By Prof. Habib Al Badawi
Introduction
In the intricate tapestry of contemporary global politics, Donald Trump’s provocative demands regarding the Panama Canal illuminate a fascinating convergence of personal ambition, economic opportunism, and raw power politics. His unprecedented declaration that this crucial waterway must be “returned” to American control, coupled with pointed accusations about Panama’s “excessive” fees, reveals far more than mere policy positions—it unveils a distinctive approach to international relations where sovereign national assets become leverage points in a grand strategy of political and personal gain.
The Architecture of Economic Entitlement
Trump’s characterization of Panama’s canal management as a “complete rip-off” of the United States exemplifies a worldview where historical agreements exist not as binding international commitments but as malleable arrangements subject to unilateral reinterpretation based on perceived economic advantage.
His criticism of Panama’s fee structure betrays a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps strategic ignorance—of the complex realities underlying canal operations, maintenance costs, and, most crucially, Panama’s sovereign right to manage its infrastructure. The assertion that Panama has benefited from “extraordinary generosity” from the United States reveals a neo-colonial mindset where past investments are viewed not as completed transfers of sovereignty but as perpetual claims on future control.
The timing of Trump’s demands proves particularly revealing, emerging amid a severe drought that has significantly impacted canal operations. Rather than acknowledging the environmental challenges facing this crucial waterway, which have led to a stark 29% decrease in ship transits, Trump’s response transforms these legitimate operational challenges into political opportunities. In this framework, environmental crises become convenient pretexts for reasserting control over strategic assets, rather than occasions for international cooperation and support.
The Strategic Deployment of Rhetorical Escalation
Trump’s communication strategy follows a carefully orchestrated pattern of escalating rhetoric designed to create leverage through uncertainty and implied threat. His Truth Social platform posts weave together warnings about the canal falling into “wrong hands” with thinly veiled threats about demanding its return “in full, and without question.” This rhetorical approach serves multiple strategic purposes simultaneously: it energizes his domestic political base through nationalist appeals, signals assertiveness to international rivals, and attempts to pressure Panama’s government through public declarations rather than traditional diplomatic channels.
The repeated reference to China’s potential influence over the canal reveals another sophisticated dimension of Trump’s strategy. By framing the issue as a matter of national security rather than purely economic interest, he attempts to legitimize what might otherwise be perceived as naked resource grabbing. His assertion that the canal “was not given for the benefit of others” demonstrates a selective interpretation of international agreements where historical treaties become subject to revision based on current political expediency.
The Global Context: Territorial Ambition in an Age of Competition
Trump’s Panama Canal demands must be understood within a broader pattern of territorial and economic assertiveness that characterizes his approach to international relations. His recent suggestion that Canada might become America’s “51st state” and his team’s reported demands for increased NATO defense spending to 5% of GDP indicate a consistent approach where allies and partners are treated not as equals in a rules-based international order, but as subordinates in a hierarchy of power relationships.
This pattern reveals a governance philosophy where international relationships are evaluated primarily through the lens of immediate economic advantage rather than long-term strategic partnerships. Such an approach represents a significant departure from post-World War II international norms, where even unequal power relationships were typically masked by diplomatic niceties and mutual respect for sovereignty.
The Complex Calculus of Financial Control
The economic dimensions of Trump’s canal strategy extend far beyond simple fee structures and operational costs. His criticism of Panama’s management occurs against the backdrop of intensifying global supply chain pressures and increasing competition for control over strategic transportation corridors. The canal’s crucial role in global commerce, facilitating approximately 5% of world maritime trade, makes it an especially attractive target for those seeking to leverage infrastructure for economic and political gain.
Trump’s approach suggests a view of the canal not merely as a vital trade route but as an undervalued asset that could be better exploited under different management. This position reflects a broader trend in contemporary international relations where infrastructure assets become instruments of power projection and economic control. The argument about excessive fees masks a deeper question about who should rightfully benefit from the canal’s strategic position and economic potential.
Environmental Challenges and Political Opportunity
Perhaps most revealing is Trump’s strategic handling of the environmental challenges facing the Panama Canal. The severe drought that has reduced transit capacity by nearly a third represents a fundamental threat to the waterway’s long-term viability. Yet rather than addressing these environmental concerns or proposing constructive solutions, Trump’s approach focuses exclusively on questions of control and economic exploitation.
