Critics of the Panama Canal Handover: Two Core Arguments

Opponents of the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties (which transferred the Panama Canal to Panama by 1999) centered their critique on two pillars:

1. Treaty Violation Claim

Critics argued the 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty granted the U.S. rights "in perpetuity" to the Canal Zone. They contended the 1977 treaties unilaterally abrogated a binding international agreement without consent of the Zonians (U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone) or Senate supermajority for treaty termination.

2. Racism and Imperialism Allegations

Critics asserted U.S. control was rooted in racial paternalism and imperial ambition: the 1903 treaty was negotiated with a nascent Panama (which the U.S. helped secede from Colombia) under gunboat diplomacy; Canal Zone governance segregated "gold roll" (white Americans) and "silver roll" (West Indian, Panamanian) workers; and U.S. military interventions (1903, 1964, 1989) enforced dominance.

Counterarguments

• Hay-Bunau-Varilla was imposed on a weak Panama; renegotiation corrected an inequity.
• U.S. gained permanent neutrality rights and defense access.
• Panama's subsequent management (via ACP) has been efficient and profitable.

The debate reflected broader Cold War tensions: anti-communist hawks saw handover as retreat; human-rights advocates saw it as decolonization. The Senate ratified 68–32; the canal transferred peacefully on Dec 31, 1999.