The inaugural speech of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, marked the return of gunboat diplomacy, of the rule of force in international relations. Standing on a tradition buried in the mid-20th century, Trump relaunched on January 20, 2025 the expansionist policy of manifest destiny and the Monroe doctrine. His reference to President William McKinley, prior to carrying out yet another affront to Panamanian sovereignty over its Canal, was not an accident. It was during McKinley’s presidency that the rise of the United States as a global hegemonic power was consolidated, manifested in its projection in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii and Cuba. In addition, he would agree with the United Kingdom on the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901, annulling the Clayton-Bulwer of 1850 and granting the Americans the “right” to build and control a canal in the Central American isthmus.
That the United States resumes that tradition does not bode well for Panama. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Panama was the target of American interventionism. Beginning with the Mallarino-Bidlack treaty of 1846, New Granada gave the United States the right to use military force to suppress any independence movement in Panama. Both the construction of the trans-isthmus railway and the geopolitical competition between the Americans and the British over the canal issue would mark the second half of the Panamanian 19th century.
It does not seem innocent that Trump has linked his mention of McKinley with his intentions to recover the Panama Canal. After raising a series of historical and factual inaccuracies – including that China operates the canal – Trump ratified as president the threats he had made before taking office. What can Panama do about it? History illuminates possible paths.
Since its establishment as a republic in 1903, Panama allowed US military intervention in its Constitution in the same way as the treaty that gave up the right to build the canal, Hay-Bunau-Varilla. A right similar to that maintained by the Americans in Cuba was then established through the Platt amendment (1901).
Once the Canal was built, in 1914, Panama would undertake efforts to free itself from the right of military intervention and recover the interoceanic waterway. The first was suppressed by a new treaty, the Arias-Roosevelt of 1936. The last, forty years later, recovering sovereignty over its entire territory on December 31, 1999, thanks to the Torrijos-Carter treaties of 1977. For The achievement of this national objective, the emergence of the new international legal order was transcendental. The United Nations and the institutions of international law were instrumental in achieving such a claim.
It was a long and difficult process, going through the Panamanian refusal to allow the Americans to maintain the military bases established during the Second World War – the Filós-Hines agreement – until the events of the 9th, 10th and 11th of 1964. However, the conclusion of The 1977 treaties demonstrated to the world the realization of a utopia: that a hegemonic power and a small State could negotiate on equal terms, that international law and multilateralism could guarantee justice and peace. President Trump’s intention seeks precisely to ruin that international order and demolish that Panamanian conquest.
Faced with this reality, Panama has at least two options. The first is to appease President Trump. This has already been tried by leaders like Abe, Macron and, recently, Trudeau. The results were not as expected, with more impositions than concessions. The second option, in the words of former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, is to earn Trump’s respect, with Turnbull himself and, recently, Sheinbaum being very good examples. However, given Panama’s own history and its inherent realities – being a small country and without an army – its implementation requires strategic thinking and recourse to international law and multilateralism, tools that allowed us to achieve our greatest achievement and that are now our main line of defense.
Panama is currently an elected member of the United Nations Security Council. Having already established a threat to our territorial integrity, recourse to this instance cannot be postponed. Nor should the role of the Organization of American States, depositary of the 1977 treaties, and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance be ruled out. Likewise, the protocol to the Treaty of Permanent Neutrality of the canal has almost 40 member states, so it is essential that these be activated within the framework of informal multilateralism in support of Panama. At a time when Trump’s actions empower autocrats like Putin and Xi, the alternative is not to give in and just watch the international order collapse. If the validity of this order is truly advocated, it is appropriate to defend it.
For some years now, multiple sectors of international public opinion have advocated the emergence of a new world order, one based on multipolarity. The above is nonsense for many States, particularly for small States, since it is a return to the zones of influence and interventionism. In the era where might seems to be the law, history also does not seem to be on our side. Examples as distant as the Melos dialogue and the speech of Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia before the League of Nations, and as close as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, tend to confirm this. However, it is up to Panama, irremediably, to face this situation – tragic or epic – hand in hand with justice and reason. The question on which its outcome hangs is: whose side will the international community be on?
