← History As It Happens
History As It Happens
Trump and the Panama Canal
00:53:30
President-elect Donald Trump says China has taken over the Panama Canal. In a news conference, Trump said U.S. military force may be necessary to seize the canal, which would abrogate the 1978 treaty between the U.S. and Panama ceding its control to...
Loading summary
Transcript118 lines
- [00:01]
Martin DeCaro
History as it happens. January 14, 2025. Trump and the Panama Canal.
- [00:07]
Ronald Reagan
It's not an easy thing to accept a change which has been so profoundly balanced in our favor.
- [00:17]
William F. Buckley
Ratification of the new treaty would immediately cancel that treaty of 1903. The Canal Zone would cease to exist. We would simply be a foreign power with property in Panama.
- [00:29]
Ronald Reagan
I would strongly appeal to Panama, the.
- [00:32]
Jonathan Brown
United States of America, to seek a solution in a spirit of friendship.
- [00:38]
Ronald Reagan
If, God forbid, it should ever become necessary for a president and a Congress to take strong measures to keep the Canal functioning and safe, they would, in my judgment, be in a much stronger position to do so under the treaties of 1972.
- [00:52]
Donald Trump
China's at both ends of the Panama Canal. China's running the Panama Canal.
- [00:56]
Martin DeCaro
Does China really control and operate the Panama Canal? Of course not. But China does have an expanding economic footprint in that country. Donald Trump says he wants to regain the canal. Nearly 50 years after the US agreed to cede its rights to Panama in a historic treaty, there's no chance Panamanians would voluntarily give back what's been theirs. We'll explain why next as we report history as it happens. I'm Martin DeCaro.
- [01:22]
Jonathan Brown
When the Senate in 1977 debated and voted on the Canal Treaty, General Omar Turrijos threatened that if they didn't agree to turn the property over to Panama, he himself would render the Panama Canal unusable.
- [01:54]
Martin DeCaro
September 7, 1977. President Jimmy Carter in Panama's district dictator OMAR Torrijo signed two treaties capping negotiations that stretched back to the mid-1960s. One treaty gradually transferred ownership of the Panama Canal to Panama. That process would wrap up on December 31, 1999. The other treaty was about Canal neutrality, allowing the United States to use military force to defend it.
- [02:21]
Ronald Reagan
The American people are big enough and strong enough, courageous enough and understanding enough to be proud of what has been accomplished. And I believe that this treaty can open up a new era of understanding and comprehension, friendship and mutual respect throughout not only this hemisphere, but throughout the world. It's not an easy thing to accept a change which has been so profoundly balanced in our favor and which can now be of equal benefit to both countries.
- [03:05]
Martin DeCaro
You know, I gotta say, I've never given much thought to the Panama Canal as long as I can remember. It's always belonged rightfully to Panama, but this was a big deal in the 1960s and 70s. Actually, we may want to start in 1959 when Panama was invaded. Sort of.
- [03:23]
Ronald Reagan
The Organization of American States acts to end the threat to Panama. A US helicopter flies representatives of the organization to Nombre de Dios, where 87 rebels established a beachhead under the leadership of a Cuban adventurer.
- [03:36]
Martin DeCaro
Shortly after the Cuban Revolution, Castro set his eyes on Panama. But the tiny invasion force didn't get very far and an attempted coup failed.
- [03:44]
Ronald Reagan
The attackers allow themselves to be captured and questioned. Some of them say they were sent by Fidel Castro's brother Raul, a charge that proves embarrassing to the new Cuban government and is promptly denied. In any case, joint action by the American states prevents an outbreak of trouble in the Caribbean.
- [04:01]
Martin DeCaro
So much for Panama becoming a Cold War hotspot, you know. That same year 1959, anti American riots broke out. In November, the former Foreign Minister Aquilino Boyd threatened a peaceful invasion of the American controlled Panama Canal Zone to raise the Panamanian flag over what he believed was his country's sovereign territory. These tensions worsened in the 1960s. According to the U.S. state Department's official historian. In 1964 a riot between American residents and Panamanians was sparked over the right to fly the flag, the Panamanian flag in the Canal Zone. And the two countries briefly cut off diplomatic relations. This did convince both sides. It was time to negotiate a new agreement to replace the original treaty from 1903, a treaty the people of Panama never truly accepted as legitimate. In 1967 negotiators reached an agreement on three treaties on the status of the Canal. But political turmoil got in the way. 11 days into Arnolfo Arias Madrid's term, he was deposed in a coup. Enter Colonel Omar Torrijos. Twelve years later, as mentioned, he and Carter finally finished the job. Well, almost. The treaty still had to be ratified in the US Senate and it was controversial. William F. Buckley of the National Review hosted a two hour debate on his Firing Line TV show where he argued in favor of ceding the Canal to Panama.
