Panama and the Long Fight for Full Sovereignty

Middle and High School

By Miriam Elizabeth Villanueva

Unit Summary

On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Panama Canal’s transfer in 1999, Panamanian President José Raul Molina reiterated to the world who truly owns the canal. “Every square meter of the canal belongs to Panama and will continue to…when it comes to our canal, and our sovereignty, we will all unite under our Panamanian flag.” His fiery speech comes on the heels of rhetoric President Trump shared, suggesting the United States should regain control of the canal.

For over one hundred years, Panama led a long struggle for full sovereignty of the canal and the Canal Zone — one that extended beyond political control to the way history was told and remembered. The canal and specifically the Zone, constituted a state within a state and impeded Panama’s efforts at overseeing its nation. The Zone — a fifty mile long and five miles wide on either side of the canal — served as a constant reminder of U.S.’s intervention in Panamanian affairs and imposition on their land. 

The fight for the canal stems back to when Philippe Bunau-Varilla (a French engineer who had worked on an earlier canal attempt) traveled to the United States as an envoy and signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903. The treaty’s disadvantageous stipulations were an immediate irritant to the young nation. From then on, Panamanians endured U.S. exclusionary policies, militarized barbed-wire fences, and military bases within the Zone. Not only that, but the isthmus had to contend with other countries viewing it as a U.S. colony, lacking a national identity worthy of teaching aside from the canal’s construction. However, this erasure ignores Panamanians’ agency and rich history of resilience and ultimate success in securing the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties that transferred the canal over in 1999 and closed the Zone.

Teaching Panamanian resilience shows its similarities with other Central American countries’ struggles for neo-colonial liberation. Teaching this unit on the long durée of resistance against the United States allows educators to center youth activism, cultural resistance, and the enduring quest for justice Panamanians still pursue for their national identity.

In the first lesson, “The Treaty No Panamanian Signed,” the aim is to show students that the construction of the Panama Canal was not just an engineering project but also a site of conflicting visions. While the United States saw it as a strategic asset, Panamanians had their own aspirations — modernization, economic growth, and national pride. Historian Peter Szok argues that Panamanian elite viewed the isthmus as a “place of international transit,” and believed the country an international crossroads for the world, using the concept of a “Hanseatic Republic.” Elites justified foreign control of economic development if it meant modernizing and westernizing the nation. Szok posits that they aimed to construct the interoceanic canal for this very reason. Students would have a chance to analyze this Hanseatic vision to understand what shaped national identity and initial support for a canal.

The next lesson, “Zonian Apartheid: The Gold and Silver Roles,” shifts the focus to U.S. hegemony over the Canal Zone with an overview of the Gold and Silver Roll system. The lesson has students participate in a gallery walk — an activity where students review multiple images around the room — of photographs of the Canal Zone segregated areas alongside wage scales, housing, and education policies. They learn how the Canal Zone’s segregation racially stratified employees. 

In the Zone, Zonian authorities reserved higher wages and nicer conditions for white American workers, while Afro-Caribbean and countless others worked in lesser jobs and experienced worse living conditions. Julie Green notes how 10,000 West Indian workers at the peak of the construction in 1909 earned five U.S. cents per hour, the lowest wage possible, for “pick and shovel” work. Considered the most treacherous work, the mortality rate for West Indians was high, with estimates nearing 15,000 deaths. In contrast to the Gold Roll workers’ amenities and benefits in the Canal Zone, examining the lives of the Silver Roll workers reveals for students that segregation from the U.S. Jim Crow South made its way to Latin America. The activity elucidates for students how segregation laws inculcated a push for full sovereignty over the Zone.

The entrenched labor inequalities and exclusion fueled tensions over Panamanian sovereignty, culminating in the 1964 Flag Riots. In the lesson, “Youth Activism and the 1964 Riots,” students analyze how disparities, along with long-standing frustrations over U.S control, ignited national resistance, particularly among Panama’s youth. On January 9th, 1964, Panamanian students marched to raise their national flag in the U.S.-controlled Canal Zone, an act met with violence and the desecration of the flag. The ensuing riots claimed the lives of 21 Panamanians and catalyzed significant political change.

Building on student engagement, this hands-on research activity has students analyzing primary sources as imagined Panamanian students wrestling with whether to join the movement to hoist the flag up the Zonian flagpole. They analyze primary sources such as eyewitness accounts, photographs, the U.S. decree to allow for the flag’s presence in the Zone, and political maps of the Canal Zone. By working in groups to investigate the sources — the student march, the escalation of violence, and the aftermath that encouraged Panamanian youth to enter the Zone — students develop an intellectual curiosity to examine the reasons behind the National Institute youth’s decision to risk their lives. The lesson culminates with a poster-making activity, where students reclaim the story by visually commemorating the January 9th martyrs through Panamanian symbols, slogans, and artistic interpretations. 

The final lesson, “The U.S. vs. Panama Debate: Competing Visions of Sovereignty,” secures Panama’s place in Central American Studies. It examines the differing ways the United States and Panama debated the agreements. One side focused on strategic control and international influence, while the other saw it as a long-overdue step in an unfinished struggle for true independence with the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977. With the comparison, students explore the diverse ways Panamanians defined sovereignty and contested the lingering U.S. military presence on the isthmus. The lesson begins with a brainstorm of understanding the stakes for both nations with questions like, “what does sovereignty mean to a nation” and “does sovereignty always mean full independence.” Students personalize the response and derive a class definition for the word “sovereignty” and its importance in ensuring a nation’s economic, political, and security standing with its citizens. In setting up the discussion on sovereignty, students then participate in a hands-on primary source analysis of key arguments from U.S. officials and Panamanian leaders. In presenting their conclusions to the class, students see how the same treaties can generate different anxieties and aspirations across both countries.

Miriam Elizabeth Villanueva is an historian of modern Latin American history. She received her Ph.D. from Texas Christian University with a dual emphasis on cultural studies and borderland theory. Originally from the South Texas border, Villanueva is a high school U.S. and world history teacher in Massachusetts. She serves as a Teaching Central America advisor. Read more.