- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So what do ya’ll think about the Panama Canal?
Posted on 12/23/24 at 12:38 pm to Ag Zwin
Posted on 12/23/24 at 12:38 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
This first treaty is officially titled The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal (Spanish: Tratado Concerniente a la Neutralidad Permanente y Funcionamiento del Canal de Panamá)[1] and is commonly known as the "Neutrality Treaty". Under this treaty, the U.S. retained the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations.
Interesting.
In other words, two separate treaties governed the transfer of the Canal to Panama in 1977. So while one treaty restricts the United State’s ability to intervene in Panama’s sovereign management of the Canal, it indeed appears the language of the “Neutrality Treaty” grants the United States the right to permanently ensure neutral passage through the Canal.
No doubt the primary concern at the time was fear over Soviet interference in the region, not interference by the Chinese. Be that as it may, it appears vestiges of “gunboat diplomacy” were baked into the treaty to protect the strategic interests of the United States.
President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian Chief of Government Omar Torrijos signed the Panama Canal Treaty and Neutrality Treaty [emphasis added] on September 7, 1977. This agreement relinquishes American control over the canal by the year 2000 and guarantees its neutrality.
….
(a) RESERVATIONS:
(1) Pursuant to its adherence to the principle of nonintervention, any action taken by the United States of America in the exercise of its rights to assure that the Panama Canal shall remain open, neutral, secure, and accessible, pursuant to the provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty, the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, and the resolutions of ratification thereto, shall be only for the purpose of assuring that the Canal shall remain open, neutral, secure, and accessible, and shall not have as its purpose or be interpreted as a right of intervention in the internal affairs of the Republic of Panama or interference with its political independence or sovereign integrity.
….
Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal
The United States of America and the Republic of Panama have agreed upon the following:
Article I
The Republic of Panama declares that the Canal, as an international transit waterway, shall be permanently neutral in accordance with the regime established in this Treaty. The same regime of neutrality shall apply to any other international waterway that may be built either partially or wholly in the territory of the Republic of Panama.
Article II
The Republic of Panama declares the neutrality of the Canal in order that both in time of peace and in time of war it shall remain secure and open to peaceful transit by the vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality, so that there will be no discrimination against any nation, or its citizens or subjects, concerning the conditions or charges of transit, or for any other reason, and so that the Canal, and therefore the Isthmus of Panama, shall not be the target of reprisals in any armed conflict between other nations of the world.
https://2001-2009.state.gov/PanamaCanalTreaty1977
This post was edited on 12/23/24 at 1:09 pm
0
Posted on 12/23/24 at 12:42 pm to SquatchDawg
We don't need it.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 12:48 pm to SquatchDawg
Small government position and America's trade dominance are at odds. There's no way a true small government conservative would want us playing world police in Panama.
However this is of great importance to American trade and we should work to ensure it's neutrality.
However this is of great importance to American trade and we should work to ensure it's neutrality.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 12:49 pm to oklahogjr
Posted on 12/23/24 at 12:51 pm to oklahogjr
I don't see how a small government conservative would have a problem with intervention in Panama as it relates to US security.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 12:52 pm to Jake88
quote:
intervention in Panama as it relates to US security.
How does it relate to national security? Was the US not secure before the canal?
Posted on 12/23/24 at 12:56 pm to oklahogjr
quote:The canal exists.
How does it relate to national security? Was the US not secure before the canal?
quote:
However, this issue is not solely about economics. Trump’s statements also reflect broader anxieties about China’s expanding regional influence. Since Panama recognized China diplomatically instead of Taiwan in 2017, Beijing has intensified its economic engagement, including significant investments in infrastructure projects near the canal.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:06 pm to Jake88
quote:
Since Panama recognized China diplomatically instead of Taiwan in 2017, Beijing has intensified its economic engagement, including significant investments in infrastructure projects near the canal.
Taking back the canal under our government control should be a last resort. Having Panama honor the treaty should suffice.
Despite Chinese infrastructure projects nearby.
None of that has to do with defense of the US anyways. We're talking defense of Panama from foreign influence....
We could still leverage the drake passage and other forms of transportation.
This post was edited on 12/23/24 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:10 pm to oklahogjr
quote:I don't disagree.
Taking back the canal under our government control should be a last resort. Having Panama honor the treaty should suffice
quote:This is the potential national security threat. I'm not saying it's a major issue at this point requiring military intervention.
Despite Chinese infrastructure projects nearby
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:12 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
There's no way a true small government conservative would want us playing world police in Panama.
The "conservatives" on this board just pretend to hate our hegemony. The truth is they love spending money trying to rig the global game.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:15 pm to Jake88
quote:
This is the potential national security threat. I'm not saying it's a major issue at this point requiring military intervention.
I guess I don't understand how this is a threat to America? Seems like at most it's a threat to panama
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:16 pm to SquatchDawg
Get it back. We old charge the crap out of China shipping…. 
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:23 pm to Snipe
quote:
Trump should build a new Mexican Canal
Along the southern border. Let it double as an additional barrier.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:36 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
How does it relate to national security?
Don’t be obtuse. The inherent nature of the reigning regime in Beijing means any Chinese presence on the Isthmus of Panama ipso facto violates the neutrality agreement of the treaty.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:40 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
I guess I don't understand how this is a threat to America?
Why the Panama Canal is so Important to Trump…
… Approximately 40% of U.S. container traffic utilizes the canal annually, while the U.S. is also the largest user of the Panama Canal. In 2021, more than 73% of all ships passing through the canal were heading to or coming from U.S. ports.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 1:47 pm to Toomer Deplorable
It cuts down 22 days of transit by ship from coast to coast. Supplying fuel for conflicts in the Pacific would suffer without the canal.
This post was edited on 12/23/24 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 12/23/24 at 2:02 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Approximately 40% of U.S. container traffic utilizes the canal annually, while the U.S. is also the largest user of the Panama Canal. In 2021, more than 73% of all ships passing through the canal were heading to or coming from U.S. ports.
Sounds like international commerce would be affected....
But international commerce and national security aren't the same....what's the threat to the US or it's commerce within the country?
Posted on 12/23/24 at 2:03 pm to Jake88
quote:
It cuts down 22 days of transit by ship from coast to coast. Supplying fuel for conflicts in the Pacific would suffer without the canal.
So it would simply be less convenient for arming up conflicts internationally?
Posted on 12/23/24 at 2:07 pm to oklahogjr
quote:Come on. 22 days is not merely "less convenient." I see you're playing games.
So it would simply be less convenient for arming up conflicts internationally?
Posted on 12/23/24 at 2:09 pm to Jake88
quote:
Come on. 22 days is not merely "less convenient." I see you're playing games.
Well it's certainly not mandatory, or the only way.
The other ways are more difficult and less convenient to traverse from a time perspective.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News