Panama Says NO To US Military Base

[Psychoblues]

I thought Panama was now safe for US interests?!?!?!?!?!?!? Maybe I was mistaken.

PANAMA CITY (Reuters) - Panama has ruled out hosting a U.S. military base to replace one in Ecuador which is being reclaimed by the Quito government, a senior Panamanian official said on Friday.

Panama -- along with Peru and Colombia -- had been tipped as a possible site to replace the Manta air base in western Ecuador, a key strategic asset in Washington's campaign to stop Latin American cocaine from reaching the United States.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, a close ally of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, has vowed to cut off his arm before allowing Washington to retain the base when the current lease runs out in 2009.

The U.S. military has said it would like to find another site to retain counter-narcotics capabilities.

Panama's Justice Minister Daniel Delgado said his country's often turbulent history with the United States made the establishment of new bases impossible.

"There will be neither bases nor installations (in Panama)," Delgado told Reuters.

Wuzzup wit 'da allies?

Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump




More: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0438345720080704?rpc=401&

[Sitarro]

Well we built the canal, we should blow the thing up....... see what they think about that.....jerks.

[Psychoblues]

Now, that would certainly demonstrate the ambitions of the US, wouldn't it?




Well we built the canal, we should blow the thing up....... see what they think about that.....jerks.

Wut 'da fuck is a treaty to us? It ain't shit, is it, zero?

[5stringJeff]

Blame Jimmy Carter. He gave the Canal away.

[namvet]

no link. this post is moot.

[retiredman]

Well we built the canal, we should blow the thing up....... see what they think about that.....jerks.

what a "brilliant" comment from a complete moron. Are you aware of what benefits WE receive from the Panama Canal? Are you aware of the strategic importance of that canal to our global naval strategy? What a little baby you are!:lol:

[Yurt]

what a "brilliant" comment from a complete moron. Are you aware of what benefits WE receive from the Panama Canal? Are you aware of the strategic importance of that canal to our global naval strategy? What a little baby you are!:lol:

how exactly does that negate the fact we built it :poke:

[retiredman]

how exactly does that negate the fact we built it :poke:

it doesn't. It merely points out the sheer idiocy of suggesting we blow it up.

counselor.

oh...I forgot :poke:

[April15]

http://www.cotf.edu/earthinfo/camerica/panama/PCtopic2.html


The idea of making a passageway across Panama dates back to 1534, when Spain considered the possibility of building a canal. In 1850 the Colombian government (Panama was part of Colombia until 1903) gave the French, who were interested in a passageway to the Pacific Ocean, permission to create a canal. However, it was not until January 20, 1882 that the French company under the direction of Ferdinand Lesseps actually began to dig a sea-level canal across Panama.

The United States was also interested in building an interoceanic canal. In 1887 a U.S. regiment was sent to survey Nicaragua as a possible site for the canal. The Maritime Canal Company was asked in 1889 to build a canal either in Nicaragua or Panama. Nicaragua was chosen for the canal site and construction was begun. Construction continued until 1893 when the Maritime Canal Company lost all of its funding as a result of a stock panic in the United States. At that time, all work on the canal in Nicaragua stopped. The United States, however, did not lose interest in constructing a canal. Four years later in 1897 and again in 1899, Congress appointed a Canal Commission to research the issue of locating a site for an interoceanic canal. Both Canal Commissions recommended Nicaragua for the site to build the canal.

In the meantime, the French were having problems excavating a canal in Panama. Malaria was claiming thousands of lives, and the project was suffering financial set-backs. In 1889 Lesseps' company was liquidated in order to repay investors. A second company, Compagnie Nouvelle du Canal de Panama, was formed in 1894 to complete the canal. However, the new company, was also unable to accomplish the task of building the canal. In order to recover some of the money that was invested in the canal project, the French began looking for someone who would buy their equipment and the rights to build the canal in Panama. The price of $100 million dollars was set.

Two primary stock holders of the French holding company, William Cromwell and Lieut.-Colonel Philippe Bunan-Varilla, took on the task of finding a buyer. Bunan-Varilla who was the Chief Engineer of the French Panama Canal Company believed that the United States was the only country with enough resources to make the purchase and finish the canal.

However, based on the recommendations of both Canal Commissions, the United States still favored building a canal in Nicaragua because it would be less expensive. While the United States continued the process of debate and ratification necessary for any legislative action, Cromwell and Bunan-Varilla mounted an effort to convince U.S. Representatives and Senators that Panama was a better site than Nicaragua for the canal.

