Panama and the Shifting Sands of Allegiance
CASE A: Panama's Diplomatic Shift (2017) News reports, like the given Newsweek article, describe China 'hitting back' at Panama, implying a retaliatory dynamic following Panama's decision to establish diplomatic relations with Beijing and cut ties with Taiwan. The rhetoric suggests a competitive loss for Beijing on the Canal's administration. This framing often portrays Panama as an independent
actor making sovereign choices, with China as an external power exerting influence. The specific language used suggests a transactional outcome: Panama 'loses' a canal contract to a Chinese company, and China 'hits back' diplomatically. The article implies U.S. concern over growing Chinese influence in a historically U.S.-dominated sphere. CASE B: The Panama Canal Treaties (1977) Contrast this
with the lengthy and often contentious process of the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which eventually transferred full control of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama in 1999. U.S. rhetoric during this period, particularly from conservative commentators, frequently framed the transfer as a 'giveaway' or a 'loss' for American interests and national security. Then-Governor Ronald Reagan
famously declared, "We bought it, we paid for it, it's ours, and we're going to keep it." This demonstrated a clear proprietary view of a sovereign nation's territory and a skepticism towards genuine Panamanian autonomy. The narrative was not about Panama's sovereign decision-making, but about U.S. economic and military prerogatives. THE FRAMING: A Tale of Two Freedoms In 2017, Panama's decision