- [05:25]
Ronald Reagan
I say, do we believe even in sovereignty for little countries whose natural resources, where and when necessary, we are entitled to use, but not to abuse the kind of satisfaction a nation truly consistent in the practice of its ideals seeks for itself is the kind of satisfaction at this moment in history we can have by ratifying treaties that at once enhance our security and our self esteem.
- [05:54]
Martin DeCaro
Arguing against the treaty, Ronald Reagan, who two years earlier had lost the GOP nominating contest to Gerald Ford.
- [06:01]
William F. Buckley
Ratification of the new treaty would immediately cancel that treaty of 1903. The Canal Zone would cease to exist. We would simply be a foreign power with property in Panama. There would be nothing to prevent the government of Panama from expropriating our property and nationalizing the canal as they have already nationalized the transit company and the power system.
- [06:23]
Martin DeCaro
Oh, about Gerald Ford. The canal controversy came up in the second presidential debate, October 6, 1976, with Jimmy Carter.
- [06:32]
Ronald Reagan
Governor Carter, before this event, the most communications I received concerned Panama. Would you, as president, be prepared to sign a treaty which, at a fixed date yielded administrative and economic control of the Canal Zone and shared defense, which, as I understand it, is the position the United states took in 1974? Well, here again, the Panamanian question is one that's been confused by Mr. Ford. He had directed his diplomatic relation representative to yield to the Panamanians full sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the end of a certain period of time. When Mr. Reagan raised this question in Florida, Mr. Ford not only disavowed his instructions, but he also even dropped, parenthetically, the use of the word daytona. I would never give up complete control or practical control of the Panama Canal to, but I would continue to negotiate with the Panamanians. When the original treaty was signed back in the early 1900s, when Theodore Roosevelt was president, Panama retained sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone. We retained control as though we had sovereignty. Now, I would be willing to go ahead with negotiations. I believe that we could share more fully responsibilities for the Panama Canal Zone with Panama. I would be willing to continue to raise the payment for shipment of goods through the Panama Canal Zone. I might even be willing to reduce to some degree our military emplacements in the Panama Canal Zone. But I would not relinquish practical control of the Panama Canal Zone anytime in the foreseeable future. President Ford. The United States must and will maintain complete access to the Panama Canal. The United States must maintain a defense capability of the Panama Canal, and the United States will maintain our national security interest in the Panama Canal. The negotiations for the Panama Canal started under President Johnson and have continued up to the present time. I believe those negotiations should continue, but there are certain guidelines that must be followed and I've just defined.
- [08:58]
Martin DeCaro
Well, I think you get it by now. Ceding the canal to Panama was a big issue 50 years ago, and you may have assumed it was settled until President elect Trump's rambling news conference last week where he refused to rule out the use of force to take back the canal based on the nonsensical claim that China now controls it and his false claim that the canal operators are charging American ships higher toll rates relative to other nations.
- [09:22]
Donald Trump
The Panama Canal is a disgrace. What took place at the Panama Canal? Jimmy Carter gave it to them for $1 and they were supposed to treat us well. I thought it was a terrible thing to do. It was the most expensive structure ever built in the history of our country. Relatively, it would be the equivalent of over, over a substantially over a trillion dollars. Today we lost 38,000 people. Think of it, 38,000 people. They died from malaria, mosquitoes. They were unable to stop the mosquitoes. They paid people five times more to take the job. Many of those people died. We gave it away for a dollar. But the deal was that, you know, they have to treat us fairly. They don't treat us fairly. They charge more for our ships than they charge for ships of other countries. They charge more for our navy than they charge for navies of other countries. They laugh at us because they think we're stupid, but we're not stupid anymore. So the Panama Canal is under discussion with them right now. They violated every aspect of the agreement and it's. They morally violated it also. And they want our help because it's leaking and not in good repair and they want US to give $3 billion to help fix it. I said, well, why don't you get the money from China? Because China's basically taking it over. China's at both ends of the Panama Canal. China's running the Panama Canal well.
- [10:49]
Martin DeCaro
As usual with Trump, his detachment from reality obscures what's happening. China does have growing economic interests in Panama. Even if it's not running or operating the canal, Panama is a sovereign country that can decide who it wants to do business with. China's Belt and Road Initiative promised to build bridges a rail commercial ports in a cruise ship terminal in Panama. Greg Curley, writing for the Atlantic Council, says Chinese companies such as Land Bridge Group and the Hong Kong based CK Hutchinson holdings now operate ports at both ends of the Canal. He says this presence raises concerns about potential dual use, infrastructure and strategic maneuvering, particularly given China's deepening ties to Latin America. There is no indication, however, that Panama wants China to control the canal any more than it wanted the United States to own and operate it from 1914 until 1999. The canal is an important symbol of Panama's independence. Jonathan Brown is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Texas at Austin. He is an expert on Latin America and the author of the Weak and the Omar Torrijos Panama and the Non Aligned World, which explains how Torrijos was able to win control of the canal from the hemisphere superpower without spilling a drop of blood. Jonathan Brown, welcome to the show.
