Panama Tries Compromise; US Says It’s Not Enough

Shares
1

John Perry reports on the U.S. secretary of state’s visit to Panama on Sunday in the context of American imperialist history in the Canal Zone and U.S. obsession with China.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio meeting Sunday with Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino in Panama City. (State Department, Freddie Everett)

By John Perry
Special to Consortium News

After intense pressure by the U.S. on Panama to return possession of its canal to Washington because the Trump administration thinks China is threatening it, the Central American nation on Sunday sought a compromise by announcing it would study whether or not to renew contracts with a Chinese company managing two ports on the waterway and would withdraw from China’s Belt and Road Initiative.  

The announcement was made by Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Panama City. However, it’s not clear that the compromise, which seeks to alleviate U.S. concerns about China but does not return the canal, will work. Mulino said an audit would look into not extending the Chinese port contracts and said Panama would leave the Chinese infrastructure project BRI by 2027, if not earlier. 

These move were clearly not enough to satisfy Rubio and President Donald Trump about the supposed Chinese threat to canal security. Shortly after the meeting, the State Department issued a statement threatening necessary measures unless there are “immediate changes” regarding China. The statement said: 

“… the current position of influence and control of the Chinese Communist Party over the Panama Canal area is a threat to the canal and represents a violation of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal. Secretary Rubio made clear that this status quo is unacceptable and that absent immediate changes, it would require the United States to take measures necessary to protect its rights under the Treaty.”

Speaking to reporters in Maryland on Sunday, Trump said, “We’re going to take [the canal] back, or something very powerful is going to happen.”

At Sunday’s press conference after meeting Rubio, Mulino, who looked uncomfortable, told reporters, “There is no question that the canal is operated by Panama and will continue to be so. I don’t think there was any discrepancy on that. I did not feel any threat.”

Saúl Méndez, general secretary of Suntracs, the union representing many canal workers, told Consortium News in an interview that he and his members do not trust the Panamanian president. “Mulino makes a deal that meets U.S. interests but damages Panama,” he said.

Given the history of local oligarchs doing Washington’s bidding, Méndez has been organizing a series of actions to alert Panamanians to the risk of a sell-out to the United States. He and other trade unionists were out on the streets on Sunday to protest Rubio’s visit.

On the day Donald Trump was inaugurated, a large group of trade unionists gathered outside the U.S. ambassador’s Panama City residence to burn U.S. flags, protesting Trump’s declared intent to take back the canal.  

Méndez said Trump’s intentions were “deluded.” Panama is a sovereign country and “a foreigner like Trump can’t come here and take something that’s not his,” he said.

Méndez said most Panamanians feel the same. Even the more sober head of the Panamanian chamber of commerce said Trump’s arguments were “unreal and invalid.”

But Méndez sees a more insidious internal threat: Panama’s own “traitors” who might act against Panama’s interests. He uses two words to describe such people: vendepatrias and gringeros.

The first means people who sell their own country; the second are Latin Americans who strongly identify with the U.S. Méndez accuses Mulino of being both.

Doing US Bidding

Mulino took office last July on a platform promising closer ties with Washington. But, given local reaction to Trump’s threat, he has been obliged to declare that the canal “is, and will continue to be, Panamanian.” However, before that Mulino had bent over backwards to do Washington’s bidding. 

For the Biden adminstration, he limited the passage through Panama of U.S.-bound migrants; and when Trump was elected, he welcomed his harsh anti-immigration policies. He even hubristically advised Trump in November that “the real U.S. southern border is not with Mexico but in Darién,” Panama’s treacherous frontier with Colombia that was crossed by over 300,000 migrants last year.

Bizarrely, he said this again, in Davos, only a few days after Trump, seemingly indifferent to the solicitous Mulino, repeated his claim that the canal was wrongly ceded to Panama 25 years ago.

History of the Canal 

Part of the Panama Canal. (Joe Lauria)

The history of the canal began in the late 19th century, an era which, David Sanger in The New York Times notes, “Mr. Trump keeps talking about wistfully.” It is not difficult to see why.

Author Matthew Parker, in his history of the canal, says that, under U.S. President William McKinley and later President Teddy Roosevelt, Washington cast off “its historical aversion to imperialism and aggression on the international stage” and became expansionist. To link its new colonies, it needed a shorter sea route between the oceans. 

Once “the battle of the routes” was resolved in favor of Panama rather than Nicaragua, the main obstacle was that the isthmus was still part of Colombia, which refused to cede the territory required for the canal.

It took what Parker calls the “bellicosity” of Roosevelt to impose a solution. He used duplicity, bribes and a U.S. gunboat to rid the territory of Colombian troops, quickly recognizing the declaration of independence made by a group of Panamanian oligarchs. 

