THE recent declassification of the Panama Canal Treaty documents offers an unfiltered look at how the United States historically manipulated sovereignty, engaged in regional destabilisation, and acted out of strategic expediency rather than moral principle.
MAHMOOD SANGLAY analyses the trove of documents in light of US foreign policy then and now.
These documents, spanning the period from 1964 to 1977 and the US administrations from Lyndon Johnson to Jimmy Carter, detail the political manoeuvring, intelligence briefings and military considerations that shaped Washington’s approach to one of the most vital waterways in global trade.
Today, these historical revelations gain new relevance in the wake of Donald Trump’s incendiary call to ‘take back’ the Panama Canal, positioning the US once again as an imperial power keen on exerting control over Latin America under the pretext of countering China.
The newly declassified documents highlight how US policy toward Panama was never about recognising sovereignty but rather maintaining control in a way that served its economic and military interests. Key takeaways from these files include:
- Johnson’s Covert Operations to Control Unrest (1964): CIA memos and White House tapes confirm that the US actively monitored and intervened in student protests in Panama, which erupted in opposition to US control over the Canal Zone. The CIA advised covert stabilisation strategies, while President Lyndon Johnson privately acknowledged the need to maintain US authority through ‘hard diplomacy’ and potential force.
- Nixon’s National Security Calculations (1970): Nixon’s National Security Council (NSC) memos reveal that his administration viewed the canal as a strategic military asset that could not be ceded without safeguards ensuring continued US military dominance.
- Ford and Kissinger’s secret manoeuvring (1974-1975): Henry Kissinger’s State Department memos show the US sought a treaty that would ‘appear to grant sovereignty while still ensuring long-term US control through secret security agreements.
- Carter’s ‘moral posturing’ but strategic calculation (1977): Contrary to the public image of Carter as a champion of Latin American self-determination, White House memos indicate that the administration only pursued treaty negotiations to prevent growing instability in the region and potential Soviet or Cuban influence.
While Washington’s rhetoric often championed self-determination, its actions reveal an approach that was entirely imperial and self-serving. The handover of the canal was less about recognising Panama’s sovereignty and more about preventing greater geopolitical complications for the US.
Johnson (1963-1969) treated the canal as an extension of US sovereignty and considered military action to crush Panamanian protests against US occupation. Nixon (1969-1974) saw the canal as a Cold War strategic asset and opposed relinquishing any real control, instead preferring military fortification and intelligence operations. Ford (1974-1977), with Kissinger, sought to create a treaty framework that would neutralise growing Panamanian resistance while ensuring that US military operations remained unaffected. Carter (1977-1981) is portrayed as the president who ‘gave away’ the canal. However, his administration’s private memos reveal a strategy of economic entrenchment, ensuring US firms and defence contractors still benefitted.
Trump’s threats to ‘take back’ the canal: A regression to old imperialism
Donald Trump’s recent declaration that the US should ‘retake the Panama Canal’ and his warning of ‘powerful action’ against Panama reflect a disturbing return to Cold War-era interventionism. Unlike his predecessors, who relied on diplomatic cover to disguise imperial policies, Trump embraces an overtly aggressive stance.
His claim that China is ‘controlling the canal’ is reminiscent of Nixon-era fears of Soviet control. However, no evidence suggests that China holds direct authority over the canal. Instead, its presence is economic, primarily through investments.
Unlike Carter, who at least attempted to create a veneer of Panamanian sovereignty, Trump’s rhetoric erases Panama’s independence altogether, suggesting that the US has a natural right to reclaim the canal. Trump’s stance contradicts decades of bipartisan US foreign policy that has publicly upheld the treaty as an example of peaceful diplomatic resolution.
Trump’s approach is emblematic of a new age of direct imperialism, where economic pressure, military posturing, and diplomatic threats replace the veiled influence strategies of previous administrations.
The Panama case study exemplifies a broader US pattern of destabilising regions, claiming to promote self-determination, then using military or economic means to retain influence. Three key parallels with contemporary US foreign policy illustrate this.
First, Trump proposed buying Greenland from Denmark, treating the territory as a strategic real estate transaction. This reflects a long-standing US mentality that sovereign lands can be bartered or acquired based on Washington’s global interests, much like the early 20th-century approach to the Panama Canal.
Secondly, Trump’s so-called ‘Deal of the Century’ on Gaza attempted to dictate Palestinian territorial sovereignty without their consent, offering them economic incentives in exchange for territorial concessions. This follows the same logic used in the Panama Canal negotiations, where the US framed economic aid as a substitute for genuine sovereignty.
Thirdly, the US today maintains over 750 military bases worldwide, many in regions where Washington claims to have relinquished direct colonial control. Panama’s case proves that even when formal sovereignty is granted, the US ensures it retains power through economic and military agreements.
The declassified documents expose how US involvement in Panama was always about control, not self-determination. This history becomes vital when assessing Trump’s renewed threats to intervene in Panama, as they signal a potential return to direct interventionism.
If Trump regains power, his statements suggest a more aggressive foreign policy, one that could see economic coercion, diplomatic ultimatums, or even military intervention to reassert US dominance over the canal. The Panama case stands as both a lesson from history and a warning for the future, that Washington’s imperial ambitions are far from over.
