----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:48 AM Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter & Cuba...
> > > > Well, it wasn't our store, by rights. We did invest in the canal, but the > benefits to the US economy 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. > > Me: > Yeah, but when you make an investment, you don't give it up when you've > broken even, if this were a business analogy, which it isn't. The Canal > was a _strategic asset_. That's a very different thing. There are many > things more important than economics. Sole control of the most important > choke point in the Western Hemisphere definitely counts as one of them. In > this case their property was valuable only because of our considerable > efforts. It was - and remains - important to the strategic welfare of the > United States. > > The other thing this demonstrates, incidentally, is the total futility of > trying to buy popularity with gestures like this. No other country in the > world would ever have even contemplated giving up a strategic asset as > valuable as the Canal because of moral qualms over how we came to possess > it. It was more than that. At the time, the existence of the canal was the source of strife. If memory serves me, the Panamanian government was willing to downplay any demonstrations Have the British returned Gibraltar and the Falklands? They're > talking about Gibraltar, although I don't really believe it. Both of those > are important for exactly the same reason that Panama is important - they > control strategic choke points. The British are no longer a world power, so folks pretty well ignore what they do. The minus for being one of the two superpowers and then the only superpower is that everything that is done is held under a microscope. Basically, its not worth complaining about the British or the French, they barely affect people's lives. In South America, the US is seen as dominating people's lives. This is only partially true, we are a tremendous influence, but it does color attitude. >Much less important ones than the Canal, > but choke points nonetheless. And such choke points are a lot less > important for Britain than they are for the United States. But did the US > get any credit for doing this? Of course not. Actually, it did. People still kvetch, they always will about the guy in charge. But, the bitterness was reduced during Carter's time. > The level of complaining about American actions in Central America is exactly >the same as it would be if we _hadn't_ given up the Canal. I think that statement has been falsified by the comments of a list member. > > A hypothetical for you. How will you react if China attacks Taiwan, and > the transfer of US Atlantic Fleet assets to the 7th Fleet in the Pacific is > delayed by "technical problems" with the canal? Gautam, remember, when the discussions occurred, I was older than you are now. I remembered that very issue being discussed. If memory serves me correctly, the fact that the most critical asset of the 7th Fleet (the aircraft carrier) cannot get through the Panama Canal, minimized the importance of this choke point. At the time, the folks arguing for the strategic importance of the Canal had to rely on rather elaborate "what if" scenarios to demonstrate a possibility of a strategic liability. >Strategic assets are important. It was > Carter's fundamental inability to understand that - to understand that the > world is a hostile place full of people who want to harm the United States, > and that it is the duty of the President to stop them from doing so - that > rendered him fundamentally unsuited to the Presidency. You are arguing against a character. I was there at the time, and the strategic importance of the canal was discussed at length. The relative importance of the US living by its own standards was weighed against a significantly reduced strategic importance. One thing that is worth noting is that none of the folks that I recalled arguing against Carter's actions admitted that your history was correct. They all presented a sanitized version of the history that made it seem that we paid for the land fair and square and that nothing illegal or immoral was done. >Decisions like giving away the Canal - without even minimal guarantees to protect American > national interests - are emblematic of that sort of attitude. It wasn't giving away, it was giving back. The analysis at the time was, if we kept the canal, we would have had to deal with general strikes, regular protests, etc. by the Panamanian people. I recall a liklyhood that we would have been in a very difficult position. At the time, the canal was considered very open to attack. We could have made it an armed encampment inside of Panama, not allowing the locals to pass through, etc. But, it would have been a nightmare. Are you sure that it is impossible for such a situation to worsen our standing in Latin America? Dan M.