First, they got the French company to lower the asking price from $100 to $40 million making the cost of the Panama site equal to the Nicaragua site. Then, using their own personal funds, they began a publicity campaign to influence the U.S. decision. They purchased space in newspapers and magazines, they had pamphlets printed, and they even gave public lectures all pointing out the merits of Panama as a canal site. During their campaign Cromwell and Bunan-Varilla also focused on the potential risk associated with the United States building its canal in Nicaragua because the site chosen was within twenty miles of a large volcano. On the day scheduled for the Senate vote, each Senator received from Cromwell and Bunan-Varilla a Nicaraguan stamp with a picture of the volcano on it.

Cromwell and Bunan-Varilla's efforts paid off. In 1902, a legislative bill, selecting Panama as the canal site, passed the Senate and the House of Representatives and was signed by President Teddy Roosevelt. Only one hurdle remained--the Colombian government.

The United States proposed the Hay-Herran Treaty to the Colombian government. The terms of this treaty included the United States giving the Colombian government $10 million initially plus $250,000 annually for the duration of a 100-year lease of a six-mile-wide strip of land on either side of the canal. The Colombian government refused the offer. President Roosevelt's reaction to the refusal was "We were dealing with a government of irresponsible bandits. I was prepared to. . .at once occupy the Isthmus anyhow, and proceed to dig the canal. But I deemed it likely that there would be a revolution in Panama soon." In fact there had been numerous anti-Colombian governments insurrections over the years.

Bunan-Varilla was determined to overcome this last hurdle so he organized a Panamanian rebellion for independence from Colombia. He describes U.S. involvement in the revolution by saying, "In preparing the revolution I avoided anything that could be interpreted as a connivance between Washington and the insurgents. If President Roosevelt went with the high speed which was indispensable for final success, after the revolution became a fact, it was because I had carefully respected his independence. Evidently the quickness of his actions exposed him to the most poisonous arrows. . ."

To protect "American lives in Panama," President Roosevelt sent the U.S. battleship Nashville to Panama. The battleship prevented the Colombian military from sailing to Panama and an invasion through the dense Panamanian jungle was impossible. The rebellion was successful and Panama declared its independence from Colombia. Bunan-Varilla was made the American ambassador for Panama as compensation for his financial assistance to the rebels. He and U.S. Senator John Hay drafted a treaty between Panama and the United States, which was ratified by the Panamanian government in 1903 and by the United States in 1904.

The Panama Canal Treaty of 1903 gave the United States ownership of a path extending five miles on each side of the proposed canal. Essentially, the United States could treat this land as if it were U.S. territory. In return, Panama received $10 million per year. Unlike the Hay-Herrán Treaty, this treaty did not set a time at which the agreement would end.

In 1914 after only 10 years of work, the construction of the Panama Canal was completed.









...

From the very beginning of the Panama Canal's existence, several political and economic issues have strained relations between the United States and Panama. Two major issues of conflict--U.S. intervention and the question of sovereignty of the canal zone--were a direct result of the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1903.

Some of the articles of the hastily drafted treaty were vague and ambiguous and the actions of the United States based on U.S. interpretation of the treaty quickly lead to resentment by the Panamanian government. From 1903 through the early 1920s, U.S. intervention took several different forms and with one exception, resulted from a request of the Panamanian government. Nevertheless these interventions caused resentment to grow among Panamanian nationalists. The issue of sovereignty became a sore point with the Panamanian government in 1903 and continued to be a point of contention until 1977 when the Torrijos-Carter Treaty was signed. During that time span, there were many confrontations between the Panamanians and U.S. citizens. One confrontation was particularly destructive and centered on an issue of national pride.

Panamanian nationalists resented the fact that only the U.S. flag was flown within the canal area. Flying the Panamanian flag in the canal area was a complicated issue for the United States. On one hand, the Department of Defense felt that flying the Panamanian flag in the canal area would undermine U.S. control and set a dangerous precedent to future relations. On the other hand, the Department of State felt that flying the Panamanian flag was a small concession for U.S. presence in Panama. The U.S. eventually made the decision to fly both flags at one location in the canal area. On September 21, 1960, a ceremony was held and for the first time both flags were raised and flown together.

Panamanians nationalists continued to resent the fact that their flag was only flown in one location while the U.S. flag was flown at multiple locations. Another agreement was reached and the Panamanian flag was to be raised along with the U.S. flag at several locations.

U.S. citizens living in the canal area, likewise resented the presence of a "foreign" flag being flown in a "U.S. territory." On January 8 and 9, 1964, with the consent of adults, U.S. students raised only the U.S. flag in front of their high school. News of the action spread and in the evening of January 9th approximately 200 Panamanian students entered the canal area with their flag. A battle broke out in which the Panamanian flag was torn. The torn flag ignited the smoldering resentments of the Panamanian people. The resulting mob violence lasted for three days causing the death of at least 20 people and the destruction of $2 million worth of property. Panama accused the United States of aggression and appealed to the Organization of American States and the United Nations.

