Proposed cost increase to transit Panama Canal

[Bill Seal]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

The historic reasons we chose to return the canal are well documented. What are the reasons that we should not have given it back?

As senator S. I. Hayakawa stated, "we stole it fair and square".

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

As senator S. I. Hayakawa stated, "we stole it fair and square".

Yeah, I think that pretty well sums up the "we should have kept it" argument.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

As senator S. I. Hayakawa stated, "we stole it fair and square".

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Yeah, I think that pretty well sums up the "we should have kept it" argument.

One can reasonably claim the US "stole" the land, from the nation of Colombia that is. But I don't think it's rational to also claim the US "stole" the canal. It was US initiative, engineering & money that built it after all. The French had tried for many, many years but failed. This doesn't mean the US should or shouldn't have later handed it over to the Panamanians, but deciding to do so cannot be justified on the grounds the canal itself was "stolen" in the first instance. How could the US "steal" something which didn't yet exist, which at least one other major power at the time was unable to complete, and which Panama itself presumably lacked the resources to build for itself?

[Bill Seal]

Hayakawa was arguing that Jimmy Carter should NOT give it away. since we stole it fair and square.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

Hayakawa was arguing that Jimmy Carter should NOT give it away. since we stole it fair and square.

Understood, and presumably a (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek comment.

I'd be interested in knowing whether Panama benefitted at all economically from the canal prior to the handover. One poster recently said that the US had been losing money on it, so perhaps not. Perhaps the local labor force benefited economically during its construction, but we also know that disease and general working conditions took a heavy toll.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Sailshabby

I wish we’d gone through before it was turned over, when apparently it was free...

Yea, you missed opportunity to collect on US welfare.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Exile

Understood, and presumably a (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek comment.

I'd be interested in knowing whether Panama benefitted at all economically from the canal prior to the handover. One poster recently said that the US had been losing money on it, so perhaps not. Perhaps the local labor force benefited economically during its construction, but we also know that disease and general working conditions took a heavy toll.

The various US bases located around the Canal employed a lot of Panamanians at good wages for the area.

[hooligan6a]

The US gave the world a gift. It was an economic benefit for everyone. It is still a great asset for world shipping but now it is much more expensive. We could have made a huge amount of money off the world but we did not. I wonder why. Can
anyone answer that?

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by hooligan6a

The US gave the world a gift. It was an economic benefit for everyone. It is still a great asset for world shipping but now it is much more expensive. We could have made a huge amount of money off the world but we did not. I wonder why. Can
anyone answer that?

I dont know why for sure, but I think it was due to the USA policy of running the canal like a neutral utility. This included some tense/controversial times when war ships of unfriendly nations used the canal.

Unfortunately, as bureaucratic organizations tend to do, it became an innefficient corrupt money losing operation. Surprisingly the Panamanians have done an incredible job with the canal. It is well run, hugely profitable, and expanded. This is not how things usually go in Central America.

Im not sure the details of why the USA and Panamanian eras operated so differently, but a comparative study would make interesting reading.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Exile

Understood, and presumably a (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek comment.

I'd be interested in knowing whether Panama benefitted at all economically from the canal prior to the handover. One poster recently said that the US had been losing money on it, so perhaps not. Perhaps the local labor force benefited economically during its construction, but we also know that disease and general working conditions took a heavy toll.

Originally Posted by Paul L

The various US bases located around the Canal employed a lot of Panamanians at good wages for the area.

Yes, I have many friends who were "Zonies" (lived in the Canal Zone). The Zone was the exclusive territory of the USA and was from their accounts like a little slice of the USA with a Southern flavor. While Panamanians were excluded from much of the Zone, there were many employed as result of USA activities there and other US Military activies in Panama.

An interesting side effect which pertains to cruising is that many Kuna indians were also employeed by the Canal/US Military. This helped spread English in Guna Yala. I once met an elderly Kuna Sila (chief) who spoke perfect English. I asked him where he learned English...he used to work for the US military. It is now common to meet Kuna who speak English.

By contrast, the Zonies typically did not learn Spanish. I have several friends who grew up in the Zone and never learned a word of Spanish. Now that they have returned to Panama to retire they are fumbling thru learning Spanish just like the rest of us expats.

