The United States has expressed concerns that Panama has not fully adhered to certain stipulations of the 1977 treaty that transferred control of the Panama Canal. These concerns primarily revolve around the neutrality and security of the waterway, as guaranteed by the treaty.

Here are some of the key U.S. claims:

• Restrictions on Military Activities: The treaty outlines restrictions on military activities in and around the canal to ensure its neutrality. The U.S. has alleged that Panama has allowed military activities that exceed the treaty’s limitations, potentially jeopardizing the canal’s safe and efficient operation.
• Maintenance and Operation of the Canal: The treaty emphasizes the importance of maintaining and operating the canal efficiently. The U.S. has raised concerns about potential deficiencies in Panama’s ability to adequately maintain and operate the canal at the required level, which could impact international shipping and commerce.
• Security Concerns: The U.S. has expressed concerns about the security situation in Panama and its potential impact on the canal’s operations.

It’s important to note:

• These are the U.S. claims, and Panama may have differing interpretations of the treaty and its obligations.
• The complexities of international treaties and their interpretation often lead to differing viewpoints and potential disputes.
• Ongoing dialogue and cooperation between the U.S. and Panama are crucial for addressing these concerns and ensuring the continued smooth operation of the Panama Canal.

Donald Trump has expressed several options regarding Panama’s management of the Panama Canal and its adherence to the treaty terms:

1. Demanding the Return of the Canal: Trump has suggested that if Panama does not comply with the terms of the treaty, the United States could demand the return of the Panama Canal to U.S. control. This was highlighted in his statements where he described the canal as a “vital national asset” for the U.S., implying that if Panama does not manage it in a way that benefits U.S. interests, the U.S. might claim it back.
2. Military or Economic Force: Trump has not ruled out the use of military or economic force to regain control of the canal. This was evident when he refused to assure that he would not use such measures, indicating a willingness to consider aggressive actions if necessary.
3. Negotiating a New Treaty: There’s commentary suggesting that Trump’s rhetoric could be a form of negotiation to push for a new treaty or better terms within the existing framework, similar to how previous U.S. leaders have handled international agreements. This could involve renegotiating transit fees or ensuring U.S. interests are more directly protected.
4. Economic Pressure: Trump has criticized what he perceives as “exorbitant fees” for U.S. ships passing through the canal, suggesting that economic pressure, such as influencing shipping rates or trade policies, might be used to coerce Panama into compliance or better terms.

These options reflect Trump’s approach of using both direct threats and economic leverage to address what he sees as shortcomings in how Panama manages the canal, particularly in terms of economic fairness and national security implications for the United States. However, these are largely based on Trump’s statements and public rhetoric rather than formal policy proposals or actions taken during his presidency.

The Panama Canal Treaties refer primarily to two treaties signed in 1977 by the United States and Panama, which facilitated the transfer of the Panama Canal from U.S. to Panamanian control. These treaties are:

1. Torrijos-Carter Treaty (Panama Canal Treaty)

• Signed: September 7, 1977
• Effective: October 1, 1979
• Key Points:
  • Transfer of Control: The treaty provided for the gradual transfer of the Panama Canal Zone and its administration to Panama. The actual transfer of the canal was completed on December 31, 1999.
  • Joint Management: Until the transfer, the canal was managed by the Panama Canal Commission, which included representatives from both countries.
  • Neutrality: The canal was to remain neutral, open to vessels of all nations, with equal treatment in tolls and services.
  • Economic Benefits: Panama would receive a larger share of the canal’s earnings, and the U.S. agreed to pay an annual sum to Panama for the use of lands and waters outside the canal itself.

2. Neutrality Treaty

• Signed: September 7, 1977
• Effective: October 1, 1979
• Key Points:
  • Neutrality Guarantee: Both countries guaranteed that the canal would remain permanently neutral, open to peaceful transit by vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality.
  • Right to Defend Neutrality: The U.S. and Panama have the right to act against any threat to the neutrality of the canal, but this action must be in accordance with the treaty and international law.

Additional Details:

• Canal Operations: Post-1999, Panama took full control of canal operations through the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), which operates independently from the Panamanian government.
• Economic Impact: The canal significantly contributes to Panama’s economy through tolls, services, and related business activities. The U.S. benefits from the canal’s strategic location for international shipping.
• Defense and Security: Although the U.S. no longer has military bases in Panama, it maintains an interest in the canal’s security due to its strategic importance. The Neutrality Treaty allows for U.S. intervention in extreme cases to ensure the canal’s neutrality.
• Treaty Amendments or Renegotiations: Over the years, there have been discussions about the terms of the treaties, especially concerning economic benefits, but no major amendments have been made.

These treaties were pivotal in reshaping U.S.-Panama relations by recognizing Panamanian sovereignty over the canal while ensuring continued access for global trade. They marked a significant shift from when the U.S. controlled the canal zone under the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903.