Trump is looking to turn back the clock on the Panama Canal

Control of the Panama Canal, once a major issue in Ronald Reagan’s US presidential campaign and a hot topic for people ranging from movie legend John Wayne to an unpredictable Canadian-born US senator, appears to be back as a hot topic in Washington. .

During the election campaign and during the transition, President-elect Donald Trump unleashed a series of complaints, sometimes inaccurate, regarding Panama’s management of the key lane that helps ships navigate between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in a less time-consuming manner. Which might be the case.

“About 40 percent of container trade to the United States goes through the Panama Canal, so it is in the country’s commercial interest for the Panama Canal to be running smoothly,” Dennis M. Hogan, a history lecturer at Harvard University, told CBC. Current.

The United States controlled access to the canal for decades until then-President Jimmy Carter signed treaties in the late 1970s, which eventually handed it over to Panama in 1999.

Trump was asked Tuesday at a news conference whether he could guarantee that as commander-in-chief he would not involve the U.S. military in any dispute with Panama over the canal.

“I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump said, without elaborating. “Maybe you should do something.”

The resurfacing of the issue comes as Panamanians on Thursday again commemorate Martyrs’ Day, which led to the deaths of 21 Panamanians and four American soldiers after riots and gunfire for several days starting on January 9, 1964. On the same day, a state funeral will be held in Washington. For Carter, who died on December 29.

According to historiansSpanish explorers in the 16th century advised the European monarchy of wanting to build a canal where Panama is now created. The alternative was to travel an additional 11,000 kilometers around the southern tip of South America.

France is under the auspices of Developer of the Egyptian Suez CanalHe began construction of the canal in the 1880s, but was unable to complete it. According to some estimatesPerhaps 25,000 people may have died in the stop-start construction of the canal, due to accidents and tropical diseases.

Panama, which declared its independence from Colombia in 1903, allowed the United States to complete construction. advertisement It has since granted the United States “all rights, power and authority within the said area… if it were sovereign over the territory within which the said lands and waters are situated, to the complete exclusion of the exercise of any such action by the Republic of Panama.” Sovereign rights, power or authority.”

Complaints arose periodically about treaty violations, and a 1964 incident resulted in millions of casualties and damage. Riots were said to have broken out When the Panamanian flag was not allowed to fly next to the American flag at a high school in the Canal Zone.

Then-president Lyndon Johnson toned down the issue in negotiations with his Panamanian counterpart, but the fragile situation only changed during Carter’s presidency.

Hot opinions in the 70’s

Reagan regularly addressed the issue as part of his presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980, advising against giving up power.

“When it comes to the canal, we bought it and paid for it, it’s ours.” he said at one point.

Some grassroots conservatives had similar sentiments. For example, a university history professor led a group of Georgians against the Panama Canal Treaty. That professor – Newt Gingrich – won a seat in the US Congress in 1978, and later served as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Others disagreed with Reagan, including prominent conservative intellectual William F. Buckley in a televised debate, and Reagan’s old Hollywood friend John Wayne. In a private message.

“I will show you point by point (God damn it) the treaty where you are misleading people,” Wayne wrote to Reagan.

Wayne, whose first wife was Panamanian, accused Reagan of being “not as scrupulous in your review of this treaty as you say or… obtuse when it comes to reading the English language.” Wayne signed off with his nickname “Duke.”

the True grit A star and a staunch Republican He also wrote to Carter On this issue, it was signed by the “loyal opposition.”

Watch for Reagan discusses conservative pioneer William F. Buckley about the Panama Canal:

“We stole it fair and square.”

On Capitol Hill, politicians have been offering their opinions on the issue for a number of years.

During his campaign for a Senate seat in 1976, Vancouver-born Sei Hayakawa, then a US-based university administrator, got involved.

“I think we should keep it, we stole it fair and square,” he said.

Hayakawa later tried to claim he was just joking, and eventually changed his tune. He was among the senators who, in two votes in late 1977 and early 1978, helped ensure the law’s passage. Signed treaties Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos.

The first treaty, which lasts in perpetuity, gives the United States the right to act to ensure that the canal remains open and safe. The second agreement stipulated that the United States would hand over the canal to Panama on December 31, 1999, and it was terminated on that date. There was no requirement for reopening.

A second US invasion of Panama?

Carter said the two agreements would see Panama transform from a “passive and sometimes very dissatisfied bystander into an active and interested partner whose vital interests are served by a well-managed channel.”

This relationship was put to the test more than a decade later when the United States invaded Panama in 1989 to seize it. Boss and alleged drug trafficker Manuel NoriegaThis operation was condemned by the United Nations and claimed the lives of hundreds of people, most of them Panamanians.

Former channel director Jorge Luis Quijano He told The Associated Press last month That there was “no clause of any kind” in the Carter-Torrijos Treaties allowing the United States to regain control.

Benjamin Gedan, director of the Latin America Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, who spoke to the same outlet, agreed.

“There is not much room to maneuver, in the absence of a second US invasion of Panama, to practically regain control of the Panama Canal,” Gedan said.

Trump raised a number of complaints about the canal’s management, and accused Panama of imposing “exorbitant prices” on American commercial and military ships.

“If we can provide some facts, Mr. Trump’s claim that Panama is gouging Americans is baseless. Every ship, regardless of its flag, pays the same price according to tonnage and type,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board said. He wrote last month.

The president-elect also accused Chinese soldiers of illegally running the canal.

Panama President Jose Raul Molino said late last month in response: “There are no Chinese soldiers in the canal, for the love of God. The world is free to visit the canal.”

The Panama Canal Authority holds responsibility for the canal overall through its being a subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based holding company that has long managed two ports on the canal’s Caribbean and Pacific approaches, an arrangement that Harvard’s Hogan described as a “fairly standard commercial contract.” .

The United States and Panama under its new president earlier this year I entered into negotiations This was partly aimed at stemming the flow of migrants from South America or the Caribbean who reached the South American border after crossing Panama’s treacherous Darien Gap.

Now it appears that the Panamanians may be forced into difficult talks with a new US president on a topic they may have thought had been settled a long time ago.