“In Seven Days, Panama’s Sovereignty Regressed to 1904”

Interview with Graciela Dixon a former Supreme Court president

The former judge warns that the memorandum with Washington not only allows “military bases,” but also involves Panama in the war between the United States and China.

By Juan Alberto Cajar B. (La Estrella de Panama)

The former magistrate warns that the memorandum with Washington not only allows for “military bases” but also involves Panama in the war between the United States and China.

The newly signed memorandum between the United States and the Panamanian government establishes military bases, violates the Neutrality Treaty, and represents a setback of more than 100 years in the struggle for sovereignty. In those harsh and direct terms, that’s how former Supreme Court Chief Justice Graciela Dixon sees it. She argues that, in light of the Constitution, the document must go through the National Assembly and be approved by referendum.

“If the United States is thinking about arming the Canal as one of its strongholds to confront China, Panama must be smarter than to surrender. What business do we have in the middle of that conflict?” warns the jurist in this first episode of La Estrella de Panamá’s Polygraph.

Does this memorandum between the US and Panama violate the Neutrality Treaty?

The memorandum violates the treaty; it expressly states that there will be no military presence of another state on Panamanian territory. One cannot claim neutrality if there’s military presence of any kind, under any excuse—not even under the argument of protecting the Canal, which has operated for over 100 years and only ceased once, and that was when the U.S. invaded (1989). They are the only ones we’ve had political conflicts with that have led to repeated violence. And now the aggressor comes to tell us they’re going to protect us?

The government argues that the memorandum is nothing different from past actions…

That’s the old technique of deflecting responsibility, saying “I just did what others have done.” Of course, countries can seek security cooperation, but this is a cession of territory for military use. We are accepting the presence of troops on our territory based on an unfounded hypothesis that has nothing to do with reality—a reenactment of what we lived through for too many decades under US military presence. Additionally, it makes us a target of any attack against the US.

We’d be caught between two nuclear powers: the US and China…

The US constantly tells Latin America to cut ties with China, but they themselves not only maintain diplomatic relations, but also extremely strong economic and commercial ties. (…) It wasn’t other countries, including China, that decided to break trade agreements or pull away from the World Trade Organization—it was the US under Donald Trump’s leadership. They have created global tension with their closest allies to the point where the likelihood of that tension evolving into armed conflict is not low. All wars have economic roots.

If the US is thinking of arming the Canal as a bastion against China, Panama needs to be smarter than to surrender, because we are not part of that conflict. What are we doing in the middle of that? Under no circumstance should Panama accept military presence under the pretext of offering us security—especially when that security is unnecessary, since the Canal is safe as long as it remains neutral.

From a legal perspective, what do you consider the critical points of the memorandum?

The document identifies a series of infrastructure sites that are ceded for US control. It grants access to authorized locations, installations, and designated areas for use by US personnel and contractors, at no cost. Article 7 says participants may decide jointly—not must. That means they can also act unilaterally, designating certain sections for exclusive US use. It doesn’t say “military bases,” but it has all the features and design of military infrastructure for use by a foreign state.

Isn’t that contrary to Panama’s Constitution?

Of course. It also says that areas designated for US use can be accessed only if Panama’s Ministry of Public Security notifies US personnel in advance—meaning our own security personnel can’t even enter freely. But it’s supposed to be a “joint-use” area. Now we have to ask for permission? How can you say that’s not a military base?

Article 5 of the Neutrality Treaty explicitly says only Panama shall have military forces, defense sites, and military installations on its territory…

Exactly, which is why it’s a violation. The president just signed an agreement that allows a foreign state—in this case, the United States—to have military installations on our soil (…) supposedly to protect us from the “Chinese threat” and the Chinese Communist Party. Have you ever felt threatened by China? Other than eating dim sum at a Chinese restaurant in Panama? I’ve never seen any such threat—not even in neighborhoods with Chinese shops. People have coexisted with Chinese communities since 1850 here without feeling threatened. The only real threats we’ve had throughout our republican history have come from the United States.

Also, Article 4 of the Constitution says Panama abides by international law. That means the treaty is part of national law. Therefore, this memorandum violates both the treaty and the Constitution.

Some jurists argue that the memorandum doesn’t need to go through the Assembly, calling it a “simplified agreement” like the Salas-Becker Treaty…

This is not just any agreement—it impacts the main natural and economic resource of this country. It cedes the use of our territory to a foreign army for a set period. We cannot cede territory to the US, to China, or to any country on Earth. That interpretation by some lawyers is not valid because the Constitution is clear: it must go through the Assembly.

The Court ruled the Salas-Becker Treaty wasn’t unconstitutional. What if this gets the same ruling?

All possible legal actions must be taken, including filing a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court. Then we’ll see if the Court believes that an agreement that literally contradicts the Constitution is not unconstitutional. I know my former colleagues, and while there may be other kinds of differences, I don’t know any magistrate who truly believes it’s okay for a foreign military to be present—of any kind—in our territory. I could be surprised, but that’s democracy: in the end, the final word belongs to the people.

What role should the Assembly play now?

The Constitution mandates that all treaties related to the Canal must be approved by the Assembly. Any document signed by the Executive must be approved by the National Assembly to be valid. Until then, it has no effect. I want to hear Assembly members try to convince citizens this document is good for Panama. I want to see if they’ll be so unpatriotic, so traitorous to our history and national identity, as to approve it.
But in case lawmakers suffer sudden amnesia, forget our history, and decide to approve it—they still don’t have the final say. This document must go to a referendum. It must be approved by the Panamanian people.

How do you explain the government’s stance?

It’s sad, but we’ve regressed. In just seven days, we went back to 1904. In seven days, we allowed a foreign power to turn us into its protectorate, because they declared they’re here to “protect” us. The only explanation I see is the Executive’s weakness—a mix of stubbornness, arrogance, and a dose of cowardice. It’s sad because the students from the Instituto Nacional in 1964 were weak, but they weren’t cowards.

There’s a lawsuit against the president in the Assembly. Does it have merit?

I haven’t seen the lawsuit, so I can’t say if it’s valid. What I can say is that the president has walked on slippery ground—he’s crossed the line. I don’t understand the temperament that sometimes projects strength and arrogance, yet other times looks like a kitten that allows these kinds of things from a foreign country and tries to justify it. My personal legal opinion is that he’s dangerously violated legal and constitutional norms—but I’m not the judge.

What options does the public have in the face of this existential threat to the Panamanian nation?

Pick up the flag, kiss it, and move forward. This is the time for young Panamanians to take up the flag and keep going—because you know what? We are on the right side of history. The president, his people, and the United States government are not on the right side of history. It’s up to us to continue writing it—with dignity, with courage, and with faith that we will prevail.

First published in Spanish by La Estrella de Panamá and translated and posted in English by Havana Times.

Read more interviews here on Havana Times.