Författare: Natasha Lindstaedt Professor in the Department of Government

Jimmy Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981, considered the treaties signed in 1977 to cede control of the Panama Canal to Panama, ending over a century of strained relations, one of the crowning achievements of his administration.

Today, Panamanians are uncertain whether Donald Trump will abide by these treaties – and are nervous about what could happen next. Panamanian journalists that I have spoken with are increasingly concerned that the US will invade.

Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out using the US military to seize the Panama Canal, if necessary, despite boasting that he had an impeccable record of not starting any new wars.

While this appears to be a huge departure in US foreign policy towards Latin America, the US has had a long history of invading, meddling, supporting coups and offering clandestine support to violent non-state actors in the region.

One historian has noted that the US participated (directly and indirectly) in regime change in Latin America more than 40 times in the last century. This figure does not even take into account failed missions that didn’t result in regime change, such as the US’s orchestrated invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in 1961.

When the US is not intervening, its approach to the region has been described as “benign neglect”. During these interludes, Latin America was mostly ignored while the US prioritised other geopolitical interests.

Return to the old ways?

But Trump’s latest threats to Panama are a return to the paternalistic era of US foreign policy towards Latin America. This arguably started with the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 — a framework that aimed to protect US interests in the region from European aggression. Latin America essentially became the US’s backyard. At the time, the Monroe Doctrine received some support from Latin American countries that were hoping for independence from Europe and republican forms of government.

Read more:
US pressure has forced Panama to quit China’s Belt and Road Initiative – it could set the pattern for further superpower clashes

But this would change with the increasingly interventionist posture of US president Theodore Roosevelt during his two terms from 1901 to 1909. On November 18 1903, when Panama was just 15 days old, Roosevelt signed the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty , in which the US promised to support Panamanian independence from Colombia in exchange for rights to build and operate the Panama Canal. Reportedly the deal was engineered by a Frenchman, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, and no Panamanians were involved. This was the era of “big stick diplomacy” where the US would muscle its way into getting what it wanted with a series of credible threats.

Hyotographics/Shutterstock

During the cold war, Washington’s stance in Latin America became even more interventionist. The US backed authoritarian rule by right-wing military dictatorships in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguary and Honduras.

The US government provided organisation, financial and technical support for military regimes that were disappearing, kidnapping, torturing and murdering their political opponents, during Operation Condor in the 1970s. Democratically elected leaders Jacobo Árbenz and Salvador Allende were removed from power with the help of US covert action in Guatemala in 1954, and Chile in 1973, respectively.

Read more:
Operation Condor: why victims of the oppression that swept 1970s South America are still fighting for justice

The US was also responsible for funding and training violent non-state groups such as the Contras, a rebel force which was set up in Nicaragua to oppose the Sandinista government. The US also supported the right-wing Arena government which was accused of setting up death squads during the bloody civil war in El Salvador) in which thousands of civilians were killed.

With the Carter administration’s human rights-focused foreign policy, the US finally did the right thing when it came to returning the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. To accomplish this, Carter had to work hard to build bipartisan support to see the long-term benefits of improving US-Panamanian relations and improving US relations with Latin America more generally.

From the US standpoint, the canal was no longer economically important. At the same time, the canal had become an issue of national pride in Panama, with mass student-led protests breaking out on January 9 1964 when Panamanians were barred from flying their national flag in the US-controlled canal zone. The day became known as Martyr’s Day after 21 Panamanians were killed by US troops.

Relations improved after the Carter-Torrijos treaties were signed. But the US returned to an interventionist strategy when it send nearly 26,000 troops to invade Panama during Operation Just Cause in 1989 – the largest US deployment since the Vietnam war.

Though the goal to remove Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega (who had formerly been on the CIA payroll) was achieved, more than 500 Panamanians were reportedly killed. Unofficial estimates suggest there may have been as many as 2,000-3,000 deaths.

Six months after the 1989 invasion, I went to Panama for the summer, and saw first-hand the destruction caused. Looting had been rampant, with millions of dollars worth of goods stolen. There were concerns that the economy in Colón (Panama’s second largest city) wouldn’t be able to recover.

The impoverished neighbourhood of El Chorillo in Panama City was overwhelmed by a massive use of firepower, including F-117 stealth bombers, Blackhawk helicopters, Apache and Cobra helicopters, 2,000-pound bombs and Hellfire missiles.

In spite of the devastation, the US could, at least, argue that it invaded in order to restore democracy in Panama. But fast forward to today and Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t care about democracy and human rights. He does care, however, about increasing Chinese economic influence in Latin America – and this high-profile pushback is actually about bullying the Panamanian government to stop doing deals with Beijing.

And while the seizure of the Panama Canal would probably make very little difference to the US economy, it would make a huge impact to the economy of Panama. The Panamanian government astutely made important investments to enlarge the canal from 2007-2016, and today the canal’s revenues are worth US$5 billion (£3.9 billion), or about 4% of Panama’s GDP.

