The Panama Canal: Truths, Legacy, and Management in Recent Controversies

Listen to this post.

0:00

/617.376

1×

I will keep this as short and as factual as I possibly can, so I will limit myself to the facts and the lies.

I support many of the values that the current U.S. administration is bringing forward. However, blindly accepting lies is morally wrong; motives do not matter. As moral beings, we are called to follow the truth, not lies. This should be basic common ground.

Unwavering support for your elected officials, when they boldly lie to your face, especially if you know it is a lie, borders on cultish behavior. Not even trying to find the truth in their claims because you "mostly agree with their policies" is not much different.

"The truth will make you free" is, in fact, a biblical reality that goes beyond the immediate context of Christ making you free. Although that is the ultimate and prophetic meaning, it is also a universal moral guide that should lead us to love light and truth, not darkness and lies.

Regarding Panama and the Canal, this obviously hits close to home and straight to the heart.
What Trump has been claiming is mostly, if not entirely, plain false narratives, populism, and embarrassing to say the least. It also goes against what the United States should stand for.

In reality, major world powers (the USA, Russia, and China) are still engaged in an undeclared Cold War through proxies, and you and I have a part to play against anti-democratic governments. At this point, the USA has a clear perspective that the other two players are, in fact, attacking many values and intercepting vital assets (informational and structural), which could jeopardize the so-called "Free World."

I am sympathetic to this, but in the case of China and Panama, it is hypocrisy at its best. The only result of these lies is the imminent disgust of the Panamanian people, its government, and the free, rational, sovereign, and democratic international community.

The same company that manages the Panama ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides also controls many other ports around the world. Make no mistake: this is not about the Panama Canal, but about Panama having relationships with China through the management of those ports. This gives them(China) an edge in terms of information that passes through their systems, which China can, in turn, weaponize against the USA and its allies.

In today's Cold War, information technology is the biggest imminent threat.

The USA has taken measures (TikTok, DJI, etc.). It is by no means cutting all ties, nor is it asking everyone else to do the same.

What is going on?

The assertions made by Trump
(You can easily find all of these in his press conferences and with a quick Google search; the same goes for the facts):

1. “If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America, in full, quickly and without question.”
2. “Above all China is operating the Panama Canal,” “And we didn’t give it to China, we gave it to Panama and we are taking it back!”
3. “Merry Christmas to all, including to the wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal.”
4. “We have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should never have been made,”. “And Panama’s promise to us has been broken. The purpose of our deal and the spirit of our treaty has been totally violated.”
5. “The United States, I mean think of this, spent more money than ever spent on a project before [Note by Javier: this may be the only possible truth as far as I am concerned] and lost 38,000 lives in the building of the Panama Canal.”

This are all false. And I stand corrected if proven other wise.

The Reality

There is a case to be made that the U.S. had a better philosophy when it came to quality and in-house expertise. Panama, on the other hand, defaulted to modern practices of outsourcing, which most governments and corporations have adopted as well. While this approach did lower the quality of labor and diminish in-house knowledge, Panama still managed to achieve great success.

The U.S. never managed the canal as a profit-maximizing, shareholder-driven entity. Instead, it was treated more like a strategic asset and operated similarly to other government-led ventures, never reaching its full potential.

Who is managing the canal better? This is beyond dispute when considering profitability, neutrality, and competitiveness. I won’t do the homework for you, but there are two official sources where you can find detailed information:

1. When the U.S. managed the Canal
   • Panama Canal Related Publications:
     https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/panama-canal
     All public documentation made available by the U.S. government.
   • U.S. Govinfo:
     https://www.govinfo.gov/app/search/%7B%22query%22%3A%22ilsid%3A(000894041%20or%20000942744)%22%2C%22offset%22%3A0%7D
     All annual reports publicly released by the U.S. government.
2. Under Panama’s Administration
   • Audited Financial Statements - Autoridad del Canal de Panamá:
     https://pancanal.com/en/maritime-services/audited-financial-statements/
     Audited reports by third parties, made public by the Panama Canal Authority.

