Forcibly Taking the Panama Canal Would Be a Disaster for the U.S.

By: Anna Douglas Piper

As Trump continues to threaten to reclaim the Panama Canal, fears of military action, invasion, and loss of sovereignty rise. This would do much more harm than good.

December 2024 marked the 25th anniversary of the handover of the Panama Canal to the country’s government in 1999. The U.S. did this for geopolitical reasons, addressing numerous rising security threats by doing so. Since then, the U.S.-Panama partnership has grown and solidified, reaping many rewards for the U.S.

There were 3 important reasons why the U.S. originally handed over control of the canal. As decolonization spread after World War II, the sovereign American colonial control over the Canal Zone became increasingly unpopular. Panamanians resented the foreign control that split up their land and provided almost no benefits, leading to growing violence. Additionally, as guerilla violence in Latin America spread and increasingly framed their struggles as liberation from U.S. domination, other countries began to criticize the situation. Finally, a left-wing and nationalist military dictatorship seized power in Panama in 1968 whose main goal was to take back the Canal, with force if necessary. 

Negotiations began around this time as the Nixon administration became aware of the rising threats. Famous international relations theorist and Nixon’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger summarized the threat at the time, saying that “if these [Canal] negotiations fail, we will be beaten to death in every international forum and there will be riots all over Latin America.” President Carter completed the project, signing the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties that committed to transfer control by 1999. 

Though it did not happen immediately, this transfer fueled close ties between the country that eventually led to Panama’s establishment as a democracy. Today, Panama remains a committed U.S. ally with a booming economy.

Taking back control of the Canal would be disastrous to this relationship and to American influence in the region. 

The Trump administration argues that the U.S. faces excessive and disproportionate tolls for ships passing through the canal. They also argued that China controls it, and could use it in a conflict to undermine American interests. Though some Chinese companies have made investments in Panama, there is no evidence to support this claim. Additionally, even if there is worry over potential influence in the Canal’s operation, forcibly retaking the Canal will not solve this problem.

Retaking the canal would effectively be recolonization, as the zone was operated as an entirely sovereign U.S. territory before 1999. This move would not counter China’s threat – in fact, it would benefit them directly. Research shows that Latin Americans have mixed feelings about China’s role in the region. An unprovoked U.S. invasion would “provide China precisely the rhetorical ammunition needed to present itself as a responsible alternative to an out-of-control U.S,” according to Americas Quarterly. 

“It would likely make Panama more pro-China, not less.”

Additionally, the canal is not a simple piece of real estate to take. It is central to Panamanians' sense of their nation. Panama’s efficient and professional operation of the canal has fueled prosperity, expansion, and shown better success rates than when under U.S. control. 

It is simply not in the U.S.’s interest to take the canal back. In fact, it could be catastrophic. 

If concerns over Chinese influence are to be mitigated, the Trump administration must look towards other solutions, like continuing to fuel the region’s prosperity. Additionally, a main criticism, that Panama charges U.S. ships excessively, is actually an environmental concern. In 2023, the country suffered its worst drought in decades, impacting the water supply the Canal runs on. Transits were restricted because of this shortage, though some ships could pass through faster if they paid more. In general, “canal fees are applied transparently and neutrally to all countries.” To prevent this from occurring in the future, the current administration may find more success in preventing further environmental degradation from climate change. 

Trump’s claims, which have now escalated to military threats, have been met with only rejection from Panamanian authorities. 

Panama President Jose Raul Mulino has rejected Trump's claims, arguing that there is “no presence of any nation in the world that interferes with our administration.”

“The operation of the Panama Canal itself, and performing under the terms of the neutrality treaty, we have followed the neutrality treaty to the letter,” says Ricaurte Vasquez, Panama Canal’s administrator. “We believe that both the U.S. and Panama obey the rule of law, and we are consistent in our performance and behavior are consistent with the rule of law…if you go to military intervention I think that will be detrimental for Panama but probably will be more detrimental to the U.S. presence in the world.”

“There is a rule of law, and there is no need for any military intervention in Panama as we stand right now.”

CLIMATE CHANGE IS FUELING THE FOOD CRISIS IN CHAD

By: Anna Douglas Piper

Global food insecurity has surged since 2022, and the problem is not going away. Around 345 million people are impacted across 82 different countries. 

Chad is the third hungriest country in the world, and it is only getting worse. 

From flooding, to drought, to wildfires, climate change directly impacts food security. Geographical features drastically change, crop yields fail, and production levels decrease. The consequences are not limited to agricultural zones themselves. Agricultural chains are intricately connected, so effects in one region can lead to consequences that ripple across the entire market. In fact, in 2021, rising food commodity prices overall were a main driver of approximately 30 million people in low-income countries facing increased food insecurity. 

As climate change continues to impact food production, the most at risk continue to suffer. 17% of Chad faces food shortages, and in 2024, the Government declared a “food security and nutrition emergency.” 

