Post New

If you want to use military force to retain something, then that’s the place to do it.

Lunatic UK PM Kier Starmer wants to give it away. Scratch that - he wants to pay Mauritius 9 billion pounds to take over an island they’ve never owned.

Who benefits in this? China does. I’m starting to get behind the notion of them owning several major western politicians.

If you want to use military force to retain something, then that’s the place to do it.

Lunatic UK PM Kier Starmer wants to give it away. Scratch that - he wants to pay Mauritius 9 billion pounds to take over an island they’ve never owned.

They're not asking for the money to take it over. They're asking for the money in exchange for the 99-year lease for the base that the UK wants to have.

Mauritius and the UK apparently believe, with some considerable justification, that the UK isn't going to be able to retain de jeure control over the Chagos Islands for much longer. Mauritius has been pretty successful at ratcheting up the diplomatic costs to the UK of maintaining sovereignty over the islands, especially when all they really want is the base:

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

They're rushing to get this through Parliament before Trump is inaugurated, I suppose before Marco Rubio can be confirmed and the phone lines between Foggy Bottom and Whitehall get set on fire.

They're rushing to get this through Parliament before Trump is inaugurated, I suppose before Marco Rubio can be confirmed and the phone lines between Foggy Bottom and Whitehall get set on fire.

That doesn't surprise me.

The UK has been taking a diplomatic beating on this for a while. Their control of the Chagos Islands came about in a way that looks....bad today. The UN set out a bunch of rules that were supposed to cover decolonization - namely that in granting independence to former colonies the former conquering powers weren't supposed to keep choice goodies for themselves. The UK didn't do that with the Chagos Islands. Instead, they kept them for themselves and forcibly removed the entire native population so they could have a better site for a military base.

That sort of thing might have been a little more par for the course back in the 1960's, but it's a lot harder to justify these days. Considered a little less "realpolitik" and a little more "crime against humanity" to do this type of move. So the International Court of Justice ruled that UK had violated international law when they did all this, ordered the UK to give the area back to Mauritius, and the UN passed a resolution ordering them to comply. They haven't, but they've been paying a real diplomatic toll ever since:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-50924704

When you're trying to encourage all of the nations in that region to side with Team West rather than Team China, the past depredations of the UK were always going to be a negative - but them holding onto this territory in the fact of an ICJ ruling and a UN resolution telling them it was completely unlawful makes things even worse. Not exactly a selling point for the West being the ones who are on the Side of Law against those nasty Chinese. And an even harder position to take in light of the furious (and justified) condemnation of Russia's grab of the Ukraine - if you're out there saying that just because seizing territory would advance your national security interest you can't just go out and take it, then why is the UK still allowed to unlawfully hold onto the Chagos?

Mauritius offered the UK a way out of this bind - return sovereignty, but keep your base. We'll give you a 99-year lease, but you have to pay us for it. It's not a bad deal for the UK, since they get to solve their diplomatic problems and a black eye, while keeping the base. It's a great deal for them.

It's a very bad deal for the U.S. - because we weren't the ones getting raked over the coals at the UN. It's very easy for Rubio to tell the UK that we'd prefer that they keep their todger stuck in the meat grinder indefinitely, because it's not our todger getting mangled. But the UK is quite reasonably trying to minimize the damage they're suffering. "UK First," after all!

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckdg7jjlx2go

This article is from September. Two months before the US election. There was already pressure to resolve this, at least in part because Sri Lankan Tamils claimed asylum here, and were being held in limbo for three years already.

We wanted to cover a historic court case being held over the treatment of Sri Lankan Tamils, the first people ever to file asylum claims on the island, who have been stranded there for three years. Complex legal battles have been waged over their fate and a judgement will soon determine if they have been unlawfully detained.

...

Agreements signed in 1966 leased the island to the US for 50 years initially, with a possible extension for a further 20 years. The arrangement was rolled over and is set to expire in 2036. [the US maintains dominant control even though the Brits "own" it]

...