The only action taken by the United Nations was to appeal to both nations to exercise restraint. When Panama could not obtain a satisfactory resolution to the problem, they severed relations with the United States and tension between the two nations remained high. Panama appealed to the Organ of Consultation and a committee was formed to investigate the dispute. A recommendation was presented by the committee and signed by both Panama and the United States and relations were restored. That same year,1964, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that plans were being made for a new canal, which would necessitate the negotiation of a totally new treaty. Attempts to negotiate a new treaty met with strong opposition from Panamanian nationalists.

The issues resented by the Panamanian government and nationalists in 1903 were still present. Many Panamanians wanted U.S. military presence and intervention gone, and they wanted sovereignty of the canal zone. Unable to obtain sufficient votes to ratify the treaty and fearful that signing the new treaty would cost him the 1968 election, President Marcos Robles decided that further negotiations would have to be made.

Those negotiations did not begin again until 1971 and they continued for nearly two years without any progress being made. In frustration, Panama turned to the UN Security Council to put pressure on the United States. In March of 1973 a resolution from the United Nations called on the United States to negotiate a "just and equitable" treaty but it was vetoed by the United States.

During the latter part of 1973 the United States renewed their interest in renegotiating the terms of the treaty. Negotiations continued for nearly a year but progress was slow because of U.S. preoccupation with the Watergate scandal (1974). After the resignation of President Richard Nixon, President Gerald Ford stepped up the treaty negotiations only to have them become deadlocked over four major issues: treaty duration, the amount of revenues paid to Panama, the amount of territory used for U.S. bases for the duration of the treaty, and a 40-50 year lease for U.S. bases.

The United States felt compelled to maintain a presence in the canal zone in order to protect its interests in the canal. The issue of how that presence was to be maintained became an issue during the U.S. elections of 1976. Meanwhile, in Panama economic conditions were deteriorating and increased revenues from the canal became more and more important to Panama.

Finally, on August 10, 1977, after several more months of negotiations, an announcement was made that terms for a new treaty had been reached. On September 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter of the United States and President Omar Torrijos Herrera of Panama signed two new canal treaties: the Panama Canal Treaty (also called the Torrijos-Carter Treaty) and the Neutrality Treaty. The Panama Canal treaty replaced all previous agreements between the United States and Panama concerning the Canal.

Under the Panama Canal Treaty, Panama was given an increasing amount of responsibility for the operation and management of the Canal until the termination of the treaty at noon on December 31, 1999, Panama time. At that time, the United States would transfer full control of the Canal to Panama. The treaty also specifies that the flag of the Republic of Panama shall be given a place of honor in the canal area--including those areas occupied by the United States--for the duration of the treaty. Other issues addressed in the treaty are the principle of nonintervention by the United States or its citizens in Panamanian affairs, and the possible future need for a sea-level canal or another lane of locks in the existing canal, which would be negotiated between the two parties and built by the United States.

The Neutrality Treaty guarantees that the Canal will remain neutral, and therefore open to ships from all countries even during times of war. This Treaty grants Panama the sole right to operate the Canal and to maintain military forces within its national territories. Although the United States is given authority to use its military to defend the neutrality of the Canal the excerpt (below) from the treaty emphasizes the point that the United States cannot intervene in Panama's internal affairs.

"The correct interpretation of this principle is that each of the two countries shall, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes, defend the Canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality, and consequently shall have the right to act against any aggression or threat directed against the Canal or against the peaceful transit of vessels through the Canal. "'This does not mean, nor shall it be interpreted as, a right of intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of Panama. Any United States action will be directed at insuring that the Canal will remain open, secure, and accessible, and it shall never be directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of Panama.'"

[Yurt]

it doesn't. It merely points out the sheer idiocy of suggesting we blow it up.

counselor.

oh...I forgot :poke:

you're lying, your post never said that ;)

[retiredman]

sitarro said

Well we built the canal, we should blow the thing up....... see what they think about that.....jerks.

my reply:

what a "brilliant" comment from a complete moron. Are you aware of what benefits WE receive from the Panama Canal? Are you aware of the strategic importance of that canal to our global naval strategy?

if one acknowledges the benefits the US receives from the Panama Canal, then one must be aware of the sheer idiocy of blowing it up.

I didn't think I needed to hold your hand through that!

[Yurt]

you're lying, your post never said that ;)

;) <------

i told you that you have reading comprehension problems :poke:

[retiredman]

;) <------

i told you that you have reading comprehension problems :poke:

nice dodge..... fucking pussy.

sitarro suggests that we blow up the Panama canal because we built it....