The “America first” agenda fails to understand how long-term alliances work, how soft power works, and the importance of having credibility and a vision. In the past, the US has often been aggressive, assertive and interventionist in Latin America, with Trump it looks like all these qualities are back. Läs mer…

The website for the United States Agency for International Development (USAid), the world’s biggest aid donor, has gone dark.

Donald Trump’s new administration plans to place the autonomous agency under the control of the state department. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has now declared himself as head of the agency to “align” it with Trump’s priorities.

Several days ago, on January 26, Rubio said: “Every dollar we spend, every programme we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

But the decision to freeze USAid, which is part of Trump’s policy to put “America first”, places everyone at risk. Organisations that provide vital care for vulnerable people around the world are being forced to halt operations. The boss of one such organisation said: “People will die.”

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a close adviser to Trump, is playing an active role in the destruction of USAid. He has claimed – without providing any evidence – that the agency is “beyond repair”. “It needs to die,” Musk wrote on X.

Musk, who leads the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), is gearing to cut trillions of dollars from the US budget. However, by seeing cuts to USAid as a solution, Trump and Musk are catering to an audience that has a fundamental misunderstanding about US foreign aid more generally.

Surveys demonstrate that Americans believe 25% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. In reality, the US gives about 0.2% of its gross national product (GNP), the total value of goods and services produced by a country, to foreign aid – or less than 1% of its federal budget. This is far below the UN target of 0.7% of GNP.

But, despite this, USAid provided 42% of all humanitarian aid globally in 2024. This included about US$72 billion (£58 billion) in aid in a wide range of areas, from helping people access clean water, sanitation, healthcare and energy, to providing disaster relief, shelter and food.

USAid also delivered programmes aimed at supporting democracy, civil society, economic development and landmine clearance in war zones, as well as working to prevent organised crime, terrorism and conflict. The gutting of USAid will have a profound impact on human security.

A protester holds a placard outside the USAid headquarters on February 3.
Will Oliver / EPA

The Trump administration has granted a waiver for the continuation of “life-saving humanitarian assistance”. This includes a programme that helps 20 million people living with HIV/Aids access anti-retroviral drugs. But there are questions about the future of US Aids organisation, the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar).

To date, over 43 million people worldwide have died from Aids. But one of the biggest success stories of the George W. Bush administration was its launch of Pepfar in 2003. The World Health Organization says that Pepfar, working in partnership with USAid, has saved 26 million lives.

Pepfar employs more than 250,000 doctors, nurses and other staff across 55 countries. One of the functions that USAid performs is ordering and procuring the drugs used by Pepfar to keep the millions infected with HIV alive. It remains to be seen whether federal payments to USAid’s locally run partner organisations will be stopped.

We are, in any case, likely to see an uptick in other infectious diseases. USAid had been working to prevent current outbreaks of mpox and Marburg virus from spreading beyond Africa. It is not clear what the future is for these programmes.

And USAid’s work with malaria, a disease that kills about 450,000 children under the age of five each year, is facing uncertainty. From 2000 to 2021, USAid’s work helped to prevent 7.6 million deaths from malaria. Also in doubt is USAid’s work to develop and implement the malaria vaccine, which was considered a gamechanger for combating the disease.

At the same time, USAid responds to an average of 65 natural disasters each year. In 2024 alone, it responded to 84 separate crises across 66 different countries. The government is letting go all of the staff important for implementing these types of programmes.

Dozens of senior USAid officials have been placed on leave, while contractors working on the agency’s programmes have been furloughed. Up to 3,000 aid workers in Washington DC could reportedly be laid off this week.

What Trump’s team misunderstand is that the work of USAid is also vital for preserving American interests. China, which has poured more than US$1 trillion of assistance into infrastructure projects in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America since 2013, will now be given an opportunity to exert more influence around the world. The void in US aid is a gift for China in the battle for soft power.

White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, lists some of what she calls the ‘insane priorities’ that USAid has been spending money on.

Global aid sector in disarray

Foreign aid relies on certainty and transparency about the future of aid programmes. But the Trump administration has offered little clarity while US foreign aid programmes are all being reviewed. One aid organisation referred to the situation as an “absolute dumpster fire” due to the uncertainty.

There have already been reports of total confusion in health clinics previously supported by USAid, which were shut down without warning. Africa will probably be the region most negatively affected. Local workers in healthcare-related projects on the continent will lose their jobs, while nurses, doctors and healthcare workers across clinics will be unable to continue their vital work.

The Democrats have claimed that Trump does not have the legal authority to eradicate a congressionally funded independent agency. They have said court challenges are already in motion and have pledged to try to block approval of Trump’s state department nominations until the shutdown is reversed.

Trump did try to cut US foreign aid during his first term, but Congress refused. He then tried – and ultimately failed – to freeze the flow of aid appropriated by Congress. This time, Trump is not bothering to play by the rules. Läs mer…