Out of the hundreds of millions of people who face high levels of acute food insecurity, the United Nations estimates that “over two thirds…are there because of climate and conflict.”   

António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations stressed that climate and conflict were the main causes of acute food insecurity for around 174 million people in 2022. “A global food crisis is creating a hellscape of hunger and heartache for many of the world’s poorest people.”

Food insecurity exacerbates conflict, driving regional instability and threatening the entire world order. Hunger, especially driven by climate change, is a risk to international security. Beth Bechdol, Deputy Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization, agrees, arguing that “there is no food security without peace, and no peace without food security.”

The U.S. has direct interests in maintaining global order and peace, and therefore direct interests in promoting the stability of Chad. This can be done by mitigating the impacts of climate change on food security in the region.

Questions remain over what is to be done. Some argue for sustainable agricultural practices, like effective water usage, drought-resistant crops, and policies to manage demand for certain products. Others point more to the harm of the global food system itself, noting that the industry is responsible for around a third of greenhouse gas emissions–second only to the energy sector. Food harvesting, storage, and transportation, can all be improved, in a multitude of ways. Additionally, many call for the increased usage of climate-smart technology, like precision watering and early-warning systems. Whatever solutions are implemented, it is important to consider the context of Chad itself in order to successfully mitigate the issue. 

According to Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “1 in 10 people on Earth already suffers from chronic hunger — a reality that will worsen with accelerating climate change.  In the not-too-distant future, there could be huge supply shocks, and if heating continues, food production will decline across many countries.” 

To increase food security and avoid conflicts, he called for increased investment in adaptation, resilience and clean energy, declaring that “done right, climate action can help build peace.”

“It is in places like [Chad] where violence and weather shocks drive hunger,” stresses The World Food Programme. “More than one third of the families living in Chad are worried about the same thing right now: ‘when will we eat the next meal?’”

PURITY CULTURE IS A VEHICLE FOR SEXUAL VIOLENCE

By: Priya Buddhavarapu

I was in New Delhi this August when a 31-year-old female trainee doctor in Kolkata, West Bengal, was found half-naked, brutally raped and murdered, on the fourth floor of the government-run RG KAR Medical College and Hospital.

Reading the news that day, pure disgust ran through me. As a woman, I was immersed in an acute fear that lashed at my core every time I roamed the streets of New Delhi in the days after. As an Indian-American, I felt overwhelming loathe towards the culture that I had always known as vibrant and joyous. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of my reaction, however, was my complete lack of surprise as I read the harrowing details of the victim’s experience. 

The majority of Indian women would be able to tell you firsthand about the catcalling, staring, and vulgar body language that they are accustomed to when walking down a local street. I couldn’t even escape this unwanted attention in broad daylight with my dad, a fully grown man. The majority of Indian women would be able to tell you of the rules imposed onto them by their families–don’t walk alone, don’t stay out past dusk, don’t make eye contact with strangers, don’t go out without a specific destination. 

Their daily experiences, I believe, are indicative of a much more threatening, parasitic force preying upon Indian society. From the 1992 Ajmer rape case, where over a hundred schoolgirls were sexually molested, to a more recent case in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, where a 23-year-old woman was gang-raped by six men, it is clear that institutionalized injustice against women has plagued India for decades. 

What could be the root of the systemic sexual violence Indian women face? Why does the world seem to hate Indian women?

 I believe the source of the problem is this: India’s sickening commitment to purity culture. 

The term purity culture refers to an ideal, often in a religious and traditionalist context, where a person’s value is contingent upon their chastity and sexual abstinence. In societies where purity culture is prominent, the burden of keeping a community chaste typically falls to women. This also means that in cases of abuse or harassment, women are the ones who are left accountable for the actions of men–whether it be because of what they wore, what they did, or where they were. 

On the other hand, men are held relatively unaccountable, sheltered by the pillars of the patriarchal society in which they were brought up in. They are inadvertently excused from any consequences; hence the burdens of their actions defaults to the shoulders of women. In a world where women are stigmatized, and women shoulder accountability, what might possibly stop a man from catcalling, molesting, raping a woman? Certainly not the fear of facing the consequences of their actions. 

For this reason, I believe that purity culture is a vehicle of sexual violence. 

Historically, an Indian woman’s value as a functioning member of society is contingent upon her perceived adherence to the values of purity and modesty. Her decision-making power over her own bodies, in both a sexual and reproductive context, is traditionally granted to the man who has power over her–her father, and then her husband. Virginity is sacred; sexual activity outside the hallowed bond of marriage is sacrilegious. 

Purity culture, I believe, is also responsible for rape culture. In a world where Indian women increasingly dare to step outside the bubble they have been confined to, the coinciding spike in assault cases is proof of the following: sexual violence is a provoked response to women gaining ownership over their own lives. It is deep-seated, wrathful retribution to the fact that women have refused to exist solely within the roles their fathers and husbands have assigned them to. Sexual violence is an unmeasured, unequivocal response to a deviation from purity culture.