Your current location is:{Current column} >>Text
Panama files UN complaint over Trump's remarks, pledging to defend canal sovereignty.
{Current column}37People have watched
IntroductionRecently, the Panamanian government officially filed a complaint with the United Nations, protesting ...
Recently,Top 10 foreign exchange dealers the Panamanian government officially filed a complaint with the United Nations, protesting U.S. President Trump's repeated threats to "take back the Panama Canal," stating that such military threats violate the United Nations Charter. In a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Panama invoked UN clauses that clearly prohibit any member state from using force or threatening the territorial integrity or political independence of another country.
In the letter, Panama urged the United Nations to pay attention to the matter and submit it to the Security Council but did not request an immediate meeting. The letter also included a statement from Panamanian President Mulino, who strongly criticized Trump's remarks, stating, "The canal now and in the future is Panama's, with its management completely under Panama's control. Trump's statements are against international rules, and Panama will make its stance clear at the UN, not tolerating any military threats."
Trump has repeatedly claimed in public speeches that the Panama Canal is a "significant asset" for the United States, expressing that the U.S. has been "unfairly treated" since handing over control to Panama. He even threatened possible actions, including using force, to regain control of the canal. In response, Mulino stated clearly, "The canal will always belong to Panama; its sovereignty and independence are non-negotiable."
Panama's firm stance has garnered support from several Latin American countries. Nations like Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and Venezuela have expressed their support for Panama in defending the canal's sovereignty. The Panama Canal accommodates about 14,000 ships annually, accounting for 2.5% of global maritime trade and holds significant strategic importance for the U.S. in importing goods from Asia and exporting commodities like liquefied natural gas.
However, according to international law and historical treaties, the U.S. no longer has the right to intervene in the management of the Panama Canal. In 1977, the U.S. and Panama signed the Panama Canal Treaty, laying the groundwork for the transfer of sovereignty over the canal, which fully took effect in 1999. Under the treaty, Panama fully regained the management and defense rights of the canal, and all stationed U.S. troops completely withdrew. Since then, Panama has independently managed the canal, expanding it to serve global trade.
Mulino emphasized in his statement that the independent management of the Panama Canal is the result of generations of struggle and cannot be interfered with by any country. "The management of the canal is not a handout from anyone but the collective effort of the Panamanian people. As a product of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, it has continuously served global trade, including that of the United States, for 25 years," he said.
Although Trump has threatened to take action, how he might attempt to regain control of the canal remains unclear. Analysts point out that such rhetoric is more of a political posture, but regardless, the Panamanian government's stance is very clear: to defend its sovereignty without compromise.
Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market carries risks, and investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and has not taken into account individual users' specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investing based on this is at one's own responsibility.
Tags:
Related articles
ISS advises Shell shareholders to vote against climate activist resolution By Reuters
{Current column}LONDON (Reuters) - Shell (LON:) shareholders should vote against a climate activist resolution seeki ...
Read moreI thought I was done, but 365assetexchange threw a “compliance payment” in my way.
{Current column}This was never mentioned during registration or in any policy on their website. I followed every ste ...
Read moreSTOCK MENKUL suddenly decided that a $2,120 “compliance verification“
{Current column}They had already verified my account and confirmed that everything was in order, so I trusted them w ...
Read more
Popular Articles
- 4 big analyst picks: Snap gets a fresh upgrade; a big day for Tencent Music By
- FXprofinance refused to release my funds unless I pay a $2,250 “exit
- I thought I was done, but 365assetexchange threw a “compliance payment” in my way.
- UnixCapitals asked me to pay a $2,050 “liquidity management”
- XRP, ADA and MATIC Are Altcoins to Watch This Coming Week By CoinEdition
- Equityzonestakes demanded a $1,670 “compliance
Latest articles
-
Canada's Alberta braces for more wildfires as volatile weather worsens By Reuters
-
Obrbanc decided out of nowhere that I must pay a $1,880 “security clearance fee”
-
FXprofinance has refused my withdrawal request unless I pay a $2,020 “
-
kriskopy threw in a $1,890 “security processing fee” just as I attempted to get my funds back.
-
US housing market stabilizing as single
-
To my frustration, MBFequity is requiring a “final clearance fee”