Professor John Ivanek and I are talking about the 1989 U.S. Armed Intervention in Panama, the importance of the Panama Canal for global trade, and whether the United States can take over the Canal by force.
Jan Ivanek
Lawyer, Politologist, Dr hab. prof. em. University of Silesia. Specialist in modern democratic systems, in peculiar Spain, the explanation of democracy and the relation between Latin America and the United States. erstwhile Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, manager of the Institute of Political Sciences and Journalism of the University of Silesia, long-time head of the Department of Political Systems of advanced Developed States. associate of technological internships at the University of Panama. UN Election Observer in Nicaragua (1990). Author of the book "Conflict on the Panama Canal".
The interview is simply a edited and completed version of the podcast Are you aware? p. Conflict over the Panama Canal. Trump and Geopolitics.
Rafał Górski: "We will receive the Panama Canal, foolishly handed over to Panama". Why would Donald Trump say something like that?
Prof. Jan Ivanek: I think he said this for economical reasons, with akin motives, by announcing customs for many countries. That speech upset both all Panamans and the global community. I was peculiarly amazed by the criticism of president Jimmy Carter, whom I consider to be 1 of the most prominent American presidents, among others, for initiating an global debate on human rights.
"On December 20, 1989, the United States attacked Panama by carrying out, as observers claimed, the largest bomb raid on the city since planet War II. It was an unprovoked attack on the civilian population. Panama and its inhabitants posed no threat to the US or any another country. For 3 days, the American army refused to let bombed areas of the press, the Red Cross, or another independent observers. During this time soldiers smoked and buried the bodies of victims," writes John Perkins in an global bestseller ‘Hitman. Confessions of an economist from dirty work”. Prof. Jolant Bryła, in his book "The Conditions and Implications of American Armed Intervention in Panama in December 1989", notes: "American Armed Intervention in Panama in December 1989 is assessed as the largest military operation carried out by the United States since the Vietnam War". delight comment.
The American intervention in Panama was dictated by many reasons. The most publicized reason in the press was that Manuel Noriega, the then Panamanian dictator, became troublesome for the States, and let us remind you that he has been a CIA associate since the 1970s.
Reasons can be mentioned much more, all related to the tense situation in the region of Central America. In 1979, he was overthrown in Nicaragua by the United States dictator Anastasio Somoz Debayle and was taken over by the Cuban Sandinists. The very bloody civilian war in El Salvador continued, the ongoing conflict in Guatemala, the situation in Honduras was besides very uncertain, and there were initiatives in the region to end these wars.
Panama took part in all of this as a associate of the alleged Contador group, working towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Central America. At that time the States were governed by the Republican administration: from 1981 to 1989 by Ronald Reagan and later by George Bush Senior. The situation was complicated adequate that the States decided to strengthen their position in Panama, the more so that
In 1989 it was 10 years since the entry into force of the Torrijos-Carter system. By virtue of this arrangement, the United States was required to transfer further areas, including military ones, Panama, and to delegate the functions of admin to the Panama Canal Commission.
The states feared this and decided to change governments in Panama. Clearly Manuel Noriega was a warlord and bloody dictator, but from the point of view of global law there was no justification for this intervention. 1 can speculate what was the actual scale of the bombing, but I like not to justice it from a military point of view due to the fact that I am not active with the military.
I will quote John Perkins again: “For the first time in Panama’s history, she was not a puppet of Washington or any another political force. Torrijos never succumbed to the temptations offered by Moscow or Beijing, he believed in the necessity of social improvement and providing assistance to those born in poverty, but he was not a supporter of communism. Unlike Castro, Torrijos wanted to free himself from the influences of the United States at all costs without partaking with Washington's enemies.”
Tell me who Torrijos was and what was the deal about?
Perhaps I will callback General Torijjos' acquainted words: “I do not want to enter history, I want to enter the Panama Canal Zone.” General Torrijos, along with a group of another military men, came to power after the coup d'état in October 1968. He ruled Panama in fact since 1969 and its main nonsubjective was to bring about the conclusion of fresh treaties on the Panama Canal, which were yet signed in September 1977. We have here a Polish theme: during this time the safety advisor for president Carter was Pole, our compatriot Zbigniew Brzeziński. If it weren't for Jimmy Carter's democratic administration, it most likely wouldn't have happened.
General Torrijos has led to the beginning of fresh treaty negotiations. The main aim was to reject the Treaty of 1903, which gave the United States not only the Canal, but the full region of the Panama Canal. Under this treaty, Panama de facto had no rights to the channel region of about 10 nautical miles wide.
The fresh treaties came into force on 1 October 1979 and were to lead, in 20 years, by the end of 1999, to the complete handover of the Panama Canal, its facilities and adjacent areas. To this day, however, there is simply a treaty on the permanent neutrality of the Panama Canal.
Torrijos entered past as a man who led to Panama regaining the Panama Canal. He surely contributed importantly to the country's independence. That's how you can justice his role.
Hard and without anesthesia
– this is how we have been operating since 2020. Journalism that is not indifferent. The civilian Affairs Weekly announces abuse, educates and gives tools for a real, civic change.
Donate and become our contributor
Your book “The Conflict on the Panama Canal” says: “On July 31, 1981, Omar Torrijos is killed in an air accident [probably in the assassination].” What happened out there?
