Antonio De Loera-Brust writes:

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s public threats to retake the Panama Canal, by force if necessary, have already done meaningful damage to U.S. standing in Latin America. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino responded immediately: no way. Other Latin American states, including Mexico, Chile, and Colombia, were quick to offer their solidarity to Panama.

United States began building the Panama Canal during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who once advised, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Trump is speaking very loudly—and may well provoke the United States’ neighbors to gather sticks of their own.

Americans may be tempted dismiss Trump’s antics as a joke. But, for Panama, there is little funny about the prospect of a U.S. invasion. The last such invasion, in 1989, remains a sensitive topic in the country. Many Panamanians believe the civilian death toll was far higher than official estimates, and recent years have seen both exhumation efforts to identify Panamanian victims of the war and the establishment of a national day of mourning on Dec. 20, the date the invasion began (it was unfortunately just one day later, on Dec. 21, 2024, that the Trump started posting about Panama).

More generally, Latin Americans have sought—time and time again in their region’s history—partnerships with extra-hemispheric rivals to the United States, from the Mexican conservatives who invited the French into Mexico in 1862 to the Cuban communists who invited the Soviets into Cuba a century later. It’s a pattern in U.S. history: Overeager enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine has often encouraged more serious violations, as Latin American countries look for a counterbalance to a neighbor they cannot hope to deter on their own.

This was the logic of President Franklin Roosevelt’s conciliatory Good Neighbor policy toward Latin America during World War II—and the logic that led the United States, decades later, to give up the Panama Canal in the first place. Panamanians never accepted U.S. control of the canal or the racially segregated U.S. colony that came with it. Given the stark inequality and segregation Panamanians faced in their own country, it is little wonder that they revolted against U.S. rule in the Canal Zone, most infamously culminating in the Jan. 9, 1964, clashes between U.S. troops and Panamanian student protesters that left at least four Americans and 20 Panamanians dead. This day is now commemorated in the country as Martyrs’ Day, perhaps the most important date in Panamanian national identity.

These clashes—and the regional and global condemnation that followed—are what forced the United States to begin the process of negotiating the Panama Canal’s ownership. Over the next decade, the United States and Panama negotiated terms amid significant tension until the President Jimmy Carter’s administration finally secured a deal. Throughout the negotiations, Panamanian sovereignty over the canal was a top priority for every Latin American country—even the right-wing military dictatorships that were Washington’s closest regional allies. When the Panama Canal Treaty was finally ratified in 1977, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and Argentine dictator Rafael Videla were among the 26 heads of state and foreign ministers who attended the signing ceremony.

This Latin American unity behind Panama’s position explains why, despite vocally opposing the treaty during his campaign, President Ronald Reagan did nothing to undo the treaty once in office. [Continue reading…]