Tratado de Neutralidad y Reserva Nunn: el trasfondo del memorándum entre Panamá y Estados Unidos | La Prensa Panamá

Controversy Surrounding the Panama-US Security Memorandum

A recent memorandum of understanding between Panama and the United States regarding security cooperation near the Panama Canal has ignited a debate about its implications for Panamanian sovereignty. The agreement allows for the presence of US military personnel near the canal, raising concerns about violating the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties.

Government's Justification and Opposing Views

The Panamanian government argues that the memorandum does not violate the Treaty of Neutrality, citing the Nunn Reservation, a unilateral annex that permits agreements between both countries on military presence. However, historians and international law experts disagree, asserting that the Nunn Reservation wasn't consensual and that the current memorandum requires constitutional reform. They argue that the agreement contradicts the Treaty of Neutrality, which states that only Panama will maintain military forces and defense sites within its territory.

• Historian Luis Navas Pájaro contends that invoking the Nunn Reservation is a misrepresentation and that any foreign military presence would need a constitutional amendment.
• Internationalist Julio Linares deems the memorandum inconvenient, arguing that its justification—the threat posed by China—is false.
• Internationalist Euclides Tapia states the memorandum violates Article 3 of Panama's constitution, which forbids the cession of national territory.
• Internationalist Irving Arosemena argues that the US doesn't need a permanent military presence to defend the canal, highlighting the need for a national referendum on any agreements concerning the Canal's adjacent areas.

Despite the criticism, the Panamanian government maintains that the memorandum doesn't infringe on the constitution or national sovereignty.