- [12:09]
Jonathan Brown
Nice to be with you, Martin.
- [12:10]
Martin DeCaro
I'm embarrassed to Say, I did not know very much at all about the history of the Panama Canal until I started to prepare for our conversation. Are you getting a lot of questions about the Panama Canal these days?
- [12:22]
Jonathan Brown
Not really. No one knows enough about the Panama Canal to ask me anything. So, no. This is really the first time, you.
- [12:32]
Martin DeCaro
Know, we'll dive into the history here. It's going to be hard to cover everything in a short podcast. We're talking about 100 years of history. But are you surprised by Donald Trump's sudden. Maybe it's not sudden, but his fixation on Panama?
- [12:46]
Jonathan Brown
Actually, I'm not. He had a hotel with his Trump signature all over the hotel in 2014. He actually was charged with something like failure to pay taxes on the hotel, and he had to give it up in a legal contest in Panamanian courts. And they took down his Trump signs from the hotel, and the owner took it back over. Therefore, he knows about Panama. He's got a history in Panama.
- [13:22]
Martin DeCaro
Well, you said Panama was the victim, a victim of imperialism since its independence in 1903. What do you mean? In the context of the canal, over which the US established permanent rights via a treaty in the early 20th century.
- [13:40]
Jonathan Brown
In 1903, at the beginning of that year, Panama was a province of the country of Colombia, Bogota being the capital. President Roosevelt wanted to take over the de Lesseps project of building a canal between the two oceans. Colombia turned him down, wouldn't give him a license to do so. So he got some agents working for him in Panama who had belonged to the old de Lesseps company, and that was Felipe Leponne, Bernard Barille. There was no independence movement until 1903, and this was begun by Philippe, a French citizen who worked for De Lesseps. Therefore, they organized a small independence movement, selected a president, and that president allowed the Americans to protect him while he declared independence from Colombia. And then shortly after that, they sent Bruno varilla to Washington, D.C. where he concluded a very quick treaty giving the United States the rights to build the canal. All of this transpired before Colombia even knew what was happening, because the news in those days traveled so slowly up the Magdalena river, then over the mountains to Bogota. So the Colombians had been taken by surprise. And all of this had been rigged not by a seated government or not by an independence movement. It had been done surreptitiously. This was the bragging rights for Theodore Roosevelt, who said, I took Panama while the Congress debated. And this was blatantly a kind of imperialistic takeover.
- [15:50]
Martin DeCaro
So right from the start, from Panamanian Independence. There is resentment about what happened there. Just to review, and we'll go back a little bit in time, before the 20th century begins. I want to go over a couple of the names you mentioned there. You said De Lesseps. That was Ferdinand de Lesseps. He led a company known as Company Universelle du Canal Interoceanique. That is my French. That was a company financed by French capital from small investors. So this plan did not work. And I mentioned another person there, Adolphe Godin de Lepennais. He was a different engineer who had studied the Panama isthmus and had a better idea for building a canal there. You mentioned Philippe. I had gotten his name confused with Lepanay. You were referring to a French engineer, Philippe Jean Bunal Varia. He actually had the better. Right. I can't remember which of the two engineers had the better idea for the canal. It's either Bunal Varia or Le Penne. But those are the names we're dealing with here.
- [16:51]
Jonathan Brown
Right. But they failed completely because they didn't have the technology to dig what they had to dig. And to do this, they had experience with the Suez Canal. But the Suez Canal didn't have any impeding mountains or impeding hills to deal with. It was all practically a waterway consistently going over level land. That was not the case in Panama. Yeah.
- [17:20]
Martin DeCaro
Philippe Jean Bunal Varia. His name is on the treaty. And yes, there was this debate among engineers over the best way to try to build a canal through Panama. Americans had thought about maybe building a canal through Nicaragua in the 19th century. Tell us a little bit about the background there.
- [17:38]
Jonathan Brown
It wouldn't work. The Nicaraguans didn't want it done. They couldn't get a contract from anybody in Nicaragua. And the Nicaraguan government, which was independent country, it's a much longer canal, and it passes through a sweetwater lake, Lake Nicaragua. It's still a possibility, but it is a much longer canal.