So yes, the Canal benefited some Panamanians financially during the USA era...and of course now benefits not only scores of individuals (Canal employees are almost exclusively Panamanian), but the entire nation tremendously.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Exile

One can reasonably claim the US "stole" the land, from the nation of Colombia that is. But I don't think it's rational to also claim the US "stole" the canal. It was US initiative, engineering & money that built it after all. The French had tried for many, many years but failed. This doesn't mean the US should or shouldn't have later handed it over to the Panamanians, but deciding to do so cannot be justified on the grounds the canal itself was "stolen" in the first instance. How could the US "steal" something which didn't yet exist, which at least one other major power at the time was unable to complete, and which Panama itself presumably lacked the resources to build for itself?

So, if I steal land from you and build a structure on it for my benefit which just happens to become beneficial to others...you are OK with that right?

To step that up to a national level, how many would be OK with a more powerful nation siezing land inside their borders for their exclusive use? Neither were the Panamanians. This resentment finally manifest itself as protests and riots in the Canal Zone. That ugly event finally got the USA and Panama seriously to the table.

https://adst.org/2016/07/panama-riot...ing-end-canal/

Under most legal systems, if I stole your land and built on it, I would ultimately lose both the land and the improvments...which I think is just. By the same reasoning it is just that the USA ultimately lost both the land and the improvements.

The Canal was an impressive accomplishment, which still benefits the world immensely, but that does not justify the initial theft.

Many also dont understand, or just dont want to accept, that the USA built the Canal for specific strategic reasons (global benefit was not among them). Long before the turnover, these reasons had ceased to be relevant and the Canal had just become a liability for the USA (financially & politically). This is why the USA shed themselves of the Canal.

I think some Americans resent that Panama is now making money off "our" Canal. However, we were losing money on it and had no plans to change operations of the Canal.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

So, if I steal land from you and build a structure on it for my benefit which just happens to become beneficial to others...you are OK with that right?

To step that up to a national level, how many would be OK with a more powerful nation siezing land inside their borders for their exclusive use? Neither were the Panamanians. This resentment finally manifest itself as protests and riots in the Canal Zone. That ugly event finally got the USA and Panama seriously to the table.

https://adst.org/2016/07/panama-riot...ing-end-canal/

Under most legal systems, if I stole your land and built on it, I would ultimately lose both the land and the improvments...which I think is just. By the same reasoning it is just that the USA ultimately lost both the land and the improvements.

The Canal was an impressive accomplishment, which still benefits the world immensely, but that does not justify the initial theft.

Many also dont understand, or just dont want to accept, that the USA built the Canal for specific strategic reasons (global benefit was not among them). Long before the turnover, these reasons had ceased to be relevant and the Canal had just become a liability for the USA (financially & politically). This is why the USA shed themselves of the Canal.

I think some Americans resent that Panama is now making money off "our" Canal. However, we were losing money on it and had no plans to change operations of the Canal.

Some helpful historical points here, and you are likely correct about legal recourse when it comes to private property owners. I just don't see how this is a relevant or appropriate analogy to how the US acquired the rights to build the canal. But then I'm not schooled up on the history. Did the US simply take over from the French? If so, how did France acquire the land? Panama did not exist at the time, so did the French also "steal" it from Colombia or was it paid for? Were there private property interests in the area that were appropriated illegally, i.e. without proper compensation, or was it uninhabited (and maybe uninhabitable) jungle? Were indigenous people living in the area forcibly displaced? Your analogies to the legalities surrounding private property interests suggest you know something I may not, so maybe you can explain why you believe the US stole the canal from the Panamanians. Neither entity existed at the time.

Unlike the legalities, however, the connotation of your comments seem rather clear, namely likening the US building of the canal to its history of often destructive intervention in Latin America generally. There are examples of that which won't get any argument from me, but I'm just not clear how the American involvement with building the canal necessarily fits that pattern. While the US, like any nation, was certainly motivated by its own self-interest, it did not seize land from another country for its "exclusive" use. If it had, then it doesn't follow that the US insured open (and apparently inexpensive) passage for all nations, including its declared & undeclared enemies. There also doesn't seem to be much question that both the construction and the US administration of the canal benefitted Panama economically, and that these benefits have increased since the handover.

So maybe you have more historical details you can share about the actual takeover from the French, but in the bigger picture I get the sense you are asserting moral judgments about events that occurred over a century ago from the convenience of your modern lens. Or is this "gift to the world" (as another poster phrased it), along with turning it back over to the Panamanians, not enough for the US to earn some redemption for its past sins?

[Paul L]

The primary reason the US built the Canal was to allow quick redeployment of the Pacific and Atlantic naval fleets.

This idea gained wide impetus following the destruction of the battleship USS Maine, in Cuba, on February 15, 1898. The USS Oregon, a battleship stationed in San Francisco, was dispatched to take her place, but the voyage — around Cape Horn — took 67 days. Although she was in time to join in the Battle of Santiago Bay, the voyage would have taken just three weeks via Panama.

