Latest news with #NeutralityTreaty
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - The US is undermining Panama's sovereignty
The scene last week at Panama City's elegant Hilton Hotel spoke volumes about the precarious balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confidently announced that American warships would enjoy 'first and free' access through the Panama Canal, Panamanian officials visibly stiffened. Within hours, they had carefully recast the same agreement as having a 'compensation for services' model. Two nations, one document and diametrically opposed interpretations revealed the high-stakes diplomatic dance unfolding over one of the world's most strategic waterways. The latest chapter in U.S.-Panama relations is increasingly defined by contradiction. At its heart lies a fundamental tension: a superpower's strategic ambitions colliding with a smaller nation's hard-won sovereignty over its most prized asset. President Trump has never concealed his views on the Panama Canal, repeatedly suggesting 'the U.S. had 'foolishly' given the Panama Canal to Panama' and perhaps should take it back. This simmering tension boiled over when Trump, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House, declared that America has deployed 'a lot of troops' to Panama with plans to increase this military footprint. During this remarkable meeting, Hegseth spoke plainly about his work to 'secure the canal from Chinese influence,' telling Trump directly, 'We're taking back the canal.' Such assertions blatantly contradict the 1977 Neutrality Treaty, which establishes with crystalline clarity: 'After the termination of the Treaty of the Panama Canal, only the Republic of Panama will manage the Canal and maintain military forces, defense sites and military installations within its national territory.' The legal framework permits no ambiguity regarding military presence. Panama Security Minister Frank Abrego reinforced this position, declaring, 'Panama has made it clear through President Mulino that we cannot accept military bases or defense sites' and that 'at no time during this memorandum of understanding has Panama ceded sovereignty over the Panama Canal.' The contradictions extend to the joint communiqué itself. The Spanish version acknowledges 'Panama's inalienable sovereignty over the Panama Canal,' but that language was absent from the English version. This omission prompted Panama's Foreign Ministry to formally request a correction. Hegseth's parting comments to the media during his trip to Panama revealed the fundamental contradiction. In the same breath, Hegseth claimed, 'We certainly respect the sovereignty of the Panamanians and the Panama Canal. At the same time, we're working with them to ensure that we take back the canal from malign Chinese influence.' The cognitive dissonance — simultaneously respecting sovereignty while speaking of 'taking back' the canal — epitomizes the mixed messaging throughout. Such contradictions have become a defining feature of U.S.-Panama relations. In February, the State Department proclaimed on social media that 'the government of Panama has agreed to no longer charge fees to U.S. government vessels to transit the Panama Canal,' claiming savings of 'millions of dollars' annually. Panama's response was unequivocal: President José Raúl Mulino called it 'an intolerable falsehood.' Basic facts are leading to diametrically opposed official statements. Are these contradictions diplomatic missteps, or a deliberate strategy to normalize controversial positions? When American officials state one version of reality while Panamanian officials assert another, international audiences inevitably tend to believe the more powerful nation. President Mulino revealed the delicate calculus his administration faces, stating, 'My country cannot afford the image of a country in controversy with the United States.' With diplomatic precision, he disclosed rejecting multiple versions of the memorandum that included 'permanent military presence,' 'military bases' or 'cession of territory.' His careful words offered a glimpse into the asymmetric negotiation, balancing national dignity against geopolitical reality. The commercial backdrop adds another layer of complexity. Panama's Comptroller General Anel Flores announced plans to sue officials who authorized a 25-year port concession renewal to Panama Ports Company, which is 90 percent owned by Hong Kong's CK Hutchison. According to Flores, Panama 'left $1.3 billion on the table' in tax incentives and benefits. Meanwhile, the U.S.