No. of Recommendations: 4
Lol. I don’t need you (or anyone on this board for that matter) to give me a history lesson.I think you do need to spend some time with history, and I could've predicted you'd reply with bullshit and braggadocio.
The argument isn't emotionally driven, we had an Imperialism period - that's a fact. We have poor reputations in most of Latin America because of actions we've taken - and you don't appear to know the actions we've taken. Most of us get our history of Latin America as a series of articles we read, maybe a podcast or two. So just look it over. Look up Smedley - he's partly a likeable kook it seems.
The US negotiated with Colombia for the Zone, but the Colombians wanted more money. I think it only took a thousand men in a bloodless action to kick Colombia out and we made a treaty with the new Panama.
SNIP The Canal and the Panamanians
The frayed relations between the U.S. and Panama began almost immediately after the signing of the 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty that allowed the U.S. to build and maintain the Panama Canal on the Isthmus of Panama. Panama was established as a country, with U.S. assistance, shortly before the treaty was signed in 1903. Over the years, the Panamanians sought to obtain more equitable provisions from the original treaty than the U.S. was willing to concede. The two countries addressed these issues through adjustments to the original agreement during the treaty negotiations of 1936, 1942, and 1955.
The need for continued negotiations was due to what the Panamanians viewed as improper interpretations by the U.S. of the original treaty. These misinterpretations revolved around matters such as the sovereignty issue, the “in perpetuity” clause, flying the Panamanian flag in the Zone, the importing of third party goods into the Zone, the exclusion of Panamanian goods and services from Zone markets, and discrimination against Panamanians working in the Zone. The U.S. on the other hand felt that the Panamanians viewed the Canal as “their meal ticket” and exploited it accordingly.
Most Panamanians were convinced that the United States did not deal with them fairly and felt a high sense of frustration with Panama’s failure to obtain adjustments in the Canal treaty structure that would favor Panama’s interests. Panama deeply objected to the exercise of sovereign powers by the United States in the Canal Zone and considered the situation an affront to her national dignity. The following documents illustrate Panamanian reaction to this situation...
...If the United States wanted to improve its relations with Panama, it had to recognize that there were real misunderstandings concerning the treaties, that these misunderstandings needed to be addressed, and that U.S. basic rights concerning the Zone needed to be altered in some way to benefit Panama. Recently declassified records focus on issues such as whether or not the U.S. needed to make concessions, what type of concessions, the extent to which Panama needed to be involved in the Canal’s operation, and Panama's economic link to the Canal Zone. This constant back and forth over what the treaties allowed or didn’t allow created tension between the countries. What follows is a sample of the various documents that focus on this issue... Dox in link
...In addition to treaty issues, the day to day Zone operations and living conditions between Panamanians and Zone officials and employees also created tensions. The United States Ambassador was charged with the responsibility for the conduct of relations with Panama. However, there were other U.S. government agencies in the Zone which also affected relations with Panama. This included the Governor of the Zone who was also President of the Panama Canal Company, and the military as represented by the Commander-in-Chief Caribbean Command (CINCARIB) later known as the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). These organizations operated independently of each other and did not always consult with each other before determining policy or acting on that policy. The following documents focus on the organizational problems and tensions and how they impacted internal U.S. and Panamanian government relations... Dox in link
...The Canal civilian officials were accused of discriminating against the Panamanian labor force in the Zone while the U.S. citizens that worked on the Zone, known as “Zonians”, were seen as having colonial attitudes when dealing with Panamanians. The presence of U.S. troops and military installations was seen as an “affront” by the local Panamanians to their sovereignty. Whether Panama was or was not treated as a territory or a colony deeply colored the U.S. relations with Panama and affected social and economic interactions between the countries. The following documents highlight this situation...
...The problems between the U.S. and Panamanians reached fever pitch in 1959 and 1964 with overt riots and demonstrations against U.S. presence on the Isthmus. Although the 1959 demonstrations took place first, they are seldom cited while the 1964 demonstrations are better known and highlighted often to show Panamanian displeasure with the U.S. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson attempted to address Panamanian violence and demonstrations prior to 1964. In response to the 1959 violence, President Eisenhower issued an announcement of a nine point program to improve relations between the United States and Panama. The program called for such things as pay increases and improved housing for the Panamanian employees, and increased pensions for disabled former employees. However, the program failed to institute changes prior to 1964. The following documents focus on the pre-1964 events that acted as a catalyst to the 1964 riots...
...1964 saw more riots and mob violence. The riots revolved around not allowing the Panamanian flag to fly next to the U.S. flag at the Balboa High School. Even though an agreement had been reached sometime in 1962 under President John F. Kennedy to allow the Panamanian flag to be flown alongside the American flag at civilian locations, this order was not carried out. Therefore, on January 9, 1964, with the Panamanian flag still not being flown next to the U.S. flag at Balboa High School, some of the Panamanian students decided to march to the entrance of the Canal Zone to show their displeasure.
What resulted were three days of riots, destruction of two million dollars’ worth of property, and at least 20 people killed. Panama broke off relations with the U.S. and accused them of aggression and appealed to the Organization of American States and the United Nations. The incident was used as a rallying cry among Panamanians against U.S. authority in the Canal Zone. On December 18, 1964, President Johnson issued a statement announcing that the United States would proceed with plans for a sea level canal and would negotiate with Panama a new treaty to replace the Treaty of 1903. The following documents highlight the considerations entertained by the U.S. government to defuse the rioting...
...In the meantime, experts were to determine the need for another canal through 1980 and attempts would be made to give the Panamanians, according to Department of State officials, “enough more or less meaningless concessions over the next few years to keep them from raising too much hell over the issue.” Concessions were always a negotiating point both sides used as leverage against the other as shown in the following documents...
https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/p...And there's more. The next section starts:
U.S. Foreign Policy, the Canal, and Panamanian Politics
Canal issues and treaty negotiations dominated Panama’s internal politics and relations with the U.S. Both sides saw the canal dispute as an explosive issue that could disrupt the upcoming Treaty negotiations. The treaty negotiations in 1964 became a campaign issue in the Panamanian elections. Various Panamanian political groups used the names of the U.S. and the Canal as reminders to the voters that they have been treated as a territory or colony and not as a sovereign partner as promised in the 1903 treaty...
----------------------------
I think it's an emotional argument to say, "We built it, spent billions...", but recognizing our defense interests isn't an emotional argument. So we have to keep an eye on it and have friendly relations while letting them know breaking neutrality will have serious consequences. That's best communicated in private and not by a tweet or presser. It's an easy read Dope, but I don't think you'll read it.
