While our eyes were on the tariffs and financial markets, notice what is happening in Panama.
Cabinet meeting dialog:
Pete Hegseth to Trump:
“We’re taking back the canal. China’s had too much influence, Obama and others let them creep in. We along with Panama are pushing them out, sir.”
Trump reply:
“We’ve moved a lot of troops to Panama, and, uh, filled up some areas that we used to have, we didn’t have any longer, but we have them now, and I think it’s in very good control, right?"
Hegseth:
"Yes, sir."
The U.S. moved 6,000 troops into Panama. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that stationing troops at former military bases is not an invasion. We are simply increasing our military presence to "secure the Panama Canal from Chinese influence." Existing treaties with Panama forbid foreign militaries being stationed in Panama and require the neutral treatment of ships from every country in priority and price. President Trump says he wants that changed. He wants U.S. naval ships to have priority.
Panama President José Raúl Mulino also says U.S. troops aren't an invasion. Aerial photographs show a troop build-up, which the U.S. and Panama assert is only for training, humanitarian activities, and "installation of U.S. property." The U.S. acknowledges that the Trump administration has drawn up plans for a full-scale invasion, but at this point it is simply a contingency plan.
 |
| The New Republic |
In negotiations with the U.S., Panama agreed to reimburse the U.S. for fees charged naval vessels, which abridges the 30-year neutrality status of the canal. Panama also agreed to end the port infrastructure projects being carried out by Hong Kong–based CK Hutchison Holdings.
Opposition parties in Panama call movement of U.S. troops to Panama a "camouflage invasion" and say it is an affront to Panamanian sovereignty. Panama's neutrality and independence from the Yankee colossus is a point of pride for Panamanians.
The overt purpose of the placement of U.S troops, including elite Special Forces units, is to work with the Panamanians to combat domestic unrest that might disturb canal traffic. Some kind of disturbance -- a bombing, a work stoppage, an election controversy -- could be the justification for a full-scale "peacekeeping" mission and regime change. Trump says the U.S. has "the right—we retain the right—to do what is necessary to make sure there is free navigation in the Panama Canal.”
We see a similar pattern with both Panama and Greenland. In both cases, U.S. ambitions are presented as defensive, to protect special status for U.S. naval and commercial passage. A U.S. takeover would be unpopular in Latin America but it would be "on brand" for Trump and probably popular among his MAGA base. Trump would be the strong guy, taking back something that is rightfully ours, or at least ours for the taking. What do we really care how Panamanians feel? European allies would likely see it as confirmation that the postwar rules-based era is unmistakably over. The U.S. would be acting like Russia, a regional power doing what it wishes. Eastern Europe is Russia's backyard. Taiwan is China's. Second-level powers like our European allies should mind their own business.
Greenland and Panama are in the U.S. neighborhood. Trump believes the natural behavior of large and powerful countries is to invade and seize resources they desire. The strong do as they will and the weak suffer as they must. Only sentimental fools think it has ever been anything else.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]
7 comments:
"Some kind of disturbance -- a bombing, a work stoppage, an election controversy -- could be the justification for a full-scale peacekeeping mission."
I wouldn't put it past him to concoct the pretext for an invasion. Unfortunately, he wouldn't be the first.
This is also his attitude towards women. Grab whatever you want. The US is in bad way. Short term gains, but long term pain. Most civilized people and nations despise Putin's Russia. The US is dead as a leader of the Western world if Russia is our role model.
Remember the "little green men" in Crimea and the Donbas region of Ukraine? This situation feels reminiscent of Russian aggression against its neighbors. The difference this time is the involvement of the USA in foreign affairs, behaving like Russia.
The US has always behaved like Russia.
Or an assassination attempt?
You raise an interesting perspective, MC. During the Manifest Destiny period in our country's history, there are valid points to consider. However, I believe that your bumper sticker comment might oversimplify the role of our military. While the intention might not always align with protecting trade interests or fulfilling treaty obligations, it’s important to recognize the complexities involved in these decisions. Let's explore the nuances together!
Apart from self-aggrandizement, I’m struggling to figure out the point of all this nonsense. Can any readers recall a single expansionist global empire throughout history that didn’t ultimately shrink, dissolve or get fragmented, often leaving behind nothing but a trail of death, suffering and destruction? How does squandering our economic and political capital equal “winning” ?
Post a Comment