-based investment firm BlackRock stands ready to acquire these strategic assets, effectively transferring control from Chinese to American interests. This port controversy has become a proxy battle for a larger geopolitical contest. Hegseth claimed that 'China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area,' while the Chinese Embassy responded by accusing the U.S. of 'blackmail' and conducting a 'sensationalist campaign about the 'theoretical Chinese threat.'' We are witnessing the gradual erosion of a sovereign nation's hard-won independence through diplomatic finesse rather than military force. When Trump casually mentions sending 'a lot of troops' to Panama while Hegseth speaks of 'taking back the canal,' the subtext requires no decoding. The carefully constructed legal architecture of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties — documents that required generations of struggle and sacrifice — faces dismantling not through formal renegotiation but by the steady, inexorable pressure of asymmetrical power politics. The implications transcend Central America. If treaties as significant as those governing the Panama Canal can be reinterpreted through unilateral action and linguistic sleight of hand, does any international agreement remain inviolable? What sovereign nation can place faith in the permanence of its diplomatic arrangements with global powers? As Panama navigates these treacherous waters — maintaining the diplomatic fiction of 'compensation for services' rather than acknowledging the reality of American military resurgence in the Canal Zone — the international community's silence is deafening. This collective muteness speaks volumes about the true nature of sovereignty in the shadow of great-power competition. The question facing Panama is no longer whether it can preserve its full independence, but how much of it will remain when the geopolitical chess match ends. Nivia Rossana Castrellón is a former deputy minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Panama. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
17-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The US is undermining Panama's sovereignty
The scene last week at Panama City's elegant Hilton Hotel spoke volumes about the precarious balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confidently announced that American warships would enjoy 'first and free' access through the Panama Canal, Panamanian officials visibly stiffened. Within hours, they had carefully recast the same agreement as a 'compensation for services' model. Two nations, one document and diametrically opposed interpretations revealed the high-stakes diplomatic dance unfolding over one of the world's most strategic waterways. The latest chapter in U.S.-Panama relations is increasingly defined by contradiction. At its heart lies a fundamental tension: a superpower's strategic ambitions colliding with a smaller nation's hard-won sovereignty over its most prized asset. President Trump has never concealed his views on the Panama Canal, repeatedly suggesting 'the U.S. had 'foolishly' given the Panama Canal to Panama' and perhaps should take it back. This simmering tension boiled over when Trump, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House, declared that America has deployed 'a lot of troops' to Panama with plans to increase this military footprint. During this remarkable meeting, Hegseth spoke plainly about his work to 'secure the canal from Chinese influence,' telling Trump directly, 'We're taking back the canal.' Such assertions blatantly contradict the 1977 Neutrality Treaty, which establishes with crystalline clarity: 'After the termination of the Treaty of the Panama Canal, only the Republic of Panama will manage the Canal and maintain military forces, defense sites and military installations within its national territory.' The legal framework permits no ambiguity regarding military presence. Panama Security Minister Frank Abrego reinforced this position, declaring, 'Panama has made it clear through President Mulino that we cannot accept military bases or defense sites' and that 'at no time during this memorandum of understanding has Panama ceded sovereignty over the Panama Canal.' The contradictions extend to the joint communiqué itself. The Spanish version acknowledges 'Panama's inalienable sovereignty over the Panama Canal,' but that language was absent from the English version. This omission prompted Panama's Foreign Ministry to formally request a correction. Hegseth's parting comments to the media during his trip to Panama revealed the fundamental contradiction. In the same breath, Hegseth claimed, 'We certainly respect the sovereignty of the Panamanians and the Panama Canal. At the same time, we're working with them to ensure that we take back the canal from malign Chinese influence.' The cognitive dissonance — simultaneously respecting sovereignty while speaking of 'taking back' the canal — epitomizes the mixed messaging throughout. Such contradictions have become a defining feature of U.S.