Question:
Was it stupid for former presidents to give up Panama canal Zone?
R J
2007-10-06 18:58:40 UTC
I have also heard there are 15,000 Chinese troops there, if true way? Also the zone seemed like a great place to control a lot of immigration.
Eleven answers:
justa
2007-10-06 19:04:54 UTC
There was no way to control immigration from there, its not even on our border.

We only had a 99 year lease there, our lease was up and not too surprisingly Panama wanted its land back.

I haven't heard anything reliable about Chinese troops there.
2007-10-06 19:23:48 UTC
Not really. The canal lost it's strategic significance a long time ago, That's the only reason the US agreed to give it up in the first place. I haven't heard about Chinese troops being there. I do know that the Panamanian government contracted a Chinese company to run it for them.

As for immigration, I don't know what impact it would have. Most illegal immigrants from Latin America come from countries north of Panama.
2007-10-06 19:18:05 UTC
As others have pointed out, our lease was up and Panama didn't want us there. If we stayed we would have been the agressor.



I don't think that we lost anything. Freedom of the seas is an international right and by extension so is the use of the canal. If Panama, of China for that matter, closes the canal for political reasons we would have every right to go to war and 15,000 or 150,000 Chinese troops wouldn't make any difference.
lilly4
2007-10-06 20:36:09 UTC
Since it opened, the canal has served as a U.S. shipping facility for vessels of all countries. Most ships and cargo traveling through the canal belong to U.S. companies, although a majority of the ships are registered in Panama or Liberia, countries that have low fees and less restrictive regulations.



Starting in the 1930s Gaillard Cut was widened to improve navigation, and in the 1990s it was expanded again. Madden Dam was built in the 1930s to control the flow of water into Gatún Lake and generate electricity. In 1962 a high-level bridge was built over the Pacific entrance to the canal. Known as the Bridge of the Americas or Thatcher Ferry Bridge, this structure carries the Pan-American Highway into Panama City.



For much of its history, the canal and the surrounding Panama Canal Zone were run as a colony of the United States. The U.S. Department of the Army administered the canal, the Panama Railroad, and many businesses run by the railroad company. It also built 14 military bases in the area. The governor of the canal region was appointed by the secretary of the Army and was usually a retired general from the Corps of Engineers who had served in Panama. U.S. civilian employees supervised canal operations, while Panamanians and West Indians formed the labor force.



In 1950 the U.S. government reorganized management of the area into two agencies: the Panama Canal Company, which ran the canal’s commercial operations and the railroad, and the Canal Zone government, which handled courts, police, and other functions. The governor headed both agencies. A separate military structure controlled the military bases in the Canal Zone and operated independently of the civilian authorities.



The U.S. control of the area caused decades of conflict with Panamanians, who felt excluded from the economic benefits of the canal and from territory they regarded as rightfully belonging to Panama. Before negotiating the 1977 treaties, the United States and Panama modified the 1903 treaty twice. In 1936 they signed an agreement by which the United States raised Panama’s annual payment from the canal and prevented shipments of untaxed goods from the canal zone into Panama, which Panamanian merchants regarded as unfair competition. The United States also gave up the rights to intervene militarily in Panama and to take over more land for canal operations. In 1955 another treaty raised the annuity again, made Panamanians who worked in the canal zone subject to Panamanian taxes, and promised to end a wage system that paid American employees at a higher rate than Panamanians.



But these concessions did not end tensions between the United States and Panamanians, who staged demonstrations and protests in the late 1950s and 1960s. Anti-American riots in 1964 caused the two countries to suspend diplomatic relations briefly. After they were restored, the United States and Panama began negotiating new treaties, a process that lasted more than 12 years. In 1977 U.S. president Jimmy Carter and the Panamanian leader, General Omar Torrijos Herrera, signed treaties that gave control of the canal and all its operations to Panama in 1999. The agreements were ratified by Panama immediately and by the United States the following year.



The treaties went into effect in 1979. More than 60 percent of the U.S.-held Panama Canal Zone was returned to Panama. The Panama Canal Commission was established to run the canal during the transition to Panamanian control, and Panama took over operation of ship repairs, piers, and railroad operations. In 1994 the government of Panama created an agency, the Interoceanic Regional Authority, to administer the non-canal facilities of the former zone. The Panama Canal Authority, a public corporation, took possession of the canal from the Panama Canal Commission on December 14, 1999. That day the United States transferred the canal to Panama at a ceremony attended by Panamanian president Mireya Moscoso de Gruber and former U.S. president Jimmy Carter.

During Clinton Administration, 1999, the day the USA transferred the canal to Panama. I wish he had stopped it. There are several websites regarding the Panama canal zone, but this is when the transfer actually happened. That would be one great place to try and control a lot of immigration, the Southern Borders being first.
Emilio Antar M
2007-10-07 22:13:21 UTC
Rubbish....there was an agreement that had to be respected...stupidity has nothing to do with it----

Panamas canal is Panamas land (or water)-

They have the right to use their land and canal as they please....not our presidents...

There are somethings called Laws----and treaties...and leases...(I know its difficult to understand)

As for chinese troops there....there is nothing written seriously about it......It must be a joke,,,,,
A Plague on your houses
2007-10-06 19:10:12 UTC
Yes, I suppose the smart thing would have been to invade Panama and seize the canal by force.



Poor historians forget (or never knew ) that the British once controlled the Suez canal. After WW2, the British and French colluded with the Israelis to take the canal back from the Egyptians. Eisenhower stood up to them and forced them to back down.



Short-sightednes was never one of Ike's failings. Too bad more conservatives don't share that trait.
charlie the 2na
2007-10-06 19:12:20 UTC
Have you heard there are codes on the back of stop signs, telling where invading UN troops to go to kill republicans with hand guns under their pillows? I have too. I think we should serve the Chinese troops food from China...it's full of lead and they will all die...Ha ha ha so much for those strange and dumb azz Chinese
2016-04-07 12:19:43 UTC
Disagree on principle, agree on practicality. Roosevelt way overstepped his bounds and made use of executive power in ways it was never meant to be used. I also think we don't have a right to blindly interfere with other nations. However, from a practical standpoint, it probably never would have happened it anyone else had tried it. The French failed miserably trying to make one and we just bought their interests. Our control over it also gave us some large economic and political benefits. But on principle? Yes, I disagree. Would I have done it if I had been in charge? Unfortunately... yes, probably.
2007-10-06 19:07:32 UTC
yes .Communist China now controls the Panama Canal area .

Communist China now wants to buy assets in the United

States .
2007-10-06 20:16:33 UTC
no Chinese there



it's the Mexicans traveling north to the US - let the Mexicans travel south.



US should start using shale oil and tell a bunch of ******* to keep their oil.
2007-10-06 20:03:27 UTC
not really for immigration but its a key trade area


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...