How the Panama Canal helped make the U.S.

a
world power

The first P&O Orient liner Oriana returns to Southampton after her maiden
voyage to the Panama Canal in 1961. She was the largest vessel to pass
through the canal since the German liner Bremen in 1939. Photo by Central
Press/Getty Images
BY ANYA VAN WAGTENDONK August 15, 2014

Considered one of the

wonders of the modern world, the Panama Canal opened for business 100
years ago this Friday, linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and providing a
new route for international trade and military transport.

At the time it was built, the canal was an engineering marvel, relying on a
series of locks that lift ships and their thousands of pounds of cargo
above mountains.
But thousands of workers died during its construction, and its history has
seen no shortage of controversy, including a contentious transference of
authority from the US to Panama in the 1970s.
Work recently began on a substantial expansion effort that will allow the
canal to accommodate modern cargo needs.
PBS NewsHour recently interviewed several regional experts to discuss the
canals first 100 years, and to get a sense of whats ahead.
Ovidio Diaz-Espino grew up in Panama and trained as a lawyer. He is the
author of How Wall Street Created a Nation: J.P. Morgan, Teddy Roosevelt,
and the Panama Canal.
Richard Feinberg is a professor of International Political Economy at the
University of California, San Diego, and a nonresident Senior Fellow with the
Latin America Initiative of the Bookings Institution. He served as special
assistant to President Clinton and senior director of the National Security
Councils Office of Inter-American Affairs.
Julie Greene is a professor of History at the University of Maryland,
specializing in United States labor and working-class history, and co-directs
the Universitys Center for the History of the New America. She is the
author of The Canal Builders: Making Americas Empire at the Panama
Canal, and serves as President of the Society for Historians of the Gilded
Age and Progressive Era.
Noel Maurer is an associate professor of business administration at Harvard

University, and the author of The Big Ditch: How America Took, Built, Ran,
and Ultimately Gave Away the Panama Canal.
Orlando Prez is Associate Dean, School of Humanities & Social Sciences at
Millersville University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Political Culture in
Panama: Democracy after Invasion, and a member of the Scientific Support
Group for the Latin American Public Opinion Project at Vanderbilt University.

Steam shovels load rocks blasted away onto twin tracks that remove the earth
from the Panama Canal bed circa 1908. It took the United States 10 years to
build the canal at a cost of $375 million (which equals about $8.6 billion today).
Photo by Buyenlarge/Getty Images
PBS NewsHour: Why did the U.S. build the Panama Canal?

Richard Feinberg: This is about Teddy Roosevelt, the great nationalist, the
imperialist. The canal is built in the early part of the 20th century, right

after the US-Spanish war. It was when the US was sowing its oats. They had
expanded their power over Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Caribbean, but also
the Philippines, so the US is becoming a Pacific power, and the Panama
Canal was about linking our growing Pacific power to more traditional
Atlantic relationships. It was linked to the idea of the rise of the US as a
global power, with both commercial and military potential.
The canal was a geopolitical strategy to make the United States the most
powerful nation on earth.Ovidio Diaz-Espino: The US for the first time was
going to be able to gain control of both oceans. That was critical in times of
war. There was no air power, so the way you fought an enemy was through
the sea. World power was consistent with maritime power. Americans knew
they needed this to move ships from east to west quickly. If they did that,
they would control power because they would control the oceans. The Canal
was a geopolitical strategy to make the United States the most powerful
nation on earth.
Also, the economic impact was massive. Now you could unite the trade
between the two oceans. Starting in the 1890s, and until WWI, global trade
was just as significant as it is now, so it was important to have a commute
route across the continent. This is why Wall Street was very supportive and
helped fund it.
The US wanted to frame a vision of itself as more selfless, more a help to
the world, more advancing civilization.Julie Greene: In part, the Canal was
central to the US vision of itself as a beneficent power in the world. As the
US was emerging as a global power, it was important to distinguish
themselves from the old powers of Europe, which they saw as more crassly
seeking power and control and colonialism. The US wanted to frame a
vision of itself as more selfless, more a help to the world, more advancing
civilization. Of course theres the other side to that: often the US was,
despite its self-image, imposing its power. In Panama, it asserted its power

over the republic and dominated the countys history for 100 years. But
nonetheless the canal has remained central to American national identity,
in part because its seen to exemplify that beneficent self-image.

