages due to climate change, are not reasons for militaristic intervention but opportunities for cooperative solutions. The U.S. should support Panama in addressing these issues, perhaps by sharing expertise in water management or investing in sustainable infrastructure.
A Progressive Path Forward
For progressives, the history of the Panama Canal serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting sovereignty and addressing historical injustices. Rather than reverting to colonialist tendencies, the U.S. should lead by example, fostering international cooperation and upholding its commitments.
The Panama Canal’s story is a testament to the resilience of the Panamanian people and the necessity of global solidarity in tackling shared challenges. Leaders like Trump would do well to learn from this history rather than repeating past mistakes. Let the canal be a symbol of progress, not imperialism.
We must maintain stamped in our minds the atrocities the United States Military committed against the Panamanian underclass in areas of El Chorrillo and Colon in the 1989 invasion of Panama.
[/ppp_patron_only]