“Go Away, Little Man, and Don’t Bother Me,” American political cartoon, c 1903, by Charles Green Bush from The New York World, of President Theodore Roosevelt intimidating Colombia to acquire the Panama Canal Zone. By Charles Green Bush – New York World. (The Granger Collection, NY, Wikipedia Commons, Public domain)

As Méndez pointed out, these early vendepatrias then signed the 1903 Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty., which Parker says “in all likelihood” they never read, even though “it was to reduce their new country to little more than a vassalage.” Roosevelt said such a conclusion “could not have been accomplished save by me or by some man of my temperament.”  

Another aspect might also have impressed Trump. For nearly a century, the Canal Zone was completely controlled by the U.S. as as if it were sovereign U.S. territory. A child born there to at least one American parent became a U.S. citizen and could run for president, such as the late Sen. John McCain, who was born in the Zone.

Segregation in there was complete. Most Panamanians were barred from entry, and all housing and other facilities were allocated either to “Gold” (or white) residents or to “Silver” (non-white) residents, with huge differences in standards.

Parker gives the example that Gold schools had an average of 17 pupils per teacher, while Silver ones had 115.

Méndez also said  it took years of political pressure by Panamanians, including violent protests in 1964 that left 20 dead and 500 wounded, before the canal’s handover to Panama was eventually agreed in 1977.

The Torrijos–Carter Treaties, signed by presidents Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, led to the U.S. ceding control, but not until December 1999. Four years after the signing, Torrijos died in what even The New York Times called a “mysterious” plane crash. 

The ceremonial transfer of the Canal Zone at Miraflores Locks on Dec. 14, 1999. (Joseph Wood, Robert “Bob” Parker, University of Florida Digital Collections, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

Doubts that Panama would run the canal effectively were unfounded. A 2010 study argued that it had “thrived” under management by the government-owned Panama Canal Authority. It has become a crucial part of the country’s economy, generating 4 percent of national income.

A referendum on widening the canal in 2006, supported by 78 percent of voters, led to $5 billion being invested to allow the passage of bigger ships.

However, the U.S. undeniably continues to have a big stake in the canal. Three-quarters of ships using it are going to or coming from U.S. ports. Nearly 10,000 ships made the transit in 2024 — representing 5 percent of global trade and paying hugely varying fees that can reach $300,000 or more, according to the size of vessel.

Trump’s unfounded claim that U.S. ships pay excessive charges may have been sparked by an overall increase in fees in 2024, when the canal’s capacity was affected by drought.

Trump’s assertion that China is “operating” the canal is equally egregious. But there are five sea ports linked to the canal, operated by foreign contractors, of which two are run by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings.

When the concessions were made to the Chinese companies in 1999, the U.S. State Department concluded it represented no risk to U.S. interests, and the Chinese government recently stated it “does not participate in the management and operation of the canal.”

Hutchison operates ports in 24 countries, including the U.K. and Germany. This hasn’t stopped China hawk Rubio questioning whether Chinese companies could take control of the ports on the orders of Beijing and “shut it down or impede our transit.”

China’s links with Panama are very important in a different sense. In recent years China has become Panama’s biggest export market, worth nearly 10 times the country’s exports to the U.S.

Panama was also the first Latin American country to sign on to China’s “Belt and Road” initiative in 2017, after it cut its ties to Taiwan. Results have been mixed so far.

Panama has been hesitant about getting closer to China, but a Chinese firm is building a new road bridge across the canal. However, Mulino, backtracking on a Chinese proposal for a new railway line to Costa Rica, has handed the contract to a U.S. firm. 

Recalling 1989

Flames engulf a building following hostilities between the Panamanian Defense Force and U.S. forces during Operation Just Cause, Dec. 21, 1989. (SPEC. MORLAND, DoD, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

Trump’s claim to U.S. ownership of the canal, saying that it would be restored by force if necessary, raises painful memories for Panamanians.

While last December was the 25th anniversary of the canal’s handover, it also marked 35 years since Operation “Just Cause,” the 1989 invasion of Panama by U.S. forces to abduct the then president, Manuel Noriega, a former C.I.A. asset who had shown dangerous leftist tendencies.

War correspondent Martha Gellhorn described the aftermath: thousands killed and whole barrios devastated. Panama could do little to defend itself and now, with no army, could do even less.

If Trump were instead to put financial screws on Panama’s economy, it would certainly be vulnerable. The country has no central bank, its currency is the U.S. dollar and its banking system and financial services industry are tightly linked to the U.S. The Panamanian military is also not match to U.S. armed forces.

Its vulnerability led Mulino to the concessions he made on Sunday with Rubio on possibly not renewing the port contracts and pulling out of the Belt and Road initiative, clearly not enough for Rubio and Trump, who are both obsessed enough with China to do something rash.

