> 2. Why did he give away the Panama Canal Zone, which > surely was of huge strategic importance to the USA, > not to mention an incredibly expensive > asset to acquire in the first place? > Because Panama Zone was rented for a limited time period, like Hong Kong or Macau.
Alberto Monteiro Me: Not according to the Panama Canal Treaty, it wasn't. It was American territory in perpetuity. In fact, the Canal Zone was legally American territory. John McCain was born there, for example, and counts as a native-born American citizen because of it. Jimmy Carter gave it away because he wanted to buy some cheap popularity in Central America and thought this was a good way. It wasn't, but thinking through the implications of his foreign policy was never Carter's strong point. As a consequence of this, the company that _currently_ runs the Panama Canal is a subsidiary of the _Chinese Army_. I, for one, think that this is probably a bad thing. Gautam