The SS Ancon, the first Ship to pass through the Panama Canal on August 15,
1914. Photo by Getty Images

PBS NewsHour: What did it take to get the Panama Canal built? What was
the cost of this project?
Julie Greene: It was in incredible project, the largest public construction
project in US history. The engineering, technical, medical, and scientific
challenges were incredible, first having to get disease under control and

then figure out whether it should be a sea-level or a lock canal. It was 40

miles long and literally cut through the continental divide, so it was
extremely difficult.
Orlando Prez: The idea of an interoceanic canal dates back to the Spanish
colonial period. The French attempted to do this and failed. After that
failure, the US came in. The American ingenuity was of building, rather than
a sea level canal, a lock canal. The way the terrain is, a sea-level canal
would flood, it was prone to landslides and the terrain was not stable
enough. You had to accommodate different levels. It was lower on one side
than on the other side, with mountains in between. The systems of locks is
what made it possible.
When it rained, the dirt would turn to puddles, which attracted mosquitos,
which meant malaria rips through your workforce.Noel Maurer: A key thing
the US did, was they used railroads to truck out the dirt. The French were
piling it up, which led to landslides. Also, when it rained, the dirt would turn
to puddles, which attracted mosquitos, which meant malaria rips through
your workforce. The US established medical innovations to control malaria
and yellow fever.
Ovidio Diaz-Espino: The construction itself was so significant that at one
point one-third of the city of Pittsburgh was working to build the canal.
Every lock of the canal, and there are four, has more steel, more concrete,
and took more work than the Empire State Building. Something like six
Empire State Building constructions are here. There was massive steel,
provided by US Steel. Massive concrete provided by Portland Cement. GE
had to invent new type of machineries to be able to move the ships, these
huge tankards that only had a few inches on either side needed to be
controlled. Railroad had to be developed with minute precision. Dredging
techniques used to dredge the Port of New York had to be much more
precise.

With such a massive body of work it probably employed one-third of Central

America and the Caribbean, and the US was heavily influenced by it and by
the money that was flowing through Wall Street, the banks, the insurance
companies.
Richard Feinberg: Congress was raising questions of, Do we need this, is it
worth it? So in 1906 when it was under construction, Teddy Roosevelt
travelled down, the first time a sitting US president ever left the continental
United States while in office. He staged a successful PR stunt: he sat in a
big earth moving machine wearing a Panama hat, made a speech that
America could and needed to do this, and when he returned to the US the
Senate supported its construction.
Julie Greene: But on top of that had to do with the human challenges
involved. The chief engineer said at one point that the real challenge of this
canal, and what allowed the US to succeed, was in figuring out how to
manage and discipline the humans.
That was my contribution, he said. By that, he meant they had to build a
whole society: a police force, dorms, cafeterias, a judicial system. Forty-five
thousand women and men, mostly men, came from dozens of different
countries, and then thousands of women and children came to be with their
menfolk. To create a world for them and then to keep it orderly was a
challenge.
PBS NewsHour: What was the human toll?
Julie Greene: The United States built the Canal between 1904 and 1914,
picking up the ball from the disastrous efforts by the French. The loss of life
during the French era was much greater because disease was more
widespread. The US managed to get yellow fever completely under control,
and malaria largely under control. By the official US statistics, the mortality

