by Marvin Ramírez
History has taught us that international politics is marked by cycles of power, economic interests and geopolitical strategies that determine the course of nations. In this context, the recent announcement of the recovery of control of the Panama Canal by the United States has generated a host of questions about the real scope of Donald Trump’s promises and the future of the sovereignty of the nations involved.
Until recently, many of the former president’s statements seemed more like part of excessive nationalist rhetoric, bordering on the fantasy of an impossible expansionism in the 21st century. His intention to buy Greenland was received with skepticism and mockery; his mention of becoming the “owner of Palestine” was perceived as an unfounded exaggeration; and his insistence on recovering the Panama Canal was considered by many to be an unattainable desire. However, time and recent events have shown that those statements were not mere occurrences, but part of a carefully designed strategy.
The return of the Panama Canal to American hands marks a turning point in international relations. This event, which until recently seemed inconceivable without a military intervention or a concession under pressure, has been presented as an absolute triumph of Trump’s leadership. The inevitable question is: what were the conditions that allowed this transition? Was it a covert diplomatic negotiation, irresistible economic pressure or an imposition with overtones of political blackmail? The full details are not yet known, but what is undeniable is that this event redefines the balance of power in the region.
The Panama Canal has been, since its construction, a nerve center of world trade. Its transfer to Panamanian hands in 1999 was a symbol of sovereignty for the Central American country and a sign that American influence in the region could wane over time. However, the return of control to the United States makes it clear that geopolitical interests do not disappear, they are only transformed by new strategies and leadership.
Trump’s speech before Congress on March 4 only reinforced his position on strengthening the United States in the international arena and its fight against what he considers internal threats. From his outright opposition to gender ideology to his promise to eradicate harmful chemicals in consumer products, his rhetoric follows the same pattern as always: protect the nation at all costs and regain its global influence. Now, with the news of the Panama Canal under US control, doubts about the fulfillment of his other promises are beginning to fade.
This fact puts on alert not only Panama, but all of Latin America, which watches with concern what could be the resurgence of a more aggressive interventionist policy by the United States. The impact of this decision remains to be seen, but what is clear is that the rules of the game have changed.
Throughout history, US expansionism has taken different forms: from the Monroe Doctrine to the military occupations of the 20th century and economic diplomacy in the 21st century. The recovery of the Panama Canal could be just the beginning of a new phase in this strategy of domination. Added to this are the attempts to buy Greenland and the insistence on imposing its influence in Palestine, which indicates that the Trump administration (or at least its ideology) continues to pursue territorial and economic expansion as one of its primary objectives.
The governments of Latin America and the world must cautiously analyze the meaning of this event and prepare for a possible escalation of similar measures in other regions. The sovereignty of nations should not be subject to the ups and downs of US policy or the will of a single leader. Panama, as a directly affected country, must clarify under what terms this transfer took place and what long-term implications it will have on its autonomy and development.
What happened reminds us that international politics is a chessboard where moves are not random. The return of the Panama Canal to American hands could mark the beginning of a new era of influence in the region, with consequences that are yet to be determined. In this scenario, the question we must ask ourselves is: what comes next? If history is any guide, the answer will not be long in coming.
