Panamanian sovereignty over the canal misplaced in U.S. translation.

After 25 years of saving the canal and the definitive departure of foreign military, analysts have considered the possibility of the return of what they call the fifth frontier.

According to what is known from the signed declaration, the Central American nation will allow the deployment of U.S. military in areas adjacent to the interoceanic waterway.

A joint statement by the Panamanian government and a high-ranking representative of Donald Trump's administration raised understandable complaints and doubts, which were not resolved after clarifications by the Central American country.

The Panamanian Minister of Security, Frank Abrego, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, signed the document in which, according to the Isthmian side, the neutrality of the interoceanic waterway will be respected and the search for a cost-neutral scheme for the warships of the Northern power and of any country.

Moreover, in Washington, the Secretary of Defense euphorically proclaimed that the United States had regained control of the Panama Canal.

To add insult to injury, the Panamanian government was forced to complain to its counterpart that the English version of the joint communique omitted a sentence about Panamanian

sovereignty over the waterway.

The Panamanian government reiterated that the canal is and will remain Panamanian, but the door was opened to a greater, albeit temporary, U.S. military presence.

Enough for the popular, labor and political sectors to make critical statements about the agreement.

In addition, they recalled that the presence of troops from the northern neighbor is a controversial and sensitive issue because the United States had an enclave with military bases before handing over the canal in 1999.

Many analysts questioned whether the new declaration called into question that the canal should remain open and secure.

After 25 years of saving the canal and the final departure of foreign military personnel, analysts considered the possibility of the return of what they call the fifth frontier.

All this in the midst of a White House narrative about what it calls the Chinese presence and U.S. national security, responsible for the bloody invasion of 1989.