- [18:05]
Martin DeCaro
So by the summer of 1904, work under the new American administration. I mentioned how the French had abandoned this or they weren't able to do it. Work under the American administration is underway along the canal route. Let's go back to how Panamanians felt about this. Right from the beginning, the people of Panama, they were building this thing.
- [18:24]
Ronald Reagan
Right.
- [18:24]
Martin DeCaro
A very dangerous project.
- [18:26]
Jonathan Brown
No, there was no one in Panama, representing the Colombian government or not, was building the canal. They didn't have the financing for it. Besides, it was a province of Colombia up until 1903.
- [18:45]
Martin DeCaro
And the workers, the people toiling, doing the digging, they were brought in from.
- [18:50]
Jonathan Brown
The West Indies and from the United States, all the engineers. It was really a industrial adventure. So all of the skilled workers were from the United States. Many of them encountered tropical diseases. And so they had to bring in workers from the West Indies who were used to the tropical weather and could work in the tropical weather. And most of those were African Caribbean people who came in to do the heavy lifting.
- [19:26]
Martin DeCaro
Thousands of people died building the canal over a decade or more, right?
- [19:31]
Jonathan Brown
That is correct.
- [19:32]
Martin DeCaro
So as the 20th century progresses, what leads to tensions between the US and Panama? I mean, in the mid-1960s, the two countries briefly cut off relations. So what was going on there?
- [19:44]
Jonathan Brown
The rise of a movement within Panama to question the ancient treaty that had been foisted upon them by the Americans back in 1903. And the trigger of all of this was the 1956 takeover of the Suez Canal by General Nasser, who made a coup on the ancient government and took over the country, and then he confiscated the Suez Canal.
- [20:19]
Ronald Reagan
Ships pass peacefully through the Suez Canal as negotiations continue on operation of the waterway seized and now controlled by Egypt. India's VK Krishna Menon arrives in London.
- [20:31]
Jonathan Brown
This is what gave rise to greater tensions. The second thing that gave rise was presidents of Panama had been asking for an increase on the rent that was paid by the United States for the right to run the canal. And the United States always did not measure up to it because they wanted to keep freight rates low for cargo ships that were using the canal in order to keep up and to help out American businesses. The Americans provided the most traffic through the Panama Canal, and the idea was to keep rates low in order to stimulate the economy. In fact, it actually cost the Americans more money to keep rates low that they were actually giving a subsidy to those people who were sending US products through the canal. This was a stimulus for the market, which meant that they didn't want to pay extra money for the Panamanians as a kind of rent. The presidents of Panama were extremely agitated over this because there was nothing they could do. They didn't have much of an army to speak of. The army only came in the 1950s after there was trouble. The trouble was exploited by students. Students led the movement to question the relationship between the United States and Panama.
- [22:12]
Martin DeCaro
Interesting.
- [22:13]
Jonathan Brown
There were riots in 1959, 1960, and also 1964. That was the big one.
- [22:21]
Martin DeCaro
Was the canal benefiting Panama, or was it simply benefiting the United States, which was the country sending the most ships through it? Although, of course, it was used by other countries as well.
- [22:31]
Jonathan Brown
I would say it was benefiting Panama, having so many Americans there, having the passage of, of ships going by, they were able to gain some commercial development. So, yes, I think their economy was helped. It was a country with a very small population. Less than a million people lived there in the 1960s. And the population, however, was growing through immigration and natural population growth. So the government wanted more money because this would stimulate their economy even more, raise wages and so forth. This was part of the pressure.
- [23:19]
Martin DeCaro
There had always been an American governor to administer the Canal Zone, appointed by a US President. And judicial matters were settled before magistrates who were appointed by that governor or by a circuit court judge appointed by the president. Was this considered a loss of sovereignty by people in Panama?
- [23:38]
Jonathan Brown
Yeah, very definitely. But the idea was among the people who lived permanently and worked permanently on the Canal, who were all Americans, they didn't observe these sovereign, say, traditions and culture of Panama. Spanish was not spoken in the Panama Canal Zone. All the best jobs were taken by Americans. So there was a great deal of resentment. The Panamanians were on the short end of the stick, even though they hosted the Americans there. The Americans had their own judicial system, their own court system, their own government. In a matter of speaking, the Panama Canal was in Panama, but it was not part of Panama. And this rankled people who loved their country, loved their culture, spoke Spanish, were comfortable with that, were prideful about being now an independent country. But by the same token, it was demeaning. It was just like the French in Algiers, it was just like the British in India. The Americans were separate but superior to the Panamanians.
- [24:58]
Martin DeCaro
So what was the concern then about the possibility, and we will get to the debates in the 1970s, the possibility of handing the Canal back over to the Panamanians.