In recent years, the territory has been costing the UK tens of millions of pounds, with the bulk of this categorised under “migrant costs”. Communications obtained by the BBC between foreign office officials in July regarding the Sri Lankan Tamils warn that “the costs are increasing and the latest forecast is that these will be £50 million per annum”.

...

Mauritius, which won independence from the UK in 1968, maintains that the islands are its own and the United Nations' highest court has ruled, in an advisory opinion, that the UK's administration of the territory is "unlawful" and must end. [we can't ignore this if we are asserting that China's claims are invalid by the same court]

Actually, the US election has had some effect. Dope's characterization lacked context, though. The Brits want to conclude negotiations (which have been going on for years) before the convict takes office and throws a monkey-wrench into it. It was actually settled in Oct, but a new Mauritius PM wants some modifications to the agreement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/24/maur...

After decades of negotiations, Britain agreed to cede sovereignty over the islands to the government of Mauritius in October, on condition that a UK-US military base could continue operating on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

...

Britain kept control of the Chagos Islands after Mauritius regained independence in the 1960s. In doing so, it evicted thousands of Chagossians who have since mounted a series of legal claims for compensation in British courts.

t's very easy for Rubio to tell the UK that we'd prefer that they keep their todger stuck in the meat grinder indefinitely, because it's not our todger getting mangled. But the UK is quite reasonably trying to minimize the damage they're suffering. "UK First," after all!

Not our problem. Also very easy calculus for the Brits. Give the island away now, and you might as well be handing it over to the Chinese at some point in the future.

That island is THE place to have if you care at all about the Persian Gulf.

Not our problem. Also very easy calculus for the Brits. Give the island away now, and you might as well be handing it over to the Chinese at some point in the future.

That island is THE place to have if you care at all about the Persian Gulf.

Which is why they're insisting on keeping the base.

There's no doubt that maintaining control of the islands - and not just the base - is of some benefit to western security interests. But insisting on maintaining sovereignty over the entire archipelago has costs as well, especially after they've lost their case at the ICJ and had the UN issue a resolution ordering them to get out. The UK can certainly tell the UN to pound sand and just continue to violate the UN Resolution and maintain control over a portion of their former colony which has been found by every relevant international institution to violate international law. The question is whether the costs are worth the strategic benefits. Especially when a larger goal is to try to contain Chinese influence in the region, not just maintain as many physical military assets as we can.

In some ways, it's an elegant solution - they keep the base, but let Mauritius become the sovereign over the islands again. Much like the situation in many of our bases in foreign countries - when we have a base in Korea or Germany, we're not taking sovereign control of the area and making it part of U.S. territory, but simply have an agreement with the government. It's not as secure as having sovereign control over the archipelago - but it also removes the provocation and diplomatic costs associated with maintaining a colonial foothold and continuing the expulsion of the formerly native population.

It's a tough situation. There's arguments for and against, and it's probably a close call which is better. But it's not a stupid solution, by any means.

Which is why they're insisting on keeping the base.

A 99 year lease. How'd that work out for us with the Panama Canal? No, if you're going to do something like this you go all Gitmo on it (do a lease with no expiration date).

In some ways, it's an elegant solution - they keep the base, but let Mauritius become the sovereign over the islands again.

Did they ever really have sovereignty over Diego Garcia? Mauritius has never had any historical claim to DG. Historically they've...not really been a nation at all.

That's the point. They're giving away DG to an island chain that was discovered *uninhabited* by the Portuguese in 1507 (after Arabs had first landed there in the 900 something).

A 99 year lease. How'd that work out for us with the Panama Canal?

That's exactly the point. We didn't have a lease for the Panama Canal - we had total sovereignty over it. And that sort of arrangement ends up being very unpopular over time. Granting a lease or other right for a military base is a pretty routine thing that even first world countries do voluntarily. But having another country claim sovereignty over "your" territory over your objection ends up generating a lot of hostility. It's perceived as humiliating - that's only something that happens to weak countries - and is hated by your domestic nationalists, and those feelings are especially acute in former colonies. It becomes untenable over time in a way that leases, which are more voluntary and can be cast as arms' length agreements between equals, might not.