It is foolish to diminish the value, connection, innovation, and ingenuity of the U.S. regarding the Canal, but while that remains true, it is largely a thing of the past, a past that, through tests, strengthened the relationship between both countries, as any good relationship is always forged.

The canal, originally built under U.S. management, is still in use today but has been completely enhanced, maintained, and expanded by Panama management, 100%. The latest expansion project was significantly larger than the first and helped turn a close to be obsolete (as far as competitiveness) canal back into a cornerstone of international commerce. This was done by a consortium involving companies from many countries (Even U.S. companies participated in some parts of it.)

Death Tolls

As far as historically recognized—despite disputes over the exact figures—the numbers are nowhere near what Trump claims:

French Period (1881-1894)

• Deaths: Approximately 20,000–30,000 people.
• Main Causes: Malaria, yellow fever, and workplace accidents.
• Predominant Nationalities: Workers from the Caribbean (Jamaica, Barbados, and Martinique, etc. ), alongside French and other Europeans.

American Period (1904-1914)

• Deaths: Approximately 6,000 people.
• Main Causes: Sanitary conditions improved, but deaths continued due to workplace accidents and diseases, though at a lower rate than before.
• Predominant Nationalities: Afro-Caribbean workers (Jamaicans, Barbadians, etc.), as well as Europeans, U.S., and Latin Americans.
• U.S. workers: No more than 500 (and that is being generous). If he lies about this so boldly, I have nothing but a deep sense of dishonesty regarding everything else.

Some of the best online sources (There is plenty of books as well, but for the sake of simplicity I limit my self to provide this):

• Smithsonian Magazine
• Wikipedia: Panama Canal
• “Why the Construction of the Panama Canal Was So Difficult—and Deadly” | History.com
• McCullough, David. The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal 1870–1914. (Although this focuses on the canal, it provides background on the earlier railroad and the labor sources.)

Torrijos-Carter Treaty (As far as the claims of violating the agreement, and to whom the canal belongs, let us read before talking about it)

Torrijos-Carter Treaty - Autoridad del Canal de Panamá

Autoridad del Canal de Panamá

Regarding the original deal where Panama ceded its sovereignty, it was both fair and just for Panama to fight back against a government mismanaging its territory. It was also righteous for the United States to ultimately return sovereign territory. Anyone unwilling to accept this would need to reconcile with the idea of foreign-owned territory within their own nation.

For example, if the United States were to sell part of its sovereign territory under an elected government’s leadership, but the act was seen as illegitimate by the people, the U.S. population would have every right to dispute the decision and work to reclaim that territory. This principle works both ways: the party acquiring the territory has a right to keep it, but the people losing the land have an equal right to fight back for its return. Good for them if they succeed in reclaiming their rightful land.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

The “Chinese” Myth

It is important to note that the first migration of Chinese people to Panama occurred under U.S. corporate entities sponsorship, when the Panama Canal Railroad was built, and it has grown ever since—much like how Hispanic populations grew in Florida (formerly a Spanish colony) and California (formerly Mexican territory), Panama's strong Chinese cultural heritage did not emerge suddenly. This longstanding presence predates recent geopolitical discussions and underscores the deep-rooted nature of Chinese cultural influence in Panama.

Panama indeed strengthened political ties with the modern China government during a controversial government under Juan Carlos Varela. The ports on Panama’s Atlantic and Pacific sides do have Chinese involvement, originally the company was from Hong Kong, but this became past history when China took over Hong Kong in 1997.

However, the Canal is not managed by any Chinese entity, and there are no Chinese soldiers or any foreign army in Panama.

The United States would need to cut in full its own political and economic relations with China before asking Panama or any other nation to do the same. Lead by example.

The “Exorbitant Prices” Claim

Again, consult the financial records and research for yourself. Panama is neutral in its pricing, and every nation pays the same rates. If anything I’ve said is false, I gladly stand corrected. However, the burden of proof lies with the accuser—Trump is the one spreading clear falsehoods on this topic.

That’s all my friends.

J.

Some other interesting reports from my friend Chuck who has feet on the ground.

Feel free to listen to other journalists, you should, but focus primarily on researching traditionally accepted historical events and records. Avoid simply rewriting history; instead, approach it with an open and critical mindset.