The Panama Canal in a file image. / Europa Press
The narrative about the reversal of Panama Canal and the transfer of its administration to Panamanian hands – after 74 years of American occupation – has been based on three main influences. First, the historical demands of sovereignty and economic compensation that emerged from the signing of the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty (1903), Agreement
held among the governments of Panama and the United States For the construction of the channel. Second, the anti -imperialist movement that arises in the former Global South after the US defeat in Vietnam. And third, the diplomatic strategy of the Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijoswhich was key when consolidating the support of organizations such as Non -aligned countries movementthe UN Security Council and the Organization of American States (OAS), which led to the United States to recognize the need to negotiate and end the Dispute for channel sovereignty.
A less known role in the negotiations of the Torrijos-Carter treaties (1977), which replaced the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, was that of the Trilateral Commission, an organization founded by David Rockefeller In 1973. the role of this commission, and of the Economic Power Groups of the United Statesin the signing of the agreement it was documented in several publications of the time, which we will use as a reference to explain how neoliberalism delivered the channel to Panamanian hands. Among these publications are The Treaty That Wall Street Wrote (The treaty that Wall Street wrote) (1977), by American economist Murray N. Rothbard; Ten Thesis on the Treaties of the Panama Canal (1979), of the Spanish Jesuit and economist Xabier Gorostiaga; Carter and the trilateral (1979), by Paulo Canabrava, Brazilian journalist, and Effects of the Torrijos regime on the economic structure (1982), by Panamanian economist José E. Torres.
The Trilateral Commission It was an entity made up of political, business and academic leaders of the United States, Western Europe and Japan —To the three axes of Western power at that time – that they were looking for a Restoration of North American Powerunder a vision of a multipolar world, in which coordinated actions were required to maintain the stability of the capitalist system in a time of emergence of the Transnationalization of Latin American economies.
History after channel return
One of the most relevant elements of this trilateral commission was its conformation and the participation and influence that its members had both within the United States business fabric and in the president’s government apparatus Jimmy Carter. Among these actors were Sol Linowitzappointed negotiator of the Torrijos-Carter Treaty (1977), who was director del Marine Midland Bank; he Treasury Secretary W. Michael Blumenthal (1977-1979), former president of Bendix Corporation (1969-1977), and Peter PetersonPresident of Lehman Brothers (1973-1984) and member of the Linowitz Commission. In addition, there were also the Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (1977-1980) and the National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (1977-1981), the latter one of the main architects of the Commission.
Carter’s relationship with the trilateral commission began in 1972, when he participated in a dinner organized by Zbigniew Brzezinski in which he would meet David Rockefeller. At that meeting, Brzezinski and Rockefeller agreed that Carter was the ideal candidate to support, so that he would be incorporated as a founding member of the Trilateral Commission.
He Carter role In the negotiations of the Canalero Treaty would be that of a Appe themore than that of a promoter of recognition of Panamanian claims. In the article Jimmy Carter’s Ruinous Neoliberal Legacy (The ruinous legacy of Jimmy Carter)published in this 2025, the American specialist in economic policy Jonathan Schlefer points out: “Carter promoted the nation, and even the world, towards the dark place where we are today. Turning sharply towards the neoliberalismturning the markets into weapons. ” Under this paradigm of promoter of neoliberalism, Carter formulated a treaty that was so ambiguous that Torrijos was forced to accept an imperfect agreement, under which the United States maintained the Channel and Panama use control It was “under the pentagon umbrella.”
The conjunction of American and Western economic interests that supported the negotiations of the Torrijos-Carter treaties was intended to achieve the signing of a treaty that, a) “would discard the last vestiges of an Naive and outdated American imperialism, remnant of the innocent but clumsy arrogance of Theodore Roosevelt”; b) Avoid a more acute conflict with Panama that will lead to a guerrilla war; and, finally, c) to ensure the right of use of the channel through the guarantee of neutrality maintenance and permanent right of expedited passage to the United States war ships.
The interests of economic power in Panama
The truth is that the signing of the treaties became woven from very early in the 1970s – at the beginning of the Government of Torrijos. This is how the return of the Panama Canal was considered in 1971 as a crucial step to guarantee the stability of US investments in Latin America. This strategy, led by David Rockefeller, It coincided With the Banking Reform of 1970, promoted by Omar Torrijos, which turned to Panama in a Financial Center Without Fiscal Regulations.
As a result, great institutions such as Bank of America, el Chase Manhattan Bank y el First National City Bank entered to Panamanian market With assets that exceeded 8,000 million dollars, while facilitating loans to the Panamanian government. Panama’s external debt grew exponentially: it went from less than 200 million dollars in 1968 to 1.8 billion in 1977, ensuring the domain of international banking in the Panamanian economy.
According to the aforementioned authors, “the treaties have negotiated, more than the channel itself, ensuring it the stability of the transnational services platform, essential in the era of transnationalization of Latin American economies.” These treaties submitted not only to the Canalera strip to the American domain, but to the whole of the Panamanian economy.
These academics also suggest how Banking system reform Made by Torrijos in 1970 “it provided a favorable paradise, tax -free and onerous regulations for foreign banks in Panama, in the same way that Panama had long provided a flag of convenience for worldwide navigation.” The Rockefeller’s interests and the group made up of The trilateral is They extended beyond the financial sector and included the interest of Protect the operation of the Pan Am airlinewho had his hub In Panama.
As a narrative element, the evidence provided in the articles cited in this writing clearly explains that the Channel return to Panama It was not only a matter of anti -imperialist pressures, but had an important component of Reconfiguration of political, military and, above all, economic and financial poweragreed and coordinated by the business and financial elites of the United States, who saw in an occupation dura of the channel an obstacle to the transnational expansion of its companies and banks in developing countries.