Did they ever really have sovereignty over Diego Garcia?

I'm not sure that's the right question, since Mauritius was one of the earliest areas to be colonized and had been so since the 1500's. Areas like that achieved their current sovereignty through struggles for independence, not restoration of some prior territorial boundaries. These old imperial/colonial holdings didn't have prior nation-states with fixed borders (for the most part) - so the process of decolonization and independence involved establishing borders, not restoring them.

The rules for decolonization were set out by the UN after WWII, and basically prohibited the colonial power from "holding back" choice bits of the former colonies when granting them independence. You weren't supposed to take a piece you wanted and forcibly remove the local population so you could keep it for yourself - you were supposed to grant all of the area under your colonial rule independence to the nation(s) that were being established. The ICJ (and later the UN) ruled that this territory was territory that should have been part of the territory of Mauritius, and that the UK violated international law by not transferring it over as part of their independence.

I'm not sure that's the right question, since Mauritius was one of the earliest areas to be colonized and had been so since the 1500's.

"Mauritius" has no native population. The people there are the descendents (presumably) of early slaves and folks who were growing sugar and what not that Dutch IIRC and the Brits brought in.

The anti-colonial laws are a stretch. They're meant to cover places like India, French Indochina and other spots that obviously had a native population when the Colonial powers took them over. Mauritius has none of that.

"Mauritius" has no native population. The people there are the descendents (presumably) of early slaves and folks who were growing sugar and what not that Dutch IIRC and the Brits brought in.

No place on earth has a "native" population. Every place on earth was originally inhabited by people from somewhere else. The rules of international law governing decolonization and independence - allowing self-government by the then native inhabitants of an area rather than a colonial power on the other side of the world - don't depend on whether there was a population there prior to or after the first "discovery."

The anti-colonial laws are a stretch. They're meant to cover places like India, French Indochina and other spots that obviously had a native population when the Colonial powers took them over. Mauritius has none of that.

You're welcome to your opinion, and the British certainly argued that Mauritius had no legitimate claim to the area. Though I'm pretty sure they didn't make that specific argument - it's not exactly a great look to argue that because these peoples' ancestors were brought there in the 1700's, rather than being conquered in the 1500's, it's okay for Britain to rule them instead of allowing them self-determination and independence. There's a reason why Mauritius is independent, rather than still a colony of Britain, despite not having a pre-existing native population.

Anyhow, the UK lost the argument, both at the ICJ and the UN. And the diplomatic and reputational costs that comes from being in continuous violation of an ICJ ruling and a UN Resolution continue, regardless of what they argue.

No place on earth has a "native" population. Every place on earth was originally inhabited by people from somewhere else.

Except for Mauritius, which wasn't inhabited by anyone *but* some colonial power.

There's a reason why Mauritius is independent, rather than still a colony of Britain, despite not having a pre-existing native population.

Sure. Because in the modern era, there's no value in holding on to a bunch of places you need to have handy for the sailing ships of the Royal Navy to drop anchor.

And the diplomatic and reputational costs that comes from being in continuous violation of an ICJ ruling and a UN Resolution continue, regardless of what they argue.

Oh my goodness. Heaven knows the UN is as pure as the driven snow and just about everyone on the planet waits with bated breath as to what they might say.

Except for Mauritius, which wasn't inhabited by anyone *but* some colonial power.

That doesn't make them an exception. Like everywhere else, they were uninhabited until people got there. The fact that the people got there after the formation of nation states as part of a system of colonization, rather than other systems, doesn't really matter. The people that live in an area generally have the right to self-determination, rather than being ruled by a colonial power halfway round the globe - whether they were natives or arrived there a few centuries earlier. Right there in the Declaration of Independence, doncha know.