This selective attention reveals a mindset where environmental stewardship is subordinate to immediate economic and political gains. The drought’s impact on canal operations becomes not a call for international cooperation and support but a pretext for questioning Panama’s competence and sovereignty. This approach transforms environmental challenges from shared global concerns into tools for political leverage.
Regional Implications and the Nicaragua Alternative
The regional implications of Trump’s assertive stance toward the Panama Canal extend far beyond bilateral relations with Panama. His demands risk alienating not just Panama but other Latin American nations increasingly wary of renewed U.S. interventionism in the region. The timing becomes particularly significant when considered alongside Nicaragua’s recent proposal for an alternative canal, potentially backed by Chinese investment.
Nicaragua’s ambitious plan for a 276.5-mile interoceanic waterway, presented by President Daniel Ortega as a direct response to Panama Canal congestion, represents a potential shift in regional power dynamics. Ortega’s explicit appeal to Chinese investors, coupled with his observation that “Every day it becomes more complicated to pass through Panama,” suggests an emerging reality where U.S. influence in the region faces new challenges and alternatives.
The Evolution of Infrastructure Politics
Trump’s Panama Canal strategy exemplifies a broader transformation in infrastructure politics where critical assets become tools for exercising power and extracting economic value. His willingness to challenge established international agreements and threaten unilateral action reflects a vision of international relations where might make right and historical commitments remain subject to revision based on current advantages.
This approach represents a significant departure from traditional diplomatic norms where changes to international arrangements typically require mutual agreement and negotiation. Instead, it suggests a future where control over critical infrastructure becomes increasingly contested and where historical agreements provide diminishing protection against unilateral demands from powerful states.
The Future of Strategic Assets in a Multipolar World
Looking forward, Trump’s positioning on the Panama Canal raises crucial questions about the future management of strategic infrastructure in an era of increasing great power competition. His approach suggests a potential future where international agreements regarding crucial infrastructure become increasingly vulnerable to unilateral revision by powerful states, particularly in response to environmental or operational challenges.
This vision contrasts sharply with the post-World War II international order built on mutual respect for sovereignty and the sanctity of treaties. It raises fundamental questions about how critical infrastructure can be protected and managed in a world where power relationships are becoming more fluid and traditional international norms face increasing challenges.
The Role of Environmental Stewardship
The environmental challenges facing the Panama Canal highlight a critical aspect of infrastructure management often overlooked in power politics: the need for sustainable environmental stewardship. The current drought’s severe impact on canal operations demonstrates how environmental factors can transcend political boundaries and affect global commerce regardless of who controls the infrastructure.
This reality suggests that any discussion of canal management must incorporate earnest consideration of environmental challenges and sustainable operations. Trump’s approach, focusing solely on control and economic exploitation while ignoring environmental concerns, risks undermining the long-term viability of this crucial infrastructure.
Sovereignty in the Age of Global Infrastructure
The Panama Canal controversy raises fundamental questions about the nature of sovereignty in an age where critical infrastructure plays an increasingly significant role in global commerce and power politics. The 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties represented a clear affirmation of Panama’s sovereignty over the canal, yet Trump’s demands suggest a view where such sovereignty remains conditional and subject to revision based on the interests of powerful states.
This tension between national sovereignty and global infrastructure management represents a crucial challenge for the international community. How can the legitimate interests of multiple stakeholders be balanced while respecting national sovereignty and ensuring the efficient operation of critical infrastructure?
The Panama Canal Crisis and the Reconfiguration of Infrastructure Sovereignty
The analysis of Trump’s Panama Canal rhetoric through our integrated theoretical framework reveals profound implications for the future of infrastructure sovereignty and international relations. This case study illuminates how traditional concepts of territorial sovereignty are being challenged by an emerging form of infrastructural power politics that transcends conventional diplomatic norms.
The theoretical synthesis of neorealist power politics, infrastructural sovereignty, and strategic narrative theory enables us to understand this phenomenon as more than just political rhetoric – it represents a fundamental shift in how powerful states approach strategic infrastructure in the international system. Trump’s demands regarding the Panama Canal exemplify what we might term “infrastructure revisionism,” where established international agreements governing critical infrastructure become subject to unilateral reinterpretation based on power differentials and perceived national interests.