- [25:08]
Jonathan Brown
One had to do with the defense of the Canal that was provided by the US military. And the other one was the belief that the Panamanians could not do it, that Panama, being a Latin American country, was prone to political unrest. And so they didn't want to chance that. They wanted to protect this, and they had been doing it forever now. There were moments of tension, I suppose, like World War II. Extra troops had to go there in order to defend the Canal during wartime. But other than that, things just remained the same. And it was just the inertia of American foreign policy.
- [25:55]
Martin DeCaro
Was Panama considered a Cold War flashpoint?
- [25:59]
Jonathan Brown
Not really, probably. There's only one time in the history of the US control of the Panama Canal in which it could have been threatened by the Cold War, and that was 1962. When the Russians put in nuclear warheads.
- [26:24]
Ronald Reagan
On rockets in Cuba, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island.
- [26:37]
Jonathan Brown
That could have given them the capacity to threaten to destroy the Panama Canal. But of course, in 1962, in the October missile crisis, John Kennedy removed that. Other than that, there was really no threat to the Panama Canal during the Cold War by the adversaries of the United States. And that is because even during the Cold War, we allowed all traffic from all nations to pass through the Panama Canal. That's just the way it was. Soviet Union could do it. Communist China could do it. It's just that they didn't have the same sort of traffic as the United States.
- [27:28]
Martin DeCaro
No nation's ever been barred from having its ships go through the Canal, as far as I know.
- [27:33]
Jonathan Brown
Yeah, that's absolutely correct. Every nation in the world can send their shipping through the Panama Canal. They just have to wait for their turn.
- [27:44]
Martin DeCaro
Because I was listening to some of Ronald Reagan's comments, and we will get to those debates in the 1970s because they're relevant today with what Donald Trump is saying. But I listened to some of Ronald Reagan's comments about why he opposed the treaties, the two treaties that were signed and ratified in the late 1970s. You know, one of the reasons, in Reagan's eyes was Soviet influence in Central America. I mean, he saw that almost everywhere. Right.
- [28:08]
William F. Buckley
A new treaty for neutrality makes it very clear that in the event of war, our enemies have the same right of access to the Canal that we have. The protocol does more. It permits all other nations, like, say, Soviet Union or Cuba, to become parties to the protocol that's brought forth in the first. Whereas thus, Article 3 gives the right of any nation to become a party to the protocol. So by Article 1, the contracting parties hereby acknowledge the regime of permanent national neutrality of the Canal. That acknowledgement is meaningless unless some nation has the right to enforce it.
- [28:45]
Martin DeCaro
But it doesn't seem to me that the USSR ever really had any influence over the Canal.
- [28:50]
Jonathan Brown
No, they didn't. There were communist movements in Latin America during the time of the 1960s, and they were encouraged by Fidel Castro. None of them became serious enough to take over the government, except in Nicaragua. But Nicaragua was no threat to the Panama Canal, even though the government was a Marxist one. So I would say that the neutrality of traffic, commercial traffic through the Canal, has never been challenged.
- [29:26]
Martin DeCaro
Yeah, and Panama joined the Non Aligned Movement. So let's talk about Omar Torrijos. He comes to power in Panama in a coup in 1968. Didn't seem like it was a particularly bloody or violent coup.
- [29:41]
Jonathan Brown
No, there's no bloodshed.
- [29:43]
Martin DeCaro
He sought a relationship with the United States. You have said that he was an unusual Central American dictator. What do you mean?
- [29:51]
Jonathan Brown
He was unusual because he didn't fit the pattern of the dictators who ruled many countries of Latin America. There were probably three quarters of the population in Latin America were governed by military dictatorships throughout the 1970s. So he fit the pattern of being a dictator of a Latin American country then. But he didn't act like the other dictators. He was more of a socialist, a social democrat than he was a dictator. He was only dictator in order to to conclude and force the United States to engage in a re negotiation of the 1903 treaty. The sitting presidents, the democratically elected presidents, and then democracy was full of electoral corruption. But they did have elected governments and that was true throughout the entire period. But it was becoming less popular because none of these presidents could force the United States to renegotiate a 1903 to make changes in the relationship between the Americans and the Panamanians. It was really an easy venture to take power overnight. It was a bloodless takeover. And there was some problems within the military over who is going to be the leader. That was solved by Torrijos himself. And then he governed the country for the next 13 years. His main thing was to make an agreement with the United States and therefore within the country. He had very little opposition in his main goal and that's why he lasted so long.
- [31:53]
Martin DeCaro
And his goal was to achieve full sovereignty over the canal.
- [31:57]
Jonathan Brown
That's correct.
- [31:58]
Martin DeCaro
Get the US Military out of there, right?