Oh my goodness. Heaven knows the UN is as pure as the driven snow and just about everyone on the planet waits with bated breath as to what they might say.

They aren't, and they don't. But that doesn't mean that violating ICJ orders and UN Resolutions is costless. Especially when it's for a purpose that isn't a great look to begin with. "We want to continue having this territory which we acquired by colonization, then withheld from the grant of independence for the entire rest of the area, then displaced all the people who had been living there for a few centuries, over their objections and against their express desire for sovereignty." Makes it harder to win the hearts of minds of many of the folks in the Indo-Pacific region that you need to persuade to join Team West against the expanding influence of China in the region. Regardless of your opinion of the UN.

That doesn't make them an exception. Like everywhere else, they were uninhabited until people got there.

Except in this case...put there by the colonial powers. There's trail of tears or other argument to be made there. Their case is even lamer when you consider that the only reason they claim they own DG is because...wait for it...the British grouped them together.

The claim is baseless. The only people who have a legit gripe are the descendants of those who were removed from Diego Garcia itself.

Makes it harder to win the hearts of minds of many of the folks in the Indo-Pacific region that you need to persuade to join Team West against the expanding influence of China in the region. Regardless of your opinion of the UN.

You know how Team China gains influence in the region? By occupying the most important piece of real estate in the area and using it to exert economic and/or military pressure.

But the UK is quite reasonably trying to minimize the damage they're suffering. "UK First," after all!

MUKGA! MUKGA! Dope can volunteer to man the drone and rocket systems in the water at the end of the runway in Diego Garcia, which Trump has renamed Greenlandia Minor, and is proposing it be the 53rd state.

You know how Team China gains influence in the region? By occupying the most important piece of real estate in the area and using it to exert economic and/or military pressure.

Why is this the most important piece of real estate in the area? China basically already owns the Maldives, which is even closer to the Gulf and other assets in the region than these islands. They've been moving into the Seychelles (ditto):

https://archive.ph/DnXI1

China doesn't need this piece of real estate. They benefit if the UK/US base is thrown out - not because they need to have this particular island. If they want to take the step of formally pressuring a nation in the area to lease them a military base abroad, they can do it elsewhere.

No doubt part of the reason why all these island nations are turning more towards Team China is because China is near and active, and the U.S. is far and (mostly) uninterested in them. But it's not helped when Western powers do things like the British are doing with the Chagos archipelago.

Why is this the most important piece of real estate in the area?

For us it is. In 99 years when we're gone, we'll wish we had kept it.

China doesn't need this piece of real estate.

They wouldn't mind having it. They'd love it if we were gone from it.

National security trumps Feelz at the UN 100/100 times.

For us it is. In 99 years when we're gone, we'll wish we had kept it.

That's the rub, isn't it? If the UK doesn't cut this deal, and decides instead to maintain a hostile and antagonistic position towards Mauritius, can they keep it 100 years? The track record on that isn't great. Again, see Panama. A 99 year lease at least locks it in for 99 years; having to maintain an unpopular and somewhat indefensible assertion of colonial sovereignty in the modern day seems far less secure, IMHO.

Plus, the average elevation of Diego Garcia island is (checks internet) only 4 feet:

https://installations.militaryonesource.mil/in-dep...

Not sure how much national security value we should assign to holding that spot 100 years from now.

National security trumps Feelz at the UN 100/100 times.

Except that feelz at the UN are a part of national security. China is an economic and diplomatic threat, not just a military one. They're using the Belt and Road project to wrap up allies and gain influence in developing nations all over the world.

The UK's national security is probably better served by having 99 years and removing the diplomatic problem.

That's the rub, isn't it? If the UK doesn't cut this deal, and decides instead to maintain a hostile and antagonistic position towards Mauritius, can they keep it 100 years? The track record on that isn't great. Again, see Panama. A 99 year lease at least locks it in for 99 years; having to maintain an unpopular and somewhat indefensible assertion of colonial sovereignty in the modern day seems far less secure, IMHO.

