It reflects a fear that China is expanding its influence in South, Central American nations; he's warning the countries that the Monroe Doctrine still applies
When he was US President-elect, Donald Trump expressed a desire to regain control over the Panama Canal.
He gave two reasons: one, Panama had handed over control of the canal to China, and two, Panama was charging US ships exorbitant rates to use the canal, which allows ships to pass from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. US and Chinese ships make the most use of the canal.
In early January, Trump did not rule out the use of economic sanctions or military force to achieve his objective.
Panama dismissed Trump’s threat and emphasised that it controlled the canal and its operations and that all ships were charged the same rates.
Watch | Why is Greenland so attractive to Donald Trump and America?
Trump’s threat
Trump again made an aggressive and threatening reference regarding the Panama Canal on January 20. This was astonishing because since World War II, no US president has made such a threat in his inaugural address against a small country.
Trump said: “… the Panama Canal, which has foolishly been given to Panama… I mean, think of this — spent more money than ever spent on a project before and lost 38,000 lives in the building of the Panama Canal. We have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made, and Panama’s promise to us has been broken.
"The purpose of our deal and the spirit of our treaty has been totally violated. American ships are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape or form. And that includes the United States Navy. And above all, China is operating the Panama Canal. And we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”
Also read | Quad’s future uncertain as key allies India, US mend fences with China Quad’s primary agenda to stop
Monroe Doctrine
Trump’s threat recalls the Monroe Doctrine, which was first enunciated by US President James Monroe in 1823 and later refined by his successors.
Under this doctrine, once fully developed, the United States held that no European power should intervene in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere and that the US reserved the right to intervene in the affairs of South American states if it deemed such action necessary.
Indeed, the Panama Canal itself can be said to be a product of the doctrine. This is because the South American nation of Panama was part of Columbia, which was opposed to constructing a canal.
The US, wanting to build one, instigated a revolt in Columbia’s northern provinces. They seceded in 1903 and proclaimed a new country — Panama.
Panama Canal’s history
The work on the canal began a year later and completed in 1914. Panama allowed the US to manage it and also gave it control over a strip of five miles of territory on both sides of the canal.
This situation continued till 1978, when Panama and the US agreed that there would be joint control over the canal’s operations till 1999, when it would be handed over to the former.
Hence, since January 1, 2000, Panama has managed the canal. It has proclaimed that it would not discriminate against any country in allowing passage of ships through the canal.
Also read | Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' call high on theatrics, low on economics
Panama stands firm
Panama has denied Trump’s charge that China controls the management of the canal. An independent constitutionally mandated Panamanian authority does so.
However, two of the five port managements have been handed over to two companies which are subsidiaries of a Hong Kong-based Chinese company. These ports are located on the either side of the canal.
US strategic experts fear that the Chinese companies managing the ports will be able to collect vital information on the movement of US ships, including naval vessels, and their cargoes, and pass it on to China. This is one important element for Trump’s aggressive approach.
Suez Canal events
Trump’s stand also draws attention to the strong position taken by his predecessor Dwight D Eisenhower in 1956 in favour of Egypt, when it nationalised the Suez Canal.
He denounced Israel, British and France’s military action against Egypt and virtually forced these three countries to withdraw their forces.
A brief look at the Suez Canal nationalisation and Eisenhower’s position, which was in contrast to Trump’s, will be instructive. It is noteworthy that Eisenhower was a great general who, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, oversaw the defeat of Nazi Germany, while Trump was a builder by profession.
The Suez Canal construction was completed in 1869 and opened to maritime traffic. It reduced the maritime distance between Europe and Asia by thousands of miles and was of great strategic and economic importance especially for Britain and France, the main European powers with colonies in Asia.
The canal ran through Egyptian territory but was owned and managed by a company dominated by Britain with French participation.
Also read | Trump 2.0: Wannabe peacemaker comes across as a warmonger
Eisenhower's stern action
Egypt nationalised the company in July 1956 and gave an assurance that the canal would remain open to all international maritime traffic.
However, Britain and France insisted on a return to the status quo and, along with Israel, began military operations in October that year.
They made progress but Eisenhower realised that the time of the colonial powers was over. He was also worried that the Soviet Union would gain influence in the Arab world — this was the age of the Cold War.
He forced these countries to withdraw and since then the Suez Canal has been with Egypt.
Far more European interest was involved in the Suez Canal than now is at stake in the Panama Canal and in Central America in general.
China factor
To revert to the Panama Canal. The real motivation for Trump’s crude warning is the US fear that China has expanded its influence in many South and Central American countries through its investments in critical infrastructure.
In this sense, it was Trump warning the countries of these regions that the Monroe Doctrine, while it is not mentioned now, still applies.
Also read | Can US grab Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal? Decoding Trump’s ‘threats’
The new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, will be undertaking a visit to Central America, including Columbia, soon. He will no doubt reinforce the meaning of Trump’s warning.
New Great Game
As for Panama, a point made by US General Laura Richardson (now retired), who was Commander of the US Southern Command in August 2023, is relevant, for such ideas formed Trump’s thinking.
She said: “There are five Chinese state-owned enterprises along the Panama Canal. And so, what I worry about is the being able to use it for dual use. Not just civilian use, but flip it around and use it for military application.”
A new Great Game between the US and China may be beginning in Central and South America.(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
