----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: RE: Jimmy Carter & Cuba...
> 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. > > Actually, Dan, you vastly underrate the illegality of what the US did in > Panama. I was being conservative. :-) It's a 30+ year old memory from a history class and I wanted to only state things I was >About the only standard by which you can even begin to defend what happened is > that we behaved vastly better in such a situation than even the British > would have, much less the French or Germans. Note that in the equivalent > situation - the Suez canal - the British ended up ruling Egypt for, I > believe, almost a century. > > I'm _suggesting_ that Jimmy Carter should never have been allowed anywhere > near any place where he could make decisions. The entire country of Panama > was a vestige of colonialism. On the other hand, the elimination of malaria > in Panama, and the _entire canal_ are _also_ vestiges of American > colonialism. Jimmy gave away the store. Well, it wasn't our store, by rights. We did invest in the canal, but the benefits to the US ecconomy over the 75 years or so that we owned it were enough to ensure that it was a worthwhile investment, even if we relinquished the canal without any strings. We needed to get rid of one of the few vestiges of colonialism that we had. I don't see why we have the right to dictate to a foreign country what they do with their own property. They'd be stupid to stop US shipping, because it provides most of the revenue. If they cut our shipping rights, then I could see it as a hostile act...but IIRC, we kept the right to use the canal explicitly. BTW, your position is so much closer to Carter's than Reagan's, the difference between you and Carter is in the noise. I have a memory of Reagan saying that the canal was American terroritory by rights and we should keep it forever. By implication, the Panamanians had no right to the canal at all. I have a faint memory of him saying on TV that we paid for the land fair and square. My feeling, from his remarks, is that he would consider your analysis unpatriotic leftist thinking. :-) I realize that you don't like Carter, but you are really much closer to him than Reagan on this issue. Dan M.