Gitmo is the counter example. You think the Cubans want us there? Or the Chinese or the Russians or literally anyone else?

The only real question is: Why should we care what they think?

Except that feelz at the UN are a part of national security. China is an economic and diplomatic threat, not just a military one. They're using the Belt and Road project to wrap up allies and gain influence in developing nations all over the world.

Yup. Everywhere. Including Panama, btw. Sure glad we gave up control of the canal.

The UK's national security is probably better served by having 99 years and removing the diplomatic problem.


There was no real diplomatic problem until Starmer went and created one.

There was no real diplomatic problem until Starmer went and created one

Yes, King George.

Sure glad we gave up control of the canal.

It was a good idea.

It was a good idea.

What’s interesting is how many of you folks actively root for the Chinese over the US.

It was a good idea.

What’s interesting is how many of you folks actively root for the Chinese over the US.

I lived in Ancon, Panama Canal Zone for four years, from 12 to 16 years of age. My brother was at the flagpole at the HS when the riots started. I have fond memories of my childhood and have contact with a friend from there. I speak some Spanish. Your comments are dull.

Where have you been in Latin America, Dope? You should do some traveling there, or take a Caribbean cruise, some cruises go through the canal.. See Teotihuacan, Chichen Itza, or head further south to Machu Pichu.

Where have you been in Latin America, Dope?

Ecuador and the Galapagos, thank you very much.

Your comments are dull.

I get that you believe your anecdotes lend some weight to your opinion, but…

…they really don’t.

Where have you been in Latin America, Dope?

Ecuador and the Galapagos, thank you very much.

Interesting. What took you out there? How long were you in a foreign country?

Have you lived abroad anywhere long enough to go through culture shock and make adjustment to a new culture?

As I've said before Dope, if there was a 150 mile strip running from New Orleans up to Canada in the middle of the USA occupied by a foreign country, you might start appreciating why it was a good idea. It's also viewed as an imperialistic acquisition by some. We acquired it during our gunboat diplomacy period.

I didn't think so at the time, but I have come to view it as a good idea.

Where have you been in Latin America, Dope?
...the Galapagos, thank you very much.

Hey Dope, did you learn anything about evolution while visiting the Galapagos Islands or are you still on team anti-science?

Speaking of team anti-science, this just in...
Trump supporter Mel Gibson’s house burned down while he was on the Joe Rogan podcast telling the world that ivermectin cures stage 4 cancer.

https://www.newsweek.com/mel-gibson-joe-rogan-iver....

Trump supporter Mel Gibson’s house burned down while he was on the Joe Rogan podcast telling the world that ivermectin cures stage 4 cancer.

I had a friend die from 4th stage cancer. He had a pain in his back and was using vibrating pillows to help him with the pain. He had a great sense of humor and billed himself as the world's greatest hypochondriac. But he waited long time before getting the pain looked at, and died the day after he was diagnosed as 4th stage terminal. He was a gOOooOOd guy.

There was no real diplomatic problem until Starmer went and created one.

This has been a diplomatic problem for years and years. As noted upthread, the ICJ rulings and the UN Resolution ordering the UK to comply were issued in 2019 (and the dispute started far earlier). The UK has been facing the diplomatic blowback since then. Long before Starmer.

"Giving up the Canal" was a good idea. Even in my history classes (which were "America rah rah", back in the 70s), we learned about the Canal as part of "gunboat diplomacy". Basically, we had no navy to speak of, and we were concerned about European aggression because we were so prosperous. So we -quite literally- bought a navy for cash. Shiny new battleships, state of the art (for that time). There was some politics about separating the land from Colombia (since they didn't want us digging a canal), and giving it to Panama (which were happy to have us dig a canal). Then we sent our new battleships to blockade Colombia, basically saying "we're going to dig now".

I doubled-checked my memory, and it was pretty close. For more, read here:

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

That kind of strong-arming and colonialism is not really appropriate today.