It was a chopper accident. This assassination was suspected by Manuel Noriega, who sought to take power in Panama. All the circumstances of the accident have not been revealed, but there is simply a belief in the general public that there is simply a bomb on board a helicopter. The same year the Presidents of Bolivia and Ecuador besides died, so these events should be linked. Both I and many different writers, specified as Gabriel García Marquez, believe that General Torrijos was besides susceptible and was a desirable mark for the eradication by the most right-wing politicians in the United States.
What is behind the code name “The Right Case”?
It was a military name for an American operation in Panama launched on December 20, 1989, which lasted respective weeks. It led to the overthrow of dictator Noriega and the taking over of power by a civilian president, sworn in at the U.S. base a fewer hours before the intervention. Since then, there have been many affirmative changes in Panama. civilian regulation was restored, and 10 years later Panama regained its full rights over the Channel and is now a state that is developing very quickly.
Panama is ranked ninth in the Western Hemisphere, in terms of gross national income, which amounts to over $170 billion.
In turn, the gross income per capita is almost $17,000, although there is simply a immense social stratification and not all citizen benefits from the Panamanian economy. Panama is now a large banking centre and free zone, and it has been developing perfectly for the last 20 years.
What will happen to Panama on a geopolitical chessboard during Donald Trump's presidency?
In 2017, then president Panama signed a memorandum, a kind of intergovernmental agreement, with the Chinese authorities on the alleged silk trail, i.e. certain facilities for trade and maritime communications. As a consequence of this memorandum, the giant Chinese freight forwarding company Hutchison Ports (PHP) began operating in Panama ports on both sides of the channel: the Atlantic side and the Pacific Ocean side. The American administration felt threatened by strong Chinese influence.
The transit through the Panama Canal is primarily utilized by the States, but China is on their heels. Thus Panama was active in a trade conflict between the States and China.
Panama was visited by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who spoke to president José Mulino about policy changes towards China. There was a promise that Panama would retreat from the memorandum with China, and audits were announced at Hutchison Ports to see what the company's finances looked like. It was besides decided that there would be no transit charge from U.S. Navy ships. The Panamanian authorities are ready to cooperate and make any concessions in favour of the States.
It is absolutely impossible for the United States to take over the channel or control the Panama Canal legally.
Even if the Panamanian authorities were willing to do so, the Panamanian constitution forbids it. There is simply a evidence in the Constitution that the Panama Canal is absolutely inalienable, that it cannot be passed on to anyone or given sovereign control over it.
It is not known what the actual steps of Donald Trump's administration will be. However, let us remember that there is inactive a treaty on the permanent neutrality of the channel, to which, in addition to the US and Panama, respective twelve another countries, including the most crucial European countries, have joined.
The Treaty shall guarantee that the beneficiaries of transit through a channel are treated equally and that transit costs are charged equally. These fees are not low at all and are constantly increasing.
The increase in fees was caused by the expansion of the Canal by additional locks so that immense container ships could usage it. In addition, Panama was affected by climate change problems and the drying of port waters, which besides affected the opportunities for transit through the Canal.
Last year the number of transits decreased from 13-14 1000 to about 10 thousand, while the scope of charges ranged from $25,000 to $300,000 per container. The proceeds to the state from transit through the Channel amounted to little than $5 billion. Compared to gross national income, it's not that important. What is important, however, is that the Panama Canal is, alongside the Suez or Kilon Canal, an highly crucial transit artery and is of large importance for planet trade.
Can you justify Donald Trump's actions?
If we justify the aggression of 1 state towards another, we will be on the verge of a planet war. Humanity experienced the consequences of the Munich Conference in 1938. Tolerance for totalitarianism, for illegal actions, can end in a tragic way.
The United States may take certain steps that would be illegal from the point of view of global law, but specified a solution will not bring good results.
Everyone's gonna lose out on this due to the fact that commerce doesn't like war restrictions. Trade is developing rapidly under conditions of competition, freedom, freedom, and not administrative restrictions, much little military. In order for the Panama Canal to proceed playing specified an crucial function for the global economy, it should become a free, neutral but safe channel, without military dependence on 1 country.
Isn't the Panama Canal a small shallow? There are not many publications on this subject.
In general, the information we receive is negative, sensational, or shocking. As long as there is simply a comparative peace and we do not hear of any serious conflict, our interest in the country is small or no.
What should we citizens request from politicians, anticipate from experts, journalists and request from ourselves in the context of the conflict over the Panama Canal?
I would anticipate politicians not to lie and incite moods due to the fact that aggression, the physical one, starts with the aggression of the word. I'd anticipate journalists to be competent. Ryszard Kapuściński said that before he went anywhere, he read it first, studied. So appropriate journalism preparation is not only good expression, correct writing, but above all concrete, reliable cognition of what is written. Equally crucial is the least political dependence on media. The media that depends on politics will never supply us with reliable information. Information combined with any explanation of facts, slow becomes manipulation. Man should have the ability to think and measure the situation on the basis of information, not the finished mush.
We citizens can advise us to usage knowledge, nothing more. Let us scope for information to different sources, or our cognition will be depleted, or even false.
Confronting information is essential in order to be able to be convinced in a reasonably rational way.
What crucial question has no 1 asked you about the subject we are talking about yet, and what is the answer to them?
Maybe we should ask about the destiny of people surviving in Panama. present we learn about another countries in the media, which frequently service us superficial messages. In order to draw the right conclusions, you request to be there, to meet these people, to talk to them, to learn their way of reasoning and to realize them. A individual who deals with an issue should strive for what sociologists have long ago called participating observation.
Thank you for talking to me.