- [32:00]
Jonathan Brown
Yes, that's the thing. He, as a military man wanted the occupation of the country by the United States army to cease. He wanted to get them out. We had 10,000 people there. And by the way, I was one of them. I was a junior lieutenant in the United States army stationed in the Panama Canal 1968-1970.
- [32:27]
Martin DeCaro
Do you have fun?
- [32:28]
Jonathan Brown
I had fun. It was like R and R. Everybody came in from Vietnam, took a couple of years off, then went back to Vietnam so they could get their promotions. I was just an ROTC reserve officer doing my two or three years of obligatory service, but it was wonderful.
- [32:52]
Martin DeCaro
Now, I asked you earlier about who was working or building the canal in the early 20th century, and you corrected me when I said that the workers may have been mostly Panamanian. You say they were brought in from other, other places, but by the mid-1970s, I think this is what I meant to say earlier. By the mid-1970s, most of the people who work the canal on a day to day basis are Panamanian, right?
- [33:14]
Jonathan Brown
That may have been, I don't know the exact ratio of Panamanians to Americans, but all the Americans had the jobs that mattered, the jobs that were critical, and they were careful not to train any Panamanians to do that. So it's true there were Panamanians who even worked for the US military there as office assistance, as janitors, other sorts of occupations. And they worked also for the US Governor and the administration of the Canal and on the canal itself. But they didn't have the real good jobs. That was controlled by probably one of the strongest unions ever in American history and that was the Canal Workers Union. All those jobs were controlled by Americans. Americans ran the canal, that's for certain.
- [34:19]
Martin DeCaro
Negotiations to transfer rights to Panama begin under the Nixon administration. He sent an ambassador there, Ellsworth Bunker, I think. Why did Nixon do this? Why was he open to this?
- [34:32]
Jonathan Brown
He wasn't open to it. That's a misconception. He was basically interested in Vietnam, detente with the Soviet Union and China. There was very little activity at all in the period of Nixon's six years in office. And only there was some activity because Henry Kissinger, as Secretary of State to Gerald Ford, was interested in meeting international pressure in favor of Panama's right to own the Panama Canal. In response to that, he began negotiations really not to give it to them or give it to them on easy terms, but he wanted to at least allay some of this international pressure. And he began it under Gerald Ford.
- [35:36]
Martin DeCaro
And when Jimmy Carter is running for president in 1975, 76, he seemed to oppose the idea of the treaties. But then he came around to them. Once he is in the White House, two treaties were ratified. What did each treaty stipulate?
- [35:53]
Jonathan Brown
Let's start with that first comment. In the election of 1976 between Ford and Jimmy Carter, it was not really about the canal. Foreign policy was a different thing. Jimmy Carter was more of a human rights person than the Republicans had been. And so that was one of his basic things about Latin America. But he really didn't have a position on the Panama Canal because there wasn't much of a division between him and Gerald Ford. They were both kind of favorable to it. But then because there was some intervention in that election by Ronald Reagan that they said, well, no, we don't want to give it up because we want to continue to defend it, to be able to Defend it from an unpopular government in Panama, should that happen. That was basically it until negotiations began in earnest after the election and after Jimmy Carter won the presidency.
- [37:10]
Martin DeCaro
And so we get two treaties.
- [37:12]
Jonathan Brown
There was the military disengagement. That's one thing. There was also the turnover and training of Panamanians for jobs that the Americans had. And this was fairly complicated because there were timetables for a 23 year transition of all of this. And by the end of it, the Panamanians would get full control of it. So there had to be training to be done over this time period. There had to be American workers to go into retirement and then being replaced by Panamanians so that nobody would lose their job because of the treaty. It's just that no new Americans were hired in that 23 years between 1977 and the year 2000.
- [38:12]
Martin DeCaro
That's right. The treaty's from the late 70s, but the transition took a quarter century. One reason why I wanted to talk to you was to restore the urgency around these issues because awareness has faded over the past however many decades. I mean, like I said at the top, I don't really think about the Panama Canal. It always made sense to me that it's part of Panama, they control the Canal Zone now, and that it's really not that big of a deal. It never really occurred to me that the United States is suffering as a result of that decision made a couple of generations ago. Did the US Lose anything by giving up sovereignty over the Canal?
- [38:47]
Jonathan Brown
I think their standing in the world increased. We didn't lose anything, that was for sure. In fact, we may have gained something. The respects of the Panamanians. That was one thing. Panama has always been a good friend. Panama also is a super democracy. Ever since the overturn of General Noriega in 1970, it has been governed by elected presidents. The elections are not perfect, but they work. And there is a transition of government every four years. And no president may serve a second term unless they take time off. And the capacity of the Canal has increased under the direction of the New Panamanian Canal Company. Also, we had 10,000 troops stationed permanently on 14 military bases. They were there not to protect it from the Panamanians, but to protect the Canal from foreign forces. Now, in today's world, they are completely useless from defense because if there's a rocket attack, we can't stop that. Actually, the presence of the US army there could be considered provocation. Also, think of the expense of keeping up Americans numbering 10,000 troops and their dependents in permanent occupation of a Country outside of our borders, it is expensive. So we were able to get rid of that expense and use it on other things.
