----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:12 AM Subject: RE: Jimmy Carter & Cuba...
> > 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. Or, maybe because he acknowledged that the US actually didn't have a right to that territory. If I recall my history of that era correctly, the proposed canal area was in Colombia. When Colombia didn't give us the terms we wanted, we sponsored the Panama independence movement. After they were independent, we negotiated with a representative of the government of Panama who was an American citizen. He gave the US extremely good terms, and when the government balked, we told them that they either accepted the terms, or that there would be a new government. Are you suggesting that it was best for the United States to hold onto this vestige of colonialism forever? Its not as though we were to make Panama the 51st state, we just owned part of Panama. Dan M.
