Staff Reports
The recent passing of Jimmy Carter may prompt some to examine his legacy, but the discussion isn’t solely about memorializing the man. The spotlight must shine on his disastrous Panama Canal Treaties—an unfortunate reminder of a foreign policy debacle driven by liberal appeasement. As President Donald Trump recently expressed his views on the treaties, suggesting the U.S. should reclaim the Panama Canal Zone, the topic becomes ever more relevant.
In 1977, Carter struck a deal with Colonel Omar Torrijos, a leftist dictator who had ousted Panama’s democratically elected government. The resulting treaties, which purportedly allowed the U.S. to defend the canal while conceding control to Panama by the end of the millennium, were nothing short of a catastrophic blunder. This arrangement reflected an egregious misunderstanding of America’s role on the world stage—one that assumed the U.S. was an imperialist bully needing to atone for past “wrongs.” The treaties were emblematic of what critics might call “mush from the wimp,” an apt critique of Carter’s foreign policy that has echoes in the actions of more recent Democratic leaders.
The Panama Canal Treaties Were 'Mush From the Wimp' https://t.co/sWmaW4jc32
— Mary Jo Lincoln (@jo25154) January 8, 2025
The opposition to the Panama Canal treaties found its strongest voice in the form of Ronald Reagan, then a steadfast advocate of conservative viewpoints. A fierce conservative revolt emerged in the late 1970s, emphasizing the importance of American interests over misguided notions of international goodwill. Reagan, alongside other prominent Republicans, decried the treaty negotiation process and pushed back against the left’s narrative, which asserted that relinquishing control of the canal would somehow restore Panama’s national dignity.
Viewing the historical debate surrounding the treaties provides valuable insight into the long-term consequences of Carter’s decisions. Reagan’s pragmatic approach cut through the idealistic rhetoric, focusing on the undeniable facts: the U.S. had invested heavily in the canal’s construction, maintained open access for global commerce, and had bolstered Panama’s own economy in the process. The notion that surrendering control would bolster the U.S.’s standing in the world lacked any hard evidence and only served to empower adversaries instead of allies.
Moreover, the leaders who negotiated the treaties did not adequately represent the interests of the Panamanian people. Many within Panama, especially those working alongside U.S. interests in the canal zone, opposed the treaties that benefited a dictator while disregarding their aspirations. The treaties inadvertently set a precedent for strategic retreats that would reverberate through the decades, creating vacancies that hostile forces could exploit—an echo of the continuing turmoil witnessed under Carter’s legacy.
In the end, these treaties reflect a disregard for America’s legitimate interests in favor of a flawed ideology that has created national vulnerabilities. Evaluating Carter’s foreign policy decisions reminds Americans of the necessity for a strong, unapologetic stance in international affairs—one that upholds national sovereignty and security rather than kneeling before the whims of global opinion. The struggles faced by the U.S. since the signing of those treaties are far from over, and as Trump noted, reclaiming lost ground might just be the first step toward correcting history’s course.