- [40:42]
Martin DeCaro
That kind of self reflection needs to happen more often probably when it comes to how others view view the US presence in their countries so in their continent.
- [40:53]
Jonathan Brown
All of Latin America were against the U. S Occupation of the Panama. It was an insult to the Latin Americans to have a corridor 10 miles wide occupied by the United States.
- [41:10]
Martin DeCaro
It's like a paternalistic type of imperialism, if that's the right.
- [41:14]
Jonathan Brown
Exactly. We don't trust you. The Latin Americans always feared that they could use it as a launch pad for intervention as far away as say Paraguay or Argentina or Brazil.
- [41:32]
Martin DeCaro
Jonathan, at the beginning of your response there, you said how when the rights were transferred to Panama, it improved. When the treaties were agreed to, it improved the US standing in the world. That's not how opponents of the treaties viewed it. Right. They thought this made the US look weak after a series of defeats in places like Vietnam.
- [41:52]
Jonathan Brown
I'll tell you one thing. In that 20 year period, 23 year period between the conclusion of the treaties and the takeover by the Panamanians, Ronald Reagan, he did nothing to stop the transition. I think he realized that this was not a danger to American security, to our position overseas or to our national prestige. He didn't make it official, but he wrote in a letter to the President of Panama that I will not stand in the way of this transition period to full independence for you in the Panama Canal Zone.
- [42:43]
Martin DeCaro
So in the late 1970s, William F. Buckley, the founder editor of the National Review, on his TV show Firing Line, he hosted a two hour television debate. Buckley said he changed his mind after visiting Panama and learning of the feelings of the Panamanian people. It meant so much to them to have control of the Canal for themselves. And on the other side of the debate was the aforementioned Ronald Reagan, who talked about the danger of Panama nationalizing the canal itself.
- [43:13]
William F. Buckley
Ratification of the new treaty would immediately cancel that treaty of 1903. The Canal Zone would cease to exist. We would simply be a foreign power with property in Panama. There would be nothing to prevent the government of Panama from expropriating our property and nationalizing the canal as they have already nationalized the transit company and the power system.
- [43:36]
Martin DeCaro
What do you make of that TV debate? I assume that you've watched at least some of it.
- [43:40]
Jonathan Brown
I didn't see that debate actually. I may have been out of the country at the time. So no, I did not see the debate.
- [43:48]
Martin DeCaro
But you're familiar with the issues though?
- [43:50]
Jonathan Brown
Yeah, yeah, the GOP was split on this. There were members of the east coast gop, especially the Wall street bankers, the Rockefellers for example, who were in favor of the treaty because Panama became especially under Torrijos, Panama became the banking center of all of the Americas. The people on Wall street were all the bankers on Wall street and particularly the Rockefellers had big operations in Panama because Panama had very loose regulations and therefore money could flow in and flow out without too much taxation. Therefore, the East Coast Republicans were more in favor of, of the Panama Canal Treaty than the West Coast Republicans.
- [44:51]
Martin DeCaro
That's interesting that the issue was so big then that they did a two hour TV debate about it. We don't see that too often anymore.
- [44:58]
Jonathan Brown
So that's before Reagan was president.
- [45:01]
Martin DeCaro
Yes, in late 1970s.
- [45:03]
Jonathan Brown
Yeah.
- [45:03]
Martin DeCaro
Well, as you mentioned, he made a stink about this issue during the 76 campaign when he challenged Ford.
- [45:13]
Donald Trump
Are you going to negotiate a new treaty?
- [45:15]
Martin DeCaro
Are you going to ask the Canadians to hold the vote? What is the strategy?
- [45:20]
Donald Trump
I can't assure you. You're talking about Panama and Greenland. No, I can't assure you on either of those two. But I can say we need them for economic security. The Panama Canal was built for our military. I'm not going to commit to that now. It might be that. You'll have to do something. Look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country. It's being operated by China. China. And we gave the Panama Canal to Panama. We didn't give it to China. And they've abused it. They've abused that gift. It should have never been made. By the way. Giving the Panama Canal is why Jimmy Carter lost the election, in my opinion, more so maybe than the hostages. The hostages were a big deal. But if you remember, nobody wants to talk about the Panama Canal now because, you know, it's inappropriate, I guess, but because it's a bad part of the Carter legacy.