I point out how much strategic value WE get from that facility....

any reasonably intelligent adult would understand that such value would make the destruction of the canal a foolish thing to do regardless of what nation constructed it.

[Yurt]

nice dodge..... fucking pussy.

sitarro suggests that we blow up the Panama canal because we built it....

I point out how much strategic value WE get from that facility....

any reasonably intelligent adult would understand that such value would make the destruction of the canal a foolish thing to do regardless of what nation constructed it.

nice preacher

all my post sought to clarify was that sitarro's post did not negate that we built it, that simple, that is all i mentioned. obviously your deep hatred for me has caused you not be able to comprehend what i am truly saying, instead you see only what you want to see...

sad

[retiredman]

nice preacher

all my post sought to clarify was that sitarro's post did not negate that we built it, that simple, that is all i mentioned. obviously your deep hatred for me has caused you not be able to comprehend what i am truly saying, instead you see only what you want to see...

sad


sitarro's post of course does not negate the fact that we built the Panama canal. What a ridiculous thing to even suggest. The fact that you are a complete douchebag does not negate the fact that the earth rotates around the sun.... it is irrelevant.

Sitarro's comments DID exhibit supreme idiocy given the strategic importance of the canal...something you obviously know little about, and care even less about. When one of your posse of neocon butt buddies is "attacked" you all circle the wagons and defend your pals whether their comments are defensible or not. what a pack of losers you are. but go ask your pals to give you some repetitive positive rep and that will make you a "winner" in your own eyes. You pathetic little man.:laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

sitarro's post of course does not negate the fact that we built the Panama canal.

By "we," I'm sure you mean the graduates of the United States Military Academy. :D

[retiredman]

By "we," I'm sure you mean the graduates of the United States Military Academy. :D

of course. You wouldn't find Annapolis graduates sweating in malaria infested jungles. We have seven seas to control!:salute:

[Silver]

You...mm....believing in the strategic importance of that canal to our "global naval strategy"...must find that the stupidity of Dem. president Carter in giving up control of the canal troubling...no ?

Less than a year after Carter promised, "I'll never give up control of the Panama Canal" , this liberal moron gives it away....

Of course, voting for morons like him is your usual choice at election time...:poke:

[retiredman]

You...mm....believing in the strategic importance of that canal to our "global naval strategy"...must find that the stupidity of Dem. president Carter in giving up control of the canal troubling...no ?

Less than a year after Carter promised, "I'll never give up control of the Panama Canal" , this liberal moron gives it away....

Of course, voting for morons like him is your usual choice at election time...:poke:
I admit I was troubled by the seemingly unilateral relinquishment of the canal.

Many things that Jimmy Carter did troubled me...not the least of which was his passive response to the act of war by Iran when it took over our embassy.

[Silver]

I admit I was troubled by the seemingly unilateral relinquishment of the canal.

Many things that Jimmy Carter did troubled me...not the least of which was his passive response to the act of war by Iran when it took over our embassy.

And then of course, you voted for Ronald Reagan in 82.....?

[retiredman]

And then of course, you voted for Ronald Reagan in 82.....?

no. Neither Reagan, nor Carter, ran for President in 1982. Go back to civics class for losers.

I did not, however, vote for Reagan in 1980. I do not abandon the democratic party platform because I disagree with one foreign policy decision.

I did not, however, vote for Mondale in 1984.

[Yurt]

sitarro's post of course does not negate the fact that we built the Panama canal. What a ridiculous thing to even suggest. The fact that you are a complete douchebag does not negate the fact that the earth rotates around the sun.... it is irrelevant.

Sitarro's comments DID exhibit supreme idiocy given the strategic importance of the canal...something you obviously know little about, and care even less about. When one of your posse of neocon butt buddies is "attacked" you all circle the wagons and defend your pals whether their comments are defensible or not. what a pack of losers you are. but go ask your pals to give you some repetitive positive rep and that will make you a "winner" in your own eyes. You pathetic little man.:laugh2:

I PREACH AT UCC :laugh2:

[retiredman]

I PREACH AT UCC :laugh2:

no. you don't. I do.


yet another lie from the shyster ambulance chasing loser "attorney".

how pathetic can you be?

[Yurt]

no. you don't. I do.


yet another lie from the shyster ambulance chasing loser "attorney".

how pathetic can you be?

you moron, i wasn't saying i did, you have no reading comprehension skills...i was making fun of you potty mouth

[retiredman]

you moron, i wasn't saying i did, you have no reading comprehension skills...i was making fun of you potty mouth

so when you say "I preach at the UCC", we are not to believe you?

YOu are a liar. and a twit.