rate was about 10,000 people, maybe a little less. But its hard to gauge:
one historian who looked more closely argued that the death rate was
probably 15,000 or 1/10 of all men who worked on the project.
27,000 people died building the Panama Canal during those two periods.
Can you imagine an infrastructure project today that cost 27,000 lives?
Richard Feinberg: Panama had not existed before this. There were some
independence movements which the US decided to support, creating a new
country in order to construct this canal. So Panamanians who welcomed
independence welcomed the canal. But the canal was built mostly by
foreign workers. They imported tens of thousands of Caribbean workers,
many of whom died from disease or accidents.
Ovidio Diaz-Espino: 27,000 people died building the Panama Canal during
those two periods. Can you imagine an infrastructure project today that
cost 27,000 lives?
PBS NewsHour: What were some of the controversies surrounding its
construction? How was it seen on the ground in Panama and by its
neighbors?
Julie Greene: The chief engineer had extensive powers thanks to an
executive order.
Anyone in the Canal Zone not productive could be deported. Many were.
Workers who refused to show up would be, if not deported, sentenced to jail
time. They had a massive police force, and did not allow strikes. Workers
who might try to organize could be and were quickly deported. In the end,
this kind of careful system of rules and regulations allowed order.
The US relied on a vast system of racial and ethnic segregation, the Gold
and Silver Rolls. American, white workers were paid in gold, and they had
better housing and conditions. Most workers of African descent in the
Caribbean were on silver rolls. They lived in hovels and ate outside or

under porches during the torrential rainfalls. Its not surprising theyd rely
on segregation, but the demographics of the Canal Zone werent black and
white. Thousands of Spaniards came in and found that they were referred to
as the semi-white Europeans, and excluded from the white hotels and
cafeterias. They were pretty ticked off, and built up a vast network of
anarchist politics and would go on strike even though they werent allowed
to. So the US found it constantly had to manage problems resulting from its
own policies.
Noel Maurer: Bringing in all these black laborers created a bit of a stink in
Panama, and contributed to racial tensions that lasted a long time. A big
chunk of the country today is descended from those workers, creating
tensions.
Beginning in 1999, the effect for Panama has been massive. It was as if we
suddenly discovered oil, except its a more stable commodity than
oil.Orlando Prez: For Panamanian nationals at the time, this was the
accomplishment of their dreams, to position Panama at the heart of a global
commercial enterprise or system, to use the geographic location of Panama
to its commercial advantage. Geography has always determined
Panamanian politics and the economy. The problem was how that
accomplishment came about, which was essentially by subordinating a
chunk of their territory to an extraterritorial power, through a treaty that no
Panamanians signed. The payment [to Panamanians] was substantial, but it
wasnt anywhere near the benefits that the US would accrue. So the
Panamanians started with the great hope that it would place Panama at the
center of world commerce, but also resenting that they achieved this
victory at the cost of ceding sovereignty over the Canal itself.

PBS NewsHour: In 1977, President Carter signed a treaty with General Omar
Torrijos, then Commander of the Panamanian National Guard, ceding control
of the Canal to Panama beginning in 1999. What impact did this shift in
authority have?
Ovidio Diaz-Espino: The Canal was administered exclusively by Americans
for the interest of American military and geopolitical concerns.
Panamanians felt they were not benefitting from the canal. And there was a
fence. As a child growing up, I could not go into the Canal Zone because I
was Panamanian. It was pure American land. This was the most valuable
piece of land in the country, and it was being exploited by somebody else.
There was a lot of conflict leading to massacres, students killed by soldiers
because they tried to raise a Panamanian flag at the Canal. It was an
unstable situation.
Richard Feinberg: I wasnt in the Clinton administration during the handover
but I was part of the negotiations leading up to it, and I was also in the
Carter administration for the treaty. The treaty was a huge political debate.
Reagan enhanced his reputation as a strong nationalist by opposing the
treaties, and it cost Carter dearly, in terms of creating a narrative that he
was somehow retreating from American power abroad, which was later
compounded by crises in Iran and elsewhere. But it was extremely
important for relations with Panama and Latin America.
Noel Maurer: By the time the treaty came along, the US benefits from the
Canal were almost gone. This wasnt charity, it wasnt Carter being nice to
the Latin Americans. This was strategy. By the 1970s, American farmers
shipping food to Asia could railroad to Seattle and ship from there because
railroad costs was much cheaper post-WWII. Militarily, the Canal turned out
to be strategically useless, and totally indefensible. Truman tried to hand it
over the UN. It was losing money under Johnson. The only reason for the
political opposition to the Carter treaties was that it was a symbol of
American national pride, especially after Vietnam.

