This project is analyzing the Panama Canal and how it has shaped foreign policy between the United States and Panama. Ever since the U.S. obtained the rights to the established canal zone, there has been some unique policy and cooperation between the two countries. The U.S. was able to operate and control the canal and established military bases, schools, and houses along the area. While the U.S. was running the canal, Panama was left without its’ potential largest foreign policy entity as well as economic gain. Panama could not just take the canal back by force due to the United States’ shear power, and the U.S. had to keep Panama happy for global optics, and so unique compromises and negotiations took place over the 20th century. From these secondary sources selected, we can analyze how the entire relationship of the United States and Panama existed because of the Canal. Additionally, we can determine that that relationship greatly benefited the United States more than Panama.
The first approach to this topic is a chapter in a journal written by Peter Sanchez titled “The End of Hegemony? Panama and the United States.” In this article, Sanchez says that the entire relationship between the U.S. and Panama is based off of the Canal. The U.S. had their eyes on Panama since the 1800s as a way to connect the two seas.[1] They wanted this because of the strategic advantage it would allow for naval and commercial vessels. It is important to remember that at this time, there was no efficient way to get from coast to coast especially with bulk goods. The Panama Canal would allow for much easier and faster transportation across the United States. Another thing that Sanchez notes is that this Canal allowed for the U.S. to become the premier power in the Caribbean.[2] This is because the U.S. built military bases in the Canal zone and was able to extend its reach farther south into the region. Sanchez argues that the procurement of this entity boosted United States power and security for the decades to come. It also secured the western hemisphere under U.S. control and ensured no more Spanish and French activity. It is clear that the United States would greatly benefit from the Canal and so it comes as no surprise that they obtained it.
Another approach to the early aspects of the canal comes from Michael Conniff and his book “Canal Diplomacy, 1902-1919”. In this piece, Conniff challenges the idea of a U.S. dominated relationship and instead argues that Panama saw great dividends as well. Panama used the United States’ desire to build a canal as a main point in negotiations to separate and gain independence from Colombia.[3]The United States ultimately helped Panama gain independence from Columbia on what is now known as Panamanian Independence Day. The main idea is that while the U.S. received the land to build the canal, Panama was now under the protection umbrella of the United States and was safe from Columbia. Conniff is approaching the topic from more of a Panamanian perspective by illustrating what they received and why they signed this treaty. This differs from Sanchez who mainly focuses on U.S. benefits.
A third approach to this topic is by Orlando Perez with his article titled “Public Opinion and the Future of U.S.-Panama Relations”. In this article, Perez states that “no country in the region has been more influenced by the United States than Panama”.[4]This is illustrating how critical and influential the canal is to both countries. Perez also chooses to spend most of his focus on the Panamanian people and their attitudes towards the United States. It is important to note that he is also covering a much broader time period as his data is of citizens in the 1990s. He claims that the United States influence, and interventions were mainly supported by elites in the country while most lower-class folks were less keen on such influence.[5] This gives us an understanding of how Panama feels about the U.S. and their century of influence. Perez does an excellent job of illustrating the impacts and results of this unique relationship between the U.S. and Panama that we are investigating.
There are many ways in which historians and political scientists approach the U.S.-Panama relationship. It is also tough because of the extended time frame in which it has occurred. As all authors illustrated, this contract and subsequent procurement by the United States was extremely beneficial to both military, and economic power. The ability to move from east coast to west coast efficiently, as well as control of other countries movements ensured the United States full control over the Caribbean and beyond. However, not all of these authors agree with everything. Sanchez focuses on U.S. gains and describes a situation where Panama is almost being abused for the contract signed. Conniff on the other hand chooses to describe more of a trade between the two where the U.S. received the canal in return for freeing Panama from their Columbian rulers. This element of disagreement is extremely interesting to consider as we strive to understand how beneficial the relationship was and how it affected both countries foreign policy.
[1] Peter Sanchez, “The End of Hegemony? Panama and the United States.” International Journal on World Peace 19, no. 3 (2002) p.63
[2] Peter Sanchez, “The End of Hegemony? Panama and the United States.” (2002) p.64
[3] Conniff, Michael L. “Canal Diplomacy, 1902–1919.” In Panama and the United States: The End of the Alliance, 3rd ed. University of Georgia Press, 2012. P.65
[4] Pérez, Orlando J. “Public Opinion and the Future of U.S.-Panama Relations.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 41, no. 3 (1999): p.3
[5] Pérez, Orlando J. “Public Opinion and the Future of U.S.-Panama Relations.” (1999) p.12