The rebuilt neighborhood of El Chorrillo in Panama City in 2024, which the U.S. bombed in 1989 with heavy loss of civilian life. (Joe Lauria)

John Perry is a writer based in Masaya, Nicaragua, whose work has appeared in The Nation, The London Review of Books and many other publications.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

16 comments for “Panama Tries Compromise; US Says It’s Not Enough

  1. February 5, 2025 at 22:52

    Joe’s photograph taken next to the Hotel Central located at the Plaza de la Independencia brings back fond memories of traipsing around Casco Antiguo (the post-1673 old city, as contrasted with the ruins of the original Panamá Viejo sacked by Henry Morgan’s forces) in July and August of 2023, alongside having the relatively rare experience of getting to privately tour parts of the adjoining El Chorrillo and Barrio Chino (“Chinatown”) neighborhoods during daylight hours (within the vicinity of the Plaza de Santa Ana, largely along stretches of Calle 13 Oeste, Avenida Central España, and Avenida B), escorted by a local resident of El Chorrillo named Andres.

    The contrast in conditions between the more touristy Casco Antiguo with the latter two neighborhoods is an ongoing partial legacy of the 1989-90 US invasion, and is illustrated well by this excerpt from another visitor:

    “I figured I would wander around Casco Antiguo, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and stay near to the hotel. After all, I was alone in an unfamiliar territory and it was getting dark. I soon came upon a lively square, Plaza Herrera, where touts tried to get me into their restaurants. On the far end of the square was what looked like remnants of a fortress wall where some boys were playing soccer.

    As I walked on, the streets became much darker and it felt ominous. Many of the buildings around me were in disrepair and there was little activity on the ground level. Feeling uneasy, I turned around and retraced my path. I kept my gaze straight ahead as I hurried past small groups of people gathered on the dim sidewalk.

    As soon as I arrived back on Plaza Herrera with its bright, open vibe, I let out a big breath of relief. How odd that there was such a contrast between these neighbouring areas.”

    Source:
    Angelina Hue, “Panama City’s Old Town & El Chorrillo,” February 19, 2023 (angelinahue.com/2023/02/19/panama-city-old-town-casco-viejo-el-chorrillo)

  2. Robert E. Williamson Jr.
    February 4, 2025 at 17:18

    I’m not so sure what is going on in either Panama or Mexico.

    At a time when the U.S. military is busy the world over these early assessments I read here are very interesting and the common theme includes China obviously. I’m not nearly as concerned about China as I am about the POTUS inflaming the populations of some of our closest neighbors.

    My first thought was back to riding roughshod on the countries of Central America. The return to CIA’s being ever vigilant and bellicose approach to solving their preconceived notions of governments in those countries, many of whom had democratically elected governments.

    The one common denominator is the new administration’s actions tend to raise the probability of bringing hostile activities closer to U.S. controlled areas, generally in border regions.

  3. Jim Thomas
    February 4, 2025 at 15:57

    Ignorance and bluster, the hallmarks of U.S. “leadership”.

  4. nwwoods
    February 4, 2025 at 15:22

    Considering the American acquisition of the sovereign kingdom of Hawaii and also the vast swaths of Mexican territory annexed by the US along with numerous other similar examples, is it hyperbole or fanciful exagerration to assert that the US is not only fascist in the present tense, but has been since it’s very inception?

  5. Anaisanesse
    February 4, 2025 at 12:43

    Thank you John for providing this information which is probably new to many of us. So sad after all we hear about sovereignty and the evils of authoritarian regimes while we free democratic paradises just help the world to function better.
    Since Noriega I remember no real news.

  6. February 4, 2025 at 12:24

    The documentary Invasion shows how the US invaded Panama from within, in 1989. The US’ enormous military presence makes the vendepatrias, and the opinions of patriotic Panamanians, irrelevant.

    • February 4, 2025 at 23:53

      Panamanians do not need to engage in combat activities via a standing military, or through reinvigorated civilian militias such as CODEPADIs and Dignity Battalions (tinyurl.com/ReactivationCODEPADI), much less require the approval of their own government, in order to marshal an effective resistance against US forces – though, during the 1989-90 invasion, the CODEPADIs, Dignity Battalions, and certain units of the Panama Defense Forces (PDF) did put up a stiffer resistance against US forces in areas such as San Miguelito than has often been acknowledged, despite the limited arms, resources, and manpower at their disposal, as described by the likes of Lt. Col. Daniel Delgado Diamante (tinyurl.com/DelgadoDiamante) and Dr. Rolando Sterling Arango (search.worldcat.org/title/976469129).