Ovidio Diaz-Espino: The political consequence in Panama was felt

immediately. Within two years, the Canal Zone came down. The Americans
were still managing it, and the military bases were still here, so the security
was still in the hands of the Americans, but it was now Panamanian land.
That defused a lot of tensions not just in Panama but throughout Latin
America, as it had been the poster child of American colonialism in Latin
America.
The Panamanians have done a marvelous job at running it. Its efficient and
profitable.Orlando Prez: The Panamanians have done a marvelous job at
running it.
Its efficient and profitable. Its run independent of the Panamanian
government. There have been very few reported or alleged cases of
corruption within management. Its a very efficient, moneymaking
enterprise, and I think everyone that looks at how Panamanians have
handled the management, creating an authority for it, they wish the
national government was run as efficiently and effectively as that.
Ovidio Diaz-Espino: Beginning in 1999, the effect for Panama has been
massive. It was as if we suddenly discovered oil, except its a more stable
commodity than oil, and it will become even more stable as there is more
dependence on the Canal as a result of the expected growth in global trade
between Asia and America. And its not just the revenues, but everything
around it: 3 major ports creating thousands of jobs. A whole industry
devoted to shipping services as a result. Sixty percent of all world cargo has
a Panamanian flag. Theres a burgeoning residential market in the former
Canal Zone, and a huge part around the canal is this untouched rainforest,
a watershed, so its becoming is a hotbed of ecotourism. Now theyre
planning for cruise ships to drop off in Panama City. This is all because of
the canal.

And theres something more important, which I call the peace element. The
canal gives us something no neighbor has, and thats political stability. The
neutrality clause in the Torrijos-Carter treaty says that the US has the right
to intervene in Panamanian internal affairs if the security of the canal is
ever threatened. Why is there no corruption, why does the canal operate
with the precision of a Swiss watch factory? Because Americans always
have their eyes on it. You know its not going to be ruined.

Construction underway on new locks in the Panama Canal in 2011. Photo by

Juan Jose Rodriguez/AFP/Getty Images
PBS NewsHour: Expansion of the Panama Canal is due to begin soon. What

should we know about this project?

Richard Feinberg: Its a modernization. As container ships have gotten
bigger and bigger, the canal needs to be larger. Theres no doubt that
commercially the expansion is important and it will pay off over time with
the increased traffic that will result, as more and bigger ships pass through.
Julie Greene: Its a huge undertaking being run efficiently. Its behind
schedule, but thats not surprising. What theyre doing is building another
set of lock basins, and theyve designed it in a very green, environmental
way. Instead of using fresh water every time the locks have to be filled,

because that would have been stressful on water supply, they devised an
engineering system that allows them to recycle the water.
There are nonetheless challenges even though green ideals were in mind.
For ships to go through quickly, that will put pressure on the Gatun Lake
and hurt its environment a bit, so theres some debating going on as to
whether they should slow down the speed to protect the lake.
Orlando Prez: The expansion project has generated a huge amount of
employment, and has been the catalyst for high economic growth. Some
Panamanians see a problem with this growth, that its not well shared
across the nation. Panama is still a dual economy. Economic growth is
centered mostly in the urban areas, tied to commercial enterprises, tied to
tourism and to the Canal. But if you go to rural areas, poverty is much
higher.
Julie Greene: Certainly its an important part of the US political economy,
and will be more so with the expansion once its complete in 2015. In fact
lots of changes are happening across the US as different port cities prepare
for the larger ships that will be able to come through.
Ovidio Diaz-Espino: The expansion is important for Panama, but its much
more important for the United States. I cant imagine how much is being
invested in the US. No port was ready to take those ships, so every major
port has to expand. So New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami, Galveston,
New Orleans, all have to do major dredging. Then you need to expand the
highways, and youll need more container space locally. The expense is
massive, and all are racing to prepare. The delay in finishing the project
means the US has more time to get ready.
The other thing is that it is going to change patterns of trade. Right now,
most Asia-US trade comes through Long Beach. That will change. Most
trade by water will go to southern and northeastern ports. That has

implications for railroad companies, truck companies, and entire cities. Joe
Biden said this may make inflation go down, which will make the US more
competitive in its exports to China.
These interviews have been edited for clarity and brevity.
Posted by Thavam