-Panama relations. In February, the State Department proclaimed on social media that 'the government of Panama has agreed to no longer charge fees to U.S. government vessels to transit the Panama Canal,' claiming savings of 'millions of dollars' annually. Panama's response was unequivocal: President José Raúl Mulino called it 'an intolerable falsehood.' Basic facts are leading to diametrically opposed official statements. Are these contradictions diplomatic missteps, or a deliberate strategy to normalize controversial positions? When American officials state one version of reality while Panamanian officials assert another, international audiences inevitably tend to believe the more powerful nation. President Mulino revealed the delicate calculus his administration faces, stating, 'My country cannot afford the image of a country in controversy with the United States.' With diplomatic precision, he disclosed rejecting multiple versions of the memorandum that included 'permanent military presence,' 'military bases' or 'cession of territory.' His careful words offered a glimpse into the asymmetric negotiation, balancing national dignity against geopolitical reality. The commercial backdrop adds another layer of complexity. Panama's Comptroller General Anel Flores announced plans to sue officials who authorized a 25-year port concession renewal to Panama Ports Company, which is 90 percent owned by Hong Kong's CK Hutchison. According to Flores, Panama 'left $1.3 billion on the table' in tax incentives and benefits. Meanwhile, the U.S.-based investment firm BlackRock stands ready to acquire these strategic assets, effectively transferring control from Chinese to American interests. This port controversy has become a proxy battle for a larger geopolitical contest. Hegseth claimed that 'China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area,' while the Chinese Embassy responded by accusing the U.S. of 'blackmail' and conducting a 'sensationalist campaign about the 'theoretical Chinese threat.'' We are witnessing the gradual erosion of a sovereign nation's hard-won independence through diplomatic finesse rather than military force. When Trump casually mentions sending 'a lot of troops' to Panama while Hegseth speaks of 'taking back the canal,' the subtext requires no decoding. The carefully constructed legal architecture of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties — documents that required generations of struggle and sacrifice — faces dismantling not through formal renegotiation but by the steady, inexorable pressure of asymmetrical power politics. The implications transcend Central America. If treaties as significant as those governing the Panama Canal can be reinterpreted through unilateral action and linguistic sleight of hand, does any international agreement remain inviolable? What sovereign nation can place faith in the permanence of its diplomatic arrangements with global powers? As Panama navigates these treacherous waters — maintaining the diplomatic fiction of 'compensation for services' rather than acknowledging the reality of American military resurgence in the Canal Zone — the international community's silence is deafening. This collective muteness speaks volumes about the true nature of sovereignty in the shadow of great-power competition. The question facing Panama is no longer whether it can preserve its full independence, but how much of it will remain when the geopolitical chess match ends.
Fox News
10-04-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth touts 'historic' deals to deter 'Chinese influence' in Panama Canal
The Trump administration announced major moves in the Panama Canal this week, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explaining Thursday that the deals are a means of serving American interests and working to "stop the sphere of Chinese influence." The Panama Canal Authority confirmed in a press release Wednesday that Panama's minister for canal affairs and Hegseth signed a joint declaration that reaffirms Panamanian sovereignty and outlines new military cooperation. "We're going to invest in ways that serve American interests in our backyard as we stop the sphere of Chinese influence," Hegseth said Thursday on "The Will Cain Show." The deal "reaffirms respect for, and the recognition of, Panamanian sovereignty over the interoceanic waterway," the Canal Authority stated. It upholds both nations' commitment to the Neutrality Treaty and the legal framework that governs canal operations, including Panama's Constitution, the treaty itself and the Canal's Organic Law. The declaration laid out plans for a cost-sharing model to cover services provided to U.S. warships and auxiliary vessels, with the goal of keeping it "cost-neutral." "It's in our direct U.S. interest to ensure that waterway is free and that our ships can transit freely. So, it was two historic arrangements that serve American interests, and it would never have happened without President Trump," Hegseth said. Hegseth said a broader framework is in the works, one that would guarantee U.S. warships "first and free" passage through the Panama Canal. He announced Wednesday that U.S. and Panamanian officials had already signed a memorandum of understanding, and that a final document is on the way to formally secure toll-free priority for American naval vessels. The defense secretary added on "The Will Cain Show" that the deal "codifies first, and it codifies a cost-neutral basis where we're able to freely transit, and it saves our Treasury money," noting the arrangement has an "economic upside" on top of the "strategic" interests. Earlier this week, Hegseth visited U.S. troops, met with Panamanian officials and toured the canal. He warned that China's reach in the Western Hemisphere is already too big, and still growing. "What I saw down in Panama was not just about a canal," Hegseth told Fox News host Will Cain. "Of course, the canal is very important and everything that goes through there. It was a tug-of-war with the communist Chinese." The administration's arrangements with Panama come amid rising temperatures between the United States and China, largely spurred on by an escalating trade war. As of Thursday, the White House said it had imposed 145% in new tariffs on China, up from the 125% Trump announced the day before. While hiking rates on China, Trump said he would reduce tariffs on other countries that did not retaliate against the United States to his baseline of 10%. The tariff tit-for-tat has been ongoing since Trump announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs last week, but Hegseth said the trade war does not have to "lead to conflict, and I really hope it doesn't." "President Trump has a great relationship with Xi Jinping. They speak often. There's a mutual respect, and I think, ultimately, what President Trump wants to do is reestablish American manufacturing and not be taken advantage of," Hegseth said.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Panama and US lock in new security pact for Canal as China tensions simmer
The United States and Panama have officially signed a new defense and security pact aimed at reinforcing control over the Panama Canal, a move that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claims is critical to pushing back against China's growing grip in the region. In a press release posted Wednesday night on X, the Panama Canal Authority confirmed that Panama's Minister for Canal Affairs and Hegseth signed a joint declaration that reaffirms Panamanian sovereignty and outlines new military cooperation. The deal "reaffirms respect for, and the recognition of, Panamanian sovereignty over the interoceanic waterway," the Canal Authority stated. It also upholds both nations' commitment to the Neutrality Treaty and the legal framework that governs canal operations, including Panama's Constitution, the treaty itself, and the Canal's Organic Law.Hegseth Says Panama Agreed To Allow Us Warships To Travel 'First And Free' Through Canal But the declaration goes beyond words. It lays out plans for a cost-sharing model to cover services provided to U.S. warships and auxiliary vessels, with the goal of keeping it "cost-neutral." "Efforts will be made [to] develop a mechanism which will allow compensation for services provided to warships and auxiliary vessels, seeking a cost-neutral basis," the statement reads. "This mechanism will be evaluated jointly with the Ministry of Security of Panama." According to Hegseth, a broader framework is also in the works, one that would guarantee U.S. warships "first and free" passage through the Panama Canal. Read On The Fox News App Hegseth announced Wednesday that U.S. and Panamanian officials had already signed a memorandum of understanding, and that a final document is on the way to formally secure toll-free priority for American naval vessels. The Canal Authority, meanwhile, emphasized that this agreement is just the start. "The declaration constitutes a first step in establishing this model, which will be developed in later stages." Us, Panama 'Taking Back' Canal From 'China's Influence,' Says Hegseth While the U.S. builds up its military coordination, the Panama Canal Authority confirmed that collaboration already includes "engineering, security, and cybersecurity," key focus areas for both governments as they push back against foreign interference. The move comes just as the U.S. prepares to deploy the USNS Comfort, a Navy hospital ship, to the region in a show of presence and partnership. Earlier this week, Hegseth visited U.S. troops, met with Panamanian officials, and toured the canal. He warned sharply that China's reach in the Western Hemisphere is already too big, and still growing. "Make no mistake, Beijing is investing and operating in this region for military advantage and unfair economic gain," Hegseth said. "They operate military facilities and ground stations that extend their reach into space. They exploit natural resources and land to fuel China's global military ambitions. China's factory fishing fleets are stealing food from our nations and from our people." Hegseth stressed that war is not the objective. "Together, we must prevent war by robustly and vigorously deterring China's threats in this hemisphere," he said. He also made clear that the U.S. is taking steps to counter Chinese-controlled infrastructure in Panama. "China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area," Hegseth said. "That gives China the potential to conduct surveillance activities across Panama. This makes Panama and the United States less secure, less prosperous and less sovereign. And as President Donald Trump has pointed out, that situation is not acceptable." Hegseth was blunt: "The United States will not allow China to threaten the canal's operation." He added, "To this end, the United States and Panama have done more in recent weeks to strengthen our defense and security cooperation than we have in decades." Despite the growing military and political coordination, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has publicly denied that China controls the canal. Hegseth did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for News' Morgan Philips contributed to this article source: Panama and US lock in new security pact for Canal as China tensions simmer
