US president-elect Donald Trump clearly does not intend to pursue a “good neighbor” policy. He has been mocking Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by calling him “governor” while proclaiming that a country of 40 million people should become the 51st US state. His first telephone conversation with Mexico’s new president, Claudia Scheinbaum, had to be followed by Scheinbaum politely saying that she had agreed to none of the terms Trump claimed that she had.
Trump is seeking to reopen a debate over control of the Panama Canal that was settled five decades ago. However, in this case, Trump’s statements resonate with a powerful sentiment that long underpinned previous US policy on the issue. After all, the Panama Canal was an US idea, the brainchild of then-US president Teddy Roosevelt at the start of the twentieth century — and the US has had difficulty letting go of it ever since.
Some 5 percent of all world trade in goods, and 40 percent of US container traffic, passes through the Panama Canal. Connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans via a 51-mile (82-kilometer) waterway across the Isthmus of Panama, the canal has become entangled in the intensifying geopolitical and geoeconomic rivalry between the US and China. Trump’s statements about the US retaking the canal in the face of alleged increased Chinese influence in Panama have shocked many — not least Panamanians, who see them as an affront to their sovereignty.
However, sovereignty has been a pliable concept throughout Panama’s history. Contending with the vestiges of the Spanish empire in the Americas, Roosevelt thought it crucial to establish a route for US trade between the Atlantic and the Pacific that avoided the need to circumnavigate South America. There were two options: Nicaragua and Colombia. The latter proved easier but involved some US sleight of hand.
Roosevelt’s administration backed a faction that pursued secession from Colombia, which led to the creation of the new state of Panama, where the US could pursue Roosevelt’s pet project. In 1903, the US received authority to build a canal and control of the Panama Canal Zone “in perpetuity,” in exchange for annual payments to Panama.
More than a strategic trade route was at stake in seizing Panama and building the canal. In a letter to Sir George Otto Trevelyan, Roosevelt wrote: “Wherever I could establish a precedent for strength in the executive, as I did in … taking Panama … I have felt not merely that my action was right in itself, but that in showing the strength of, or in giving strength to the executive, I was establishing a precedent of value.”
In his memoirs, Roosevelt conceded his “regret” for using force in violating Colombia’s sovereignty, but the US never issued a formal apology or offered compensation. The 1914 version of the Thomson-Urrutia Treaty between the US and Colombia conveyed the US side’s “sincere regret that anything should have occurred to interrupt or to mar relations” with Colombia. However, Roosevelt’s continued opposition to such official statements, bolstered by US officials such as secretary of state John Hay (who supported the former president’s actions in Panama), delayed the treaty’s ratification. Only in 1921, when the offending passage was removed, did the US Senate ratify the treaty, which offered reparations but no apology or explicit admission of wrongdoing.
Tensions over the Canal Zone continued to simmer for decades. By the 1960s, growing resentment of US power in Latin America culminated in Panama’s brief suspension of diplomatic relations in 1964.
From that time on, the issue preoccupied more than one US administration. In 1964, after consulting with former US presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, then-US president Lyndon Johnson committed to work toward a new arrangement with Panama. It would take 14 years of bipartisan negotiation under two Democratic presidents and two Republican presidents before an agreement was reached. Ultimately, it was then-US president Jimmy Carter who decided that it was time to turn over the canal to Panama and correct injustices toward the region. In a nationally televised address, Carter told Americans that:
“The most important reason — the only reason — to ratify the treaties is that they are in the highest national interest of the United States and will strengthen our position in the world. Our security interests will be stronger. Our trade opportunities will be improved. We will demonstrate that as a large and powerful country, we are able to deal fairly and honorably with a proud but smaller sovereign nation.”
Even with Carter pushing for ratification, it would take months of effort to overcome opposition among the US public and in the US Congress. Finally, in 1977, the US reached an agreement with Panamanian General Omar Torrijos to transfer control of the waterway.
However, there was some important fine print. One of the two treaties that the countries signed specified that the US remained in control of the canal’s security and could use military force to defend it against any threat to neutrality. In fact, the US retained the right to defend the canal forever. The treaties provided that the Canal Zone would be turned over to Panama in 1979, and transfer of the operation of the canal would be complete by 1999. A year later, the US Senate ratified the Torrijos-Carter Treaties by a narrow margin, and the US continued to operate the canal until December 1999.
Seen in the light of this history, Trump’s recent statements might be shocking, but they are not surprising. As Trump contemplates his next move on the Panama Canal, the question we should be asking is whether the US ever became truly reconciled to giving it up.
Ruti Teitel is professor of comparative law at New York Law School and the author of the forthcoming book Presidential Visions of Transitional Justice (Oxford University Press, 2025).
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
Small and medium enterprises make up the backbone of Taiwan’s economy, yet large corporations such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) play a crucial role in shaping its industrial structure, economic development and global standing. The company reported a record net profit of NT$374.68 billion (US$11.41 billion) for the fourth quarter last year, a 57 percent year-on-year increase, with revenue reaching NT$868.46 billion, a 39 percent increase. Taiwan’s GDP last year was about NT$24.62 trillion, according to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, meaning TSMC’s quarterly revenue alone accounted for about 3.5 percent of Taiwan’s GDP last year, with the company’s
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
RSS