[roverhi]

The nation of Panama did not exist prior to the US taking over Canal construction. Panama was a much ignored province of Columbia with virtually no land routes to the mother country and almost exclusively sea access. Panamanian's had been in periodic rebellion and disassociation with Panama for most of its existence,. When the French backed out of building the canal independence fervor increased and there was a state of simmering rebellion for the 10 years before the US revived the canal project. Unfortunately, the Columbian government which had been involved in a protracted revolution of it's own refused to deal reasonably with the US for the rights to build the Canal. Strangely enough the Panamanian independence movement flared up and declared Panama a separate country. The US rapidly recognized the new government, concluded a lease with the new Panamanian government the rest is history. Most of the worlds governments also recognized the Panamanian government within a month of the US.

A treaty to build the canal was negotiated by a Panamanian who'd been out of the country for more than a decade and never returned afterwards. The Panamanian legislature approved the treaty quickly. What did the Panamanians get out of the deal?? They got an independent country without a long drawn out, bloody civil war. The US built the canal which was no small feat in both engineering, expense and lives. Yes there were lives lost to the dreaded Yellow Fever which had been the primary reason for the French abandoning the project. Mosquitos were suspected of carrying the disease but it took a group of Army Doctors led by Walter Reed to positively confirm the cause and begin a concerted Mosquito control effort that finally got the yellow fever epidemic under control.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Exile

Some helpful historical points here, and you are likely correct about legal recourse when it comes to private property owners. I just don't see how this is a relevant or appropriate analogy to how the US acquired the rights to build the canal. But then I'm not schooled up on the history. Did the US simply take over from the French? If so, how did France acquire the land? Panama did not exist at the time, so did the French also "steal" it from Colombia or was it paid for? Were there private property interests in the area that were appropriated illegally, i.e. without proper compensation, or was it uninhabited (and maybe uninhabitable) jungle? Were indigenous people living in the area forcibly displaced? Your analogies to the legalities surrounding private property interests suggest you know something I may not, so maybe you can explain why you believe the US stole the canal from the Panamanians. Neither entity existed at the time.



Unlike the legalities, however, the connotation of your comments seem rather clear, namely likening the US building of the canal to its history of often destructive intervention in Latin America generally. There are examples of that which won't get any argument from me, but I'm just not clear how the American involvement with building the canal necessarily fits that pattern. While the US, like any nation, was certainly motivated by its own self-interest, it did not seize land from another country for its "exclusive" use. If it had, then it doesn't follow that the US insured open (and apparently inexpensive) passage for all nations, including its declared & undeclared enemies. There also doesn't seem to be much question that both the construction and the US administration of the canal benefitted Panama economically, and that these benefits have increased since the handover.



So maybe you have more historical details you can share about the actual takeover from the French, but in the bigger picture I get the sense you are asserting moral judgments about events that occurred over a century ago from the convenience of your modern lens. Or is this "gift to the world" (as another poster phrased it), along with turning it back over to the Panamanians, not enough for the US to earn some redemption for its past sins?

An attempt at a brief summary:

French Era: The area which became Panama was part of Colombia during the French era. The French negotiated a treaty w the Colombians to build the Canal. They went into the project with much national hubris, but little engineering study...it didnt go well.

USA Era: The USA attempted to negotiate with the Colombians, but negotiations were progressing slowly and not going the way the Americans wanted...so...we took it. The way we took it was to encourage revolution in Panama then block Colombian troops from responding. Thus Panama came into existence. The naive Panamians agreed to let Banau-Varilla represent them in Canal negotiations...they gave him an inch and he took a mile (well about 40 actually). Banau-Varilla had a scheme all along and it did not involve his feduciary responsibility to the Panamanians. He took his representation authority way further than the Panamanians intended. He drafted an agreement without their input, handed it to Roosevelt, who promptly signed it. The fledging Panamanian government never even saw the treaty until after it was executed. Banau-Varilla's authority to do this was dubious at best, the Panamanians objected strenuosly, but Roosevelt waved "the big stick" and they shut up. The political cartoon posted earlier illustrates the key points & players in this diplomatic boondoggle nicely.


Re population of the area, yes it was populated by those of european descent mostly in the area of Panama City and various indigenous tribes...mostly Embera in the Canal Zone area. There is a discussion of this earlier in the thread. My contribution to that discussion is linked below. Others are around that area in the thread.

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url...8&share_type=t