Fox News
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Panama and US lock in new security pact for Canal as China tensions simmer
The United States and Panama have officially signed a new defense and security pact aimed at reinforcing control over the Panama Canal, a move that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claims is critical to pushing back against China's growing grip in the region. In a press release posted Wednesday night on X, the Panama Canal Authority confirmed that Panama's Minister for Canal Affairs and Hegseth signed a joint declaration that reaffirms Panamanian sovereignty and outlines new military cooperation. The deal "reaffirms respect for, and the recognition of, Panamanian sovereignty over the interoceanic waterway," the Canal Authority stated. It also upholds both nations' commitment to the Neutrality Treaty and the legal framework that governs canal operations, including Panama's Constitution, the treaty itself, and the Canal's Organic Law.HEGSETH SAYS PANAMA AGREED TO ALLOW US WARSHIPS TO TRAVEL 'FIRST AND FREE' THROUGH CANAL But the declaration goes beyond words. It lays out plans for a cost-sharing model to cover services provided to U.S. warships and auxiliary vessels, with the goal of keeping it "cost-neutral." "Efforts will be made [to] develop a mechanism which will allow compensation for services provided to warships and auxiliary vessels, seeking a cost-neutral basis," the statement reads. "This mechanism will be evaluated jointly with the Ministry of Security of Panama." According to Hegseth, a broader framework is also in the works, one that would guarantee U.S. warships "first and free" passage through the Panama Canal. Hegseth announced Wednesday that U.S. and Panamanian officials had already signed a memorandum of understanding, and that a final document is on the way to formally secure toll-free priority for American naval vessels. The Canal Authority, meanwhile, emphasized that this agreement is just the start. "The declaration constitutes a first step in establishing this model, which will be developed in later stages." While the U.S. builds up its military coordination, the Panama Canal Authority confirmed that collaboration already includes "engineering, security, and cybersecurity," key focus areas for both governments as they push back against foreign interference. The move comes just as the U.S. prepares to deploy the USNS Comfort, a Navy hospital ship, to the region in a show of presence and partnership. Earlier this week, Hegseth visited U.S. troops, met with Panamanian officials, and toured the canal. He warned sharply that China's reach in the Western Hemisphere is already too big, and still growing. "Make no mistake, Beijing is investing and operating in this region for military advantage and unfair economic gain," Hegseth said. "They operate military facilities and ground stations that extend their reach into space. They exploit natural resources and land to fuel China's global military ambitions. China's factory fishing fleets are stealing food from our nations and from our people." Hegseth stressed that war is not the objective. "Together, we must prevent war by robustly and vigorously deterring China's threats in this hemisphere," he said. He also made clear that the U.S. is taking steps to counter Chinese-controlled infrastructure in Panama. "China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area," Hegseth said. "That gives China the potential to conduct surveillance activities across Panama. This makes Panama and the United States less secure, less prosperous and less sovereign. And as President Donald Trump has pointed out, that situation is not acceptable." Hegseth was blunt: "The United States will not allow China to threaten the canal's operation." He added, "To this end, the United States and Panama have done more in recent weeks to strengthen our defense and security cooperation than we have in decades." Despite the growing military and political coordination, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has publicly denied that China controls the canal. "I completely reject that statement," Mulino said, pushing back on earlier claims from the U.S. State Department that a deal had already been reached guaranteeing toll-free passage for U.S. warships. The Canal Authority added that it has "not made any adjustments" to its fee HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
