In a recent statement, US President-elect Donald Trump expressed his anger over the fees imposed on American vessels using the Panama Canal, dubbing them “exorbitant” and a “rip-off.” He posted on the Truth Social network, claiming that the charges—ranging from $0.50 to $300,000 depending on the vessel and its cargo—are unjustified, especially given the historical generosity that the United States has extended to Panama. With the Panama Canal facilitating about 5% of global trade, Trump’s comments underscore the strategic importance of this trade route, which has been pivotal to US trade interests, as over 70% of the cargo passing through the canal is linked to the United States.
Control of the Panama Canal was transferred from the US to Panama in 1999, in accordance with a treaty signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. However, Trump criticized this decision, labeling it as a misguided choice that allowed Panama to have full jurisdiction over the waterway. According to Trump, this arrangement was meant for Panama to manage the canal, not for other nations—specifically pointing a finger at China, which operates several port facilities in the region. He argues that the current leadership in Panama is abusing this control by imposing high passage fees on US naval vessels and businesses, thereby violating the intent behind the US’s “magnanimous gesture.”
Trump’s strong rhetoric reflects his belief that if Panama continues to exploit its control of the canal with excessive charges, the US may take unilateral steps to regain full control over the waterway. He stated, “Washington will not allow control over the strategic artery to fall into the wrong hands,” implying that there could be dire consequences if current practices do not change. This statement not only indicates a potential reassessment of US-Panama relations but also a broader insecurity regarding foreign influence, particularly from China, in critical global trade areas.
The history of the Panama Canal is intertwined with significant US military involvement, having been a flashpoint in US foreign policy for decades. One notable instance occurred in 1989 when the United States invaded Panama to remove General Manuel Noriega from power. Accused of drug trafficking and other abuses, Noriega faced overwhelming military force, leading to his capture and subsequent extradition. While the military operation was short-lived, the US faced considerable backlash due to civilian casualties, sparking debates over the legitimacy and ethics of American military interventions.
Trump’s recent remarks resonate within a broader context of American interests in Central America and the historical legacy of US interventions in the region. His claims can also be interpreted as part of a populist approach that appeals to a sense of nationalism and sovereignty, especially as it pertains to pivotal resources and strategic routes. The potential for regaining control over the Panama Canal could be framed as a restoration of American pride and authority in a landscape perceived to be increasingly influenced by foreign powers like China.
As the implications of Trump’s comments reverberate, the dynamics between the US and Panama may shift significantly. Concerns over trade routes and foreign control underline a persistent tension in international relations, especially in strategic regions. If the US were to pursue measures to reclaim authority over the Panama Canal, it could result in profound consequences for both nations, potentially altering trade patterns and diplomatic ties in a rapidly changing global economy.