On January 31, lawmakers and officials in the U.S. are using the 1977 Panama Canal Neutrality Treaty to support the Trump administration's potential actions regarding the strategic waterway. While some argue for invoking the treaty to justify U.S. intervention, others highlight obstacles and legal implications.
The Panama Canal, managed by the Panama Canal Authority since the U.S. handed it back in 1999, has become a focal point due to concerns raised by President Trump regarding Chinese involvement in its operations. U.S. Federal Maritime Commission Chairman Louis Sola suggested potential oversight of Panama's maritime activities, including strict measures affecting Panamanian-flagged vessels.
Discussions around the Panama Canal have intensified in the lead-up to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's visit to Panama. Despite some U.S. officials' claims that security risks exist due to Chinese presence at the canal, Panama's President Jose Mulino emphasized that Panama retains ownership of the canal and is not open to negotiation.
Concerns over the Chinese-operated ports and the construction of a bridge by Chinese companies have sparked debates over the treaty's neutrality provisions and U.S. defense obligations. Arguments have also emerged regarding the fairness of toll increases at the canal, with some U.S. authorities pointing out the disproportional impact on American vessels due to their significant use of the waterway.
Former U.S. ambassador to Panama, John Feeley, underlined that the toll hikes at the Panama Canal, similar to those at other key waterways, are influenced by various global factors affecting trade routes. Amid evolving international dynamics and climate-related challenges, the discussion over the canal's tolling system and the implications of Chinese involvement continues to unfold.