- [46:14]
Martin DeCaro
When I heard that Donald Trump was talking about the United States getting stiffed about the canal and then he refused to rule out the use of military force to take back the canal, I had to look up what he was, what's his concern? And here it is. He says China controls the canal. What's he talking about?
- [46:34]
Jonathan Brown
China has slowly, roughly from Jimmy Carter's period, 1976 to the present, China has slowly been doing more business, more investments, more purchase of raw materials from Latin America. The rate of Chinese investments in Latin America is faster than American investments in China. And they're catching up. They're still not up to a par with us and Latin Americans like this because it gives them someone else to deal with and they can balance both the United States and China to their advantage. And it gives them an extra purchasers for their raw materials, particularly soybeans. That's a big one. The Chinese are also in building dams for electrical generation in parts of Latin America, too. So it gives the Latin Americans an alternative. While I was there doing research in Panama for this book, I saw a community of Chinese. They didn't speak Spanish, they didn't speak English. They were Chinese engineers and they were building a deep water port in Panama City. There's no natural deep water port in Panama, so big ships can't come in. And they built a wharf, what this wharf was for, and it's located in the old base that I was stationed in Fort Amador. It's out there on the ocean. And what they wanted to do was to bring in, so they said tourist ships, big tourist ships for Chinese tourists. Now a big warship could also come in as well. I was unclear about their exact intent, but it wouldn't behoove them to send their brand new navy all the way across the the ocean and make it vulnerable to US attack. So I'm believing them. If they say they want to bring Chinese tourists, Latin Americans are great about that. More tourists, the more money they make.
- [49:06]
Martin DeCaro
So some of the concerns have been echoed, some of Trump's concerns have been echoed by Republicans in Congress who have said, yeah, China is gaining too much influence over that area, too much influence over the Canal area. It's still open to everybody who wants to use it. Right. I mean, is this correct that China has too much influence or growing influence that would somehow hurt the interests of the United States?
- [49:27]
Jonathan Brown
I don't think so. Let me say another thing, that the Panama Canal is defenseless. There's any number, there's thousands of places that someone could sabotage, and I say sabotage because it wouldn't take a lot of people, it wouldn't take even a military to bring down the Panama Canal. You bomb the dam, you destroy the dam. It'll take maybe a year to rebuild the dam, but it'll be seven years to fill that dam so that you can use the water for the Panama Canal. There's no pumps on any of the canal operations whatsoever. So it is very easy to interrupt traffic in many parts simply by sinking a ship. And that will back up traffic, too. So there's no way to, to defend this.
- [50:31]
Martin DeCaro
Remember when the Suez Canal got choked by a ship that got stuck in there recently?
- [50:36]
Jonathan Brown
Exactly. And that was an accident.
- [50:38]
Martin DeCaro
So when Trump was talking about potential use of the military, not just for Panama, but for Greenland as well, I did not flip out. Some people did. I still don't think President elect or president should be talking that way. But that's how he negotiates, you know.
- [50:52]
Jonathan Brown
Yes.
- [50:52]
Martin DeCaro
The United States would really, legally speaking, have to renegotiate the treaty. Can't just send them. I mean, I guess we could send the military down there to seize it back. That is called imperialism. I'm not expecting that. But the Panamanians have no incentive or desire to renegotiate the treaty, do they?
- [51:09]
Jonathan Brown
No. No, they don't.
- [51:11]
Martin DeCaro
So my final question to you, Jonathan Brown, is in this big context of the US posture, US attitudes toward Latin America, South America, going back 100 years or more, how do you believe the people of Panama react when they hear Trump talk about something like that?
- [51:30]
Jonathan Brown
Let me just say that when the Senate in 1977 debated and voted on the Canal Treaty, General Omar Turijos threatened that if they didn't agree to turn the property over to Panama, he himself would render the Panama Canal unusable. And he would do that by attacking one of these points. As a matter of fact, it was said by some of his subordinates that he actually sent a group of sappers to a weak spot in the canal and they were ready to blow it. So when the treaty actually passed, the senators saved the canal by giving it away. I think that was actually true and it could happen again. What will the army of Panama do if the United States attempts to take over Panama once again? Wouldn't they, at first sight of US warplanes go out there and destroy the canal? Probably, yes.
- [52:53]
Martin DeCaro
On the next episode of History as it happens, we're going to revisit a subject I took up way back in early 2021. It was my second episode. Trumpism after Trump. Well, Trump is still here for four more years in the White House. What might Trumpism look like once he's left his mark on government after another term as president? What about conservatism, its past and future? We'll be joined by Damon Linker next as we report history as it happens. New episodes every Tuesday and Friday. My newsletter every Friday. Sign up free@historyasithappens.com.