this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
311 points (95.3% liked)

World News

39364 readers
2121 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump criticized Panama Canal fees as “ridiculous” and demanded lower costs or the canal’s return to the US.

In a Truth Social post, Trump also expressed concern about potential Chinese influence over the waterway, despite no direct Chinese control of canal operations.

The canal, transferred to Panama in 1999, is vital for global trade, handling 5% of maritime traffic.

Trump’s comments follow record revenues of $5 billion announced by the Panama Canal Authority. Panama has not yet responded to his statements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Its funny because I was against giving it up since we built it but I sure as heck am against taking it back. That is not how stability works. It would be equivalent to crimea and far to close to the fucked up thing we have with israel in the world.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If you build something in a foreign country under the threat of military invasion it is indefensible to claim "rightful ownership" because you built it.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

thats not really how it happened. It was financed and france had initiated it and then america purchased the project and completed it. It required a treaty and payments for land use.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal

Great Britain attempted to develop a canal in 1843. According to the New-York Daily Tribune, 24 August 1843, Barings Bank of London and the Republic of New Granada entered into a contract for the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Darien (Isthmus of Panama). They referred to it as the Atlantic and Pacific Canal, and it was a wholly British endeavor. Projected for completion in five years, the plan was never carried out. At nearly the same time, other ideas were floated, including a canal (and/or a railroad) across Mexico's Isthmus of Tehuantepec. That did not develop, either.[9]

In 1846, the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty, negotiated between the US and New Granada, granted the United States transit rights and the right to intervene militarily in the isthmus. In 1848, the discovery of gold in California, on the West Coast of the United States, generated renewed interest in a canal crossing between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallarino%E2%80%93Bidlack_Treaty

Officially, it was entitled Tratado de Paz, Amistad, Navegación y Comercio (Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce and Navigation), and was meant to represent an agreement of mutual cooperation. It granted the U.S. significant transit rights over the Panamanian isthmus, as well as military powers to suppress social conflicts and independence struggles targeted against Colombia. Under the Bidlack-Mallarino Treaty, the U.S. intervened militarily many times on the isthmus, usually against civilians, peasant guerrillas, or Liberal Party independence struggles. After the beginning of the California Gold Rush of 1848, the U.S. spent seven years constructing a trans-isthmian Panama Railway. The result of the treaty, however, was to give the United States a legal opening in politically and economically influencing the Panama isthmus, which was part of New Granada at the time, but was later to become the independent country of Panama in accordance with the wishes of the United States. In 1903, however, the United States failed to gain access to a strip on the isthmus for the construction of a canal, and reversed its position on Panamanian secession from the Republic of Colombia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama%E2%80%93United_States_relations

The evolution of the relation between Panama and the USA has followed the pattern of a Panamanian project for the recovering of the territory of the Canal of Panama, a project which became public after the events of May 21, 1958, November 3, 1959, and then on January 9, 1964. The latter day is known in Panama as the Martyrs' Day (Panama), in which a riot over the right to raise the Panamanian flag in an American school became the vicinity of the Panama Canal.

The following years saw a lengthy negotiation process with the United States, culminating with the Torrijos–Carter Treaties, in which the transfer of the Panama Canal to Panama was set to be completed in December, 1999. The process of transition, however, was made difficult by the existence of the de facto military rule of Manuel Noriega in Panama from 1982 to 1989.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama

The United States invaded Panama in mid-December 1989 during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. The stated purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto ruler of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by U.S. authorities for racketeering and drug trafficking. The operation, codenamed Operation Just Cause, concluded in late January 1990 with the surrender of Noriega.[9] The Panama Defense Forces (PDF) were dissolved, and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.

Noriega, who had longstanding ties to United States intelligence agencies, consolidated power to become Panama's de facto dictator in the early 1980s. In the mid-1980s, relations between Noriega and the U.S. began to deteriorate due to fallout of the murder of Hugo Spadafora and the removal from office of President Nicolas Ardito Barletta. His criminal activities and association with other spy agencies came to light, and in 1988 he was indicted by federal grand juries on several drug-related charges. Negotiations seeking his resignation, which began under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, were ultimately unsuccessful. In 1989, Noriega annulled the results of the Panamanian general elections, which appeared to have been won by opposition candidate Guillermo Endara; President Bush responded by reinforcing the U.S. garrison in the Canal Zone. After a U.S. Marine officer was shot dead at a PDF roadblock, Bush authorized the execution of the Panama invasion plan.

The history of Panama and the US in general and the Canal in particular is riddled with the US meddling violently in the affairs of Panama and suppressing its people on the behalf of US aligned dictators.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 22 hours ago

yeah thats fine but all the links before the last were before we even got into the canal which again had its own treaty and predates the UN so this is how things like that were one. Nation to nation. The US has teaties with japan to protect the area to. This is the treaty which spelled out payment and such for the canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay%E2%80%93Bunau-Varilla_Treaty