      In order to resist a hypothetical second US invasion or occupation, the Panamanian nation does not even need mass participation in nonviolent or passive resistance activities on the part of major segments of the wider populace, potentially effective though that would be (and it is also worth noting that the United States would not be confronting a politically burnt-out and largely acquiescent population to the same extent that this existed under the inept and tyrannical rule of Manuel Noriega, simultaneously a stooge for the CIA and the Cuban DGI, and his Mossad advisor Michael Harari, even if many of those people have been rightly disillusioned with the results of Panamanian electoral politics as well).

      All Panama will truly need is a small cadre of nationalistic saboteurs or, in certain cases, even a single individual saboteur who can, for instance, block the Canal locks or channel with a sunken ship, eliminate records of the ~250 Panamanian pilots trained to navigate foreign vessels through the Canal, or even drain Gatún Lake for up to two years or longer in order to deliver a pyrrhic victory to the United States and indeed complicate matters for the entire world (for further details, you can refer to my comments on the following article: Joe Lauria, “Imperial Presidency Marches On,” Consortium News, Jan. 20, 2025).

  7. Vera Gottlieb
    February 4, 2025 at 11:42

    The more you turn ‘the other cheek’…the more you will be abused.

  8. Blanca Rosee
    February 4, 2025 at 11:17

    In terms of strategy, what Trump is doing is guaranteeing that the canal will not be available to the US during what John Pilger called back under Obama as “The Coming War with China.” Yes, you read that correctly. The USNavy will be pulling out old charts of Cape Horn around Chile and Argentina.

    The canal is indefensible. The classic sitting duck. Its protection largely comes from it being popular and profitable to the Panamanian people. Make enemies of those people, and a small handful of guerrillas in the jungles can close that canal with modern ATGMs and drones. How long will it take before they realize that they can do more than spray-paint “Yankee Go Home!” on walls?

    And, BTW, it was reported a year or two ago that black markets were flooded with the types of ATGMs that can blow up lock gates and pump houses. America was shipping ATGMs by the plane load to what is regularly described as one of the most corrupt countries on the planet, and reportedly many of them became available on black markets. If you want to see Ukrainian honesty when it comes to stocks of weapons, go watch an old Nick Cage flick called “Lord of War.”

  9. Drew Hunkins
    February 4, 2025 at 10:48

    As any astute CN reader is aware, the Panama Canal hardline nonsense coming out of Washington is all about containing the rising economic behemoth of China.

    Be prepared, as an influential faction of our imperialist class in Washington greatly desires a war within the next five to ten years against China. The chances of it being directly between U.S. soldiers and Chinese fighters isn’t as great as it likely being another expensive and extremely deadly Washington proxy war, one that Washington will once again lose very badly in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait.

    PS: A marvelous documentary film you might want to check out soon, is the film “The Panama Deception” which details the absurd and grotesque U.S. attack on Panama in 1989.

  10. Blanca Rosee
    February 4, 2025 at 10:31

    Nice to see a picture of Jimmy. :) No room for Rosalyn?

    Jimmy, the last US President who should not have been impeached and then later tried in an international court for war crimes. And for this, he became the first former President who was not welcome later at his party’s national conventions. Where former Presidents were previously considered to be party leaders and allowed to deliver prime-time speeches, Jimmy was declared persona-non-grata by the modern Clinton Democrats. The Clintons most certainly did not want the former President who had moved on to he role of peacemaker given a chance to talk for an hour to the party and the nation.

    “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God.” — Mathew 5:9
    — but they will not be invited to speak at the DNC.

  11. Blanca Rosee
    February 4, 2025 at 10:13

    Appeasing Hitler did not work.
    The Red Army did.

    “Those who can not remember the past are doomed to repeat it” — Santayana

  12. Paul Citro
    February 4, 2025 at 08:59

    The US concerns about the “China threat” are just a smoke screen. Trump wants the US to be the only sovereign nation in the western hemisphere. All others will be vassals.

    • Bushrod Lake
      February 4, 2025 at 16:49

      The U.S. may be downsizing its imperial goals from world wide hegemony to “spheres of influence” – more local and thus avoiding the overreach of a disastrous nuclear WWIII. We wouldn’t survive such a war.
      And the newer approach to power would allow China, Russia, the ME, etc. to do the same having their “spheres of influence”.
      We’re still bullies, but it is a step forward IMO (if that’s what is happening with downsizing) to a multipolar planet, again.

  13. Tim N
    February 4, 2025 at 08:25

    Wow, wait till Little Marco and The Big Don set their sights on Venezuela . . . .

  14. YesXorNo
    February 4, 2025 at 00:06

    Here’s the Treaty Rubio cited:

    “TREATY CONCERNING THE PERMANENT NEUTRALITY AND OPERATION OF THE PANAMA CANAL”
    hxxps://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/95th-congress/14/B/document-text

Comments are closed.