Panama Canal: Will U.S. Partnership Respect Panama's Sovereignty?

The Panama Canal stands as a testament to human ingenuity, a marvel carved from sweat and sacrifice that links oceans and fuels economies. On April 8, 2025, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stood at Vasco Nuñez de Balboa Naval Base, invoking divine blessings and Teddy Roosevelt’s ghost to underscore its enduring value. He’s right about one thing: the canal’s security matters. But the story here isn’t about military flexing or chest-thumping nationalism. It’s about ensuring this vital artery remains a shared resource for Panama and the world, not a pawn in superpower chess.

For over a century, the canal has driven prosperity, carrying $250 billion in goods yearly and slashing shipping routes by 8,000 miles. It’s a lifeline for 70 percent of U.S.-bound ships and a symbol of what collaboration between nations can achieve. Workers from both the U.S. and Panama died to build it, their legacy etched into every lock and pier. Yet today, that legacy faces a subtler threat, one that doesn’t come from warships but from economic strings pulled by Beijing.

Hegseth’s visit, flanked by joint exercises and a refurbished Pier 3, signals a renewed U.S.-Panama partnership. It’s a move that could protect the canal’s promise, but only if it prioritizes Panama’s sovereignty over Washington’s obsession with countering China. The real fight isn’t against a foreign bogeyman; it’s for a future where the canal serves people, not power.

China’s footprint in Panama isn’t new, but it’s growing heavier. Trade with Latin America hit $450 billion by 2022, and Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has sunk roots into the region’s infrastructure, from ports to telecoms. In Panama, Chinese companies hover near the canal, raising fears of surveillance and control. Hegseth warned of this ‘rising challenge,’ and he’s not entirely wrong to sound the alarm. A canal under foreign sway could choke trade and threaten security, not just for the U.S. but for Panama itself.

Yet the response can’t be a knee-jerk militarization or a return to imperial oversight. Panama’s President Mulino wisely ditched the Belt and Road deal, recognizing that economic dependence on China risks eroding national autonomy. That’s the crux of it: sovereignty. The U.S. has a role to play, sure, with its Coast Guard cutters and Marine Corps flyovers. But if this partnership becomes a Trojan horse for American dominance, it’s no better than the Chinese alternative. Panama deserves agency, not a new overlord.

History backs this up. When the U.S. handed the canal over in 1999, it wasn’t just a logistical shift; it was a recognition of Panama’s right to chart its own course. China’s investments might tempt with quick cash, but they’ve left other nations, like Ecuador, tethered to Beijing’s whims. The U.S.-Panama security pact, with its joint training and $5 million pier upgrade, offers a counterweight, but only if it respects Panama’s lead. Anything less repeats the mistakes of the past.

Some argue China’s presence is overhyped, a convenient villain for U.S. policymakers itching to flex muscle. They point to Panama’s balanced trade ties and say military buildup only escalates tensions. Fair enough, but ignoring China’s strategic moves is naive. The canal’s 5 percent slice of global trade makes it a prize worth guarding, not with gunboats alone, but with a partnership that puts Panama first.

The Pentagon’s Joint Security Cooperation Group and the upcoming Panamax exercise in 2026 show promise. These efforts can deter interference while boosting Panama’s own defenses. Contrast that with China’s playbook: debt traps and quiet control. The choice isn’t between U.S. or Chinese hegemony; it’s between a canal run by Panamanians or one leased to the highest bidder.

Hegseth touted ‘Peace through Strength,’ a phrase that echoes Cold War bravado. It’s a slick soundbite, but strength doesn’t have to mean domination. The USS Chosin and Normandy cruising Panama’s coasts, the Coast Guard’s Kimball swapping know-how with Panama’s SENAN, these moves signal resolve. They’re also a chance to build something lasting: a security framework where Panama isn’t just a junior partner but a co-architect.

Look at the canal’s expansion in 2016. It boosted capacity by 30 percent, proving Panama can handle big stakes on its own terms. U.S. support, like the Army Corps of Engineers’ pier project, can amplify that capacity without stealing the reins. This isn’t about ‘taking back’ the canal from China, as Hegseth framed it. It’s about ensuring it stays open to all, a global commons, not a geopolitical trophy.

Critics might scoff, saying this is just U.S. meddling dressed up as aid. They’re not entirely off base; history’s littered with examples of American overreach in Latin America. But the alternative, letting China’s influence creep unchecked, risks turning the canal into a leverage point for Beijing. The answer lies in balance: a U.S.-Panama alliance that’s robust yet respects Panama’s voice.

Religious rhetoric crept into Hegseth’s speech, with blessings and nods to a higher power. It’s a distraction. The canal’s security doesn’t hinge on divine favor; it rests on practical cooperation. Studies show nations with strong alliances and less foreign meddling fare better against threats. That’s the model here: a partnership grounded in mutual benefit, not sermons or saber-rattling.

The Panama Canal isn’t just a relic of Roosevelt’s era; it’s a living engine of global trade. Forty percent of U.S. shipping relies on it, and nearly 100 military vessels transit yearly. Its loss to foreign control would ripple across economies and security networks. But safeguarding it doesn’t mean turning Panama into a U.S. outpost or a battleground for great powers. It means doubling down on what’s worked: collaboration.

This moment, with its joint exercises and pier unveilings, could mark a turning point. Panama and the U.S. have a shot to prove that security and sovereignty aren’t mutually exclusive. China’s shadow looms, yes, but the real victory lies in a canal that serves the world, not Washington or Beijing. That’s the dream worth preserving, one built by hands from both nations and sustained by a partnership that honors them.