Should the U.S. reclaim control of the Panama Canal to secure economic and strategic interests, or should Panama’s sovereignty remain upheld as per international agreements? This debate examines the historical, ethical, and geopolitical implications of such a decision.
The Panama Canal is a critical trade route that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, impacting global commerce and U.S. economic interests. Originally under U.S. control following its construction, the canal was handed over to Panama in 1999 as part of the Panama Canal Treaty. Some argue that the U.S. should regain control to ensure strategic and economic security, while others maintain that Panama’s sovereignty over the canal is vital and aligns with international agreements.
Should the U.S. consider taking over the Panama Canal again? What are the potential benefits or risks of such a move?
It’s pretty simple really. And if your next question is- ‘Should the United States take over control of Greenland?’ -the answer is the same… an emphatic-YES!
Why? -Because it has critical strategic importance. The Panama Canal was built, -bought and paid for, by America. It was constructed for war. That’s the bottom line, and the only reason we need to reclaim it-- It was constructed to facilitate the rapid deployment and movement of warships from the Atlantic Fleet to the Pacific should war neccessitate such a move- you know… if we were to get into a war with China, Russia, or Japan for examples, and vice versa should we ever need to get the Pacific Fleet ships quickly over to the Atlantic Ocean. -It’s all one ocean, by the way-- we just call it different names on either side of that Panama isthmus, but apart from that shortcut, it can take months longer for ships to travel around the southern tip of South America or through treacherous routes like the Straits of Magellen. The shortcut through the Panama Canal is significant, saving up to 5 months of travel time and completely eliminating the need to go through the straits or the trip around Cape Horn.
As Trump has brought attention to the issue- he’s focused on the issue as yet another example of “bad deals” that the US has entered into without much forethought given towards consequence and almost never ‘strategy.’ Like the Paris Climate Accords, or the World Health Organization, and even NATO-- weak leaders (like the late Jimmy Carter in the case of the Canal) have put the US in a weak position, essentially giving away our security-- open borders, immigration, trade and military strength are almost the last things considered.
Long before Carter gave the Canal control away in the 1977 treaty, there was already a treaty in place. The original treaty was called the “Neutrality Treaty” and it guaranteed–
-that, the U.S. would retain the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations.
Carter changed the original treaty. There is no reason that prevents Trump from doing likewise.
Ever ask the question as to why China desires to assert control over the Panama Canal?
It’s for the same exact reason-- Military strategy. They want to be able to PREVENT the rapid movement and deployment of US warships.
It isn’t for trade— that’s pure smoke.
When China ships goods from Shanghai to New York it takes about 28 days if they were to take the shortcut through the Panama Canal. You’d have to double the time if they were to go down around or through the southern tip of South America (the straits or the Cape).
But why would they do that? They would NEVER.
They can ship from Shanghai to New York in 27 days by going through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Gibralter.
