Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
No, what were they going to do if we did give it back? We should've given it to the highest bidder.
We agreed to this as a treaty stipulation (albeit by installing a government that would agree to its terms). So yes.
What were they going to do about it if we didn't give it back to them?
The same thing everybody else would do if we decided to default on our international debts. Nothing. Because they can't do anything about it, we have all the guns.
But part of participating in the international community, even if only to trade with other places, is abiding by the rules it creates. This is no different than when you or I follow the laws of a nation-state or the city we live in. The act of cooperation within those laws is really voluntary. But it has some significant incentives to spur us to live by agreements we make in good faith. Just like contract law and enforcement in domestic politics, when nations start reneging on their treaties, people tend to get nervous about why they might be doing so or nervous about any future cooperative endeavours. If we expected support for some infrastructural project in some other nation, like say Iraq, that has our blessing and national interest at stake, then what incentive would China or Panama have to believe that we will abide by any agreements we have governing their interests when we violate international laws at will?
I would give it back, who cares now anyway?
I like today that I am a Panamanian, studied in the States and remembered debating this issue with may my American friends and what I have to say is that the Canal was built in PANAMA, I understand that was done by the U.S.A but let’s be honest, if it was the other way around and let’s say the British build a bridge in the Potomac river, it would still be the Potomac River U.S.A or not?, would you like to have them running that bridge under their regime and laws making you a foreigner in your own soil?
I have to accept the government of that time was not ready (they did not care), to prepare for the transition,
Ths,
I see it from that point of view, but you have to show respect to the ones who created it. These are the facts of how costly it was to build the canal: a total of 27,500 workmen are estimated to have died in the French and American efforts. A lot of Americans and French were killed for it.
U.S. 4eva
Who cares?
We could've sold it and made a profit.
Of course there aren't any consequences now from the action, but let's give this debate some perspective.
Carter in 1977 signed a treaty which would cede the Panama Canal, our influence in Latin America and the strength of our navy. In 1977, it was the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a superpower and Latin America was a volatile area of the world. The United States did not know that the Soviet Union would end before the the U.S. ownership of Panama Canal did.
All in all, it was a dumb decision, even though we were fortunate enough not to face any blowback.
Even ignoring that Panama sold the rights to the Panama Canal to China.
Once more Panamanians are foreigners on their own soil. Makes me wonder about who was supplying them with AKs to take hostages, Russia or China.