As the world watches every word the president-elect says, speculation is rife about whether Donald Trump is simply playing to his audience or trying to blackmail him to cut a deal. He recently challenged the Panamanian government over its sovereign control of the country. panama canalone of the most polarizing foreign policy issues of the 20th century could begin again.
Presidents since Eisenhower have been concerned about the safety of this vital waterway. The canal became a target as revolutionary forces in Central America increasingly threatened vital U.S. interests.
President Jimmy Carter knew the politics of negotiating direct ownership of the canal would be difficult, but he was not one to back down.
In 1977, President Carter and President Omar Torrijos of Panama signed two treaties. One guaranteed neutral access to the canal by all countries, and the other transferred full control of the canal to Panama, effective December 31, 1999.
thesetreatyThe Senate ratified it by a vote of 68-32. The House then narrowly passed an implementing bill in 1979.
I can attest that members of Congress were under unbearable pressure as I lobbied on this issue on behalf of the Carter State Department. The vote weighed heavily on members of Congress because of the passion generated by those opposed to letting go of a symbol of American ingenuity. Members of both parties drew attention for their courage to cast the most difficult vote of their political lives in favor of the treaty.
One vulnerable senator, Dennis DeConcini (D) of Arizona, tried to protect himself by proposing a reservation clause that would give the United States an explicit right to use military force to protect the canal. . The Panamanian government threatened to veto the treaty if the reservation passed.
Languages were added laterIt appeases Panamanians to the effect that nothing in the treaty “shall be construed as a right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Republic of Panama.”
Now, future U.S. presidents are threatening the use of force, not because the canal's neutrality is threatened, but because they object to shipping tolls being charged by Panama. Words matter, and these words have the potential to reignite a long-extinguished fire.
The Panama Canal is an international waterway used by ships from all countries. If the shipping company does not want to pay the set fees, they will choose a much longer and more expensive route around Cape Horn.
Transit prices are set by this traditional supply and demand calculation, and like any capital transaction, price gouging is indeed possible. These disputes are best resolved by going to court.Panama Canal Authority.
Donald Trump seems to pay little attention to the Constitution, but if he wants to avoid a third impeachment, he might benefit from brushing up on some of its more important provisions. atreatyFor example, it is the highest law of the land and corresponds to federal law.
The Panama Canal Treaty was approved by a bipartisan coalition of senators who accepted the counterintuitive reality that the best way to maintain use of the canal was to abandon it.
In the end, despite fierce opposition to relinquishing “a piece of America,” Congress ruled that the canal could be closed if extreme nationalist forces decided to interfere with its operations. I succumbed to the very real reality that there is. The canal and its many locks would be easy prey for terrorists and unfriendly governments.
Many who voted for Donald Trump will be drawn to his rhetoric, his threats against small countries like Panama, or his intentions to impose harsh tariffs on friends and foes. They may believe he is simply trying to strengthen his bargaining position.
Roger Fisher's seminal workbookGetting to Yes: Negotiating Agreements Without Conceding shows that this type of “positional play” is not only inefficient and counterproductive, it also leads to unwise outcomes, strained relationships, and weak relationships. It shows that it will lead to an agreement.
President Carter understood these principles when negotiating the Camp David peace between Israel and Egypt and the Panama Canal Treaty. He was well aware that a powerful America could improve its international standing only by acting generously and pursuing its own interests by also recognizing the interests of other countries.
J. Brian Atwood is a senior research fellow at the Watson Institute at Brown University. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations in the Carter Administration, working on the implementation of the Panama Canal Treaty and legislation. He later served as administrator of USAID in the Clinton administration.