The environmental crisis affecting the Panama Canal adds another crucial dimension to this analysis. Through our theoretical lens, we can see how environmental challenges become instrumentalized within power-political narratives, transforming ecological vulnerabilities into pretexts for challenging sovereign control over strategic assets. This dynamic suggests a troubling precedent where climate change and environmental stresses might be increasingly leveraged to justify interventionist policies toward critical infrastructure.
Moreover, our analysis reveals an emerging pattern where infrastructure sovereignty becomes increasingly conditional, subject to the shifting calculations of great power politics rather than established international law. This trend poses significant implications for smaller nations managing strategic infrastructure assets, suggesting a future where sovereign control might depend more on power relationships than legal frameworks or historical agreements.
The strategic narrative component of our analysis illuminates how political actors construct legitimizing frameworks for challenging established norms of infrastructure sovereignty. Trump’s rhetorical strategy demonstrates sophisticated use of security threats, economic grievances, and historical claims to create a narrative framework that justifies unprecedented demands for infrastructure control.
This case study suggests several crucial developments in international relations:
First, we may see an increase in what we term “infrastructure nationalism,” where control over strategic assets becomes increasingly central to nationalist political narratives and international power projection.
Second, environmental challenges to infrastructure operations may increasingly serve as catalysts for sovereignty challenges, particularly as climate change affects critical waterways and transportation corridors.
Third, the international community faces a growing need to develop more robust frameworks for protecting infrastructure sovereignty while addressing legitimate concerns about strategic asset management in an era of increasing great power competition.
These findings suggest that the international community must develop new theoretical and practical approaches to infrastructure governance that can balance sovereign rights with global strategic interests. The Panama Canal case demonstrates that traditional frameworks of international law and sovereignty may be insufficient to protect critical infrastructure from power-political challenges in an era of increasing global competition and environmental stress.
Ultimately, this analysis reveals that the future stability of international infrastructure management will depend on the development of new governance models that can effectively balance national sovereignty, global strategic interests, and environmental stewardship. The resolution of these competing demands may well determine the future character of international relations in an age where infrastructure control increasingly shapes global power dynamics.
Conclusion: The Future of International Infrastructure Management
Trump’s demands regarding the Panama Canal reveal a complex interplay of personal ambition, economic opportunism, and power politics that may shape the future of international infrastructure management. His approach transforms what might otherwise be legitimate concerns about infrastructure management into a broader challenge to international norms and agreements. The episode serves as a crucial case study in how individual leaders can leverage control over strategic assets for political and economic gain, potentially at the cost of international stability and cooperative governance models.
The implications of this approach extend far beyond the immediate question of canal management. They suggest a potential future where critical infrastructure becomes increasingly weaponized in international relations, with control and access used as leverage points in broader geopolitical competitions. As the world grapples with challenges ranging from climate change to shifting trade patterns, the question of how to manage strategic assets like the Panama Canal becomes ever more crucial for maintaining international stability and economic prosperity.
This complex interplay of power politics, environmental challenges, and economic interests surrounding the Panama Canal controversy ultimately reflects broader questions about the future of international cooperation and infrastructure management in an increasingly multipolar world. The resolution of these tensions will likely shape not just the future of the Panama Canal, but the broader framework of international infrastructure governance in the decades to come.
References
Ashton, M. S., & O’Hara, J. L. (1999). Panama Canal watershed. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 8(3-4), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1300/j091v08n03_14
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Ho, J. D., & Bernal, P. (2019). Panama Canal vs alternative routes: Estimating a logit model for grains. Maritime Business Review, 5(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/mabr-07-2019-0025
Larkin, B. (2013). “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 327-343.
Llacer, F. J. M. (2005). The Panama Canal: A historical and legal perspective. Marine Policy, 29(3), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2004.05.002
Mann, M. (1984). “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results.” European Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 185-213.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic Narratives: Communication Power and the New World Order. Routledge.
Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton University Press.
Shear, M. D., & Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2024, December 23). Trump’s new focus on Greenland and the Panama Canal raises questions about U.S. global strategy. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/23/us/politics/trump-greenland-panama-canal.html
Slattery, G. (2024, December 22). Trump says he might demand Panama hand over canal. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-says-he-might-demand-panama-hand-over-canal-2024-12-22/
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