Panama wasn't happy about our "ownership" after the WWII, which ended with a treaty signed by Carter that would turn over the Canal to the Panamanians so long as they guaranteed neutrality of the Canal in perpetuity. (Which, if they go back on, then gunboats might be appropriate. We already know we can do that; ref. Noriega.)

"Giving up the Canal" was a good idea.

No it wasn’t. They could have paid more, promised upgrades, etc. instead they handed over some of the most valuable real estate on the planet.

I won't rehash others' arguments about a foreign nation owning the Mississippi River (navegable).

I'll just say "yes it was".

I can do this all day.

Your turn.

I can do this all day.

You mean repeat illogical arguments from other posters? Sure, go ahead.

The Mississippi thing is…laughable. Was it a non-navigable waterway rife with disease? Did it require tens of thousands of lives to get under control? And the equivalent of 10s of billions of dollars and years to complete?

No, no, no and no?
There were other alternatives to surrendering the canal, but like all democrats Carter wanted to feel good about himself rather than look after the United States’ strategic interests.

By the way, for those who insist on persisting with this, riddle us this one:

Why, the canal is such a burden to Panamanian sovereignty, have the Nicaraguans been wanting to build their own canal for oh...the last 100 years or so?

No it wasn’t. They could have paid more, promised upgrades, etc.

Yes it was. We could have paid people off to go our way. The average Panamanian resented our being there, the more educated ones knew the history, and even many of the educated believed propaganda that we hadn't paid the lease. Panamanians got the lower jobs on the canal, nearly all of the higher paid jobs were American and white foreigners. And this was smack dab in the middle of their country.

Strangely enough, getting Noriega is the only time I've ever seen one of our Latin American interventions for regime change to establish democracy work.

You mean repeat illogical arguments from other posters? Sure, go ahead.

The Mississippi thing is…laughable. Was it a non-navigable waterway rife with disease? Did it require tens of thousands of lives to get under control? And the equivalent of 10s of billions of dollars and years to complete?

It's meant to give you a perspective which you refuse to consider, Dope. Then there's our history of Latin American interventions, etc., and our imperialism period.

have the Nicaraguans been wanting to build their own canal for oh...the last 100 years or so?

Longer than that. Volcanic eruptions in Nicaragua plus earthquakes favored Panama.

It's meant to give you a perspective which you refuse to consider, Dope.

Yep. Apparently flew right over his head.

Also, imperialism is -IMO- bad. Cultural is "OK" because a society either likes or doesn't like something (e.g. Coca-Cola). They don't have to listen to Taylor Swift if they don't want to. But troops and gunboats for imperialism is bad.

Yep. Apparently flew right over his head.


Yeah, no.
This thread is illuminating.

Also, imperialism is -IMO- bad. Cultural is "OK" because a society either likes or doesn't like something (e.g. Coca-Cola). They don't have to listen to Taylor Swift if they don't want to. But troops and gunboats for imperialism is bad.

Well, I/m unsure that Dope has a really good idea of what we've done in Latin America. We've had our "banana republic" period, gunboat diplomacy, Imperialism, etc., and the Monroe Doctrine which we sometimes put on steroids.

Dope, this is short enough you can read it, and there's much more that isn't on there.

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

There's a section on Trump re Venezuela. You might check it over and see if they got everything right. :)

And-

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
― Smedley D. Butler, War Is a Racket

Well, I/m unsure that Dope has a really good idea

Lol. I don’t need you (or anyone on this board for that matter) to give me a history lesson.

You people are all making the same emotionally driven argument, which is that the US did some colonial-esque things in its past and as such we should do nothing but run around the world and apologize.

Never mind that the Panama Canal is vital to our national security and that giving the Chinese so much as a toehold there is a bad idea. It doesn’t seem to occur to any of you that there are partnerships we could be doing better on. So is Diego Garcia.

Foreign policy by Feelz alone is always a bad idea.

Lol. I don’t need you (or anyone on this board for that matter) to give me a history lesson.

I think you do need to spend some time with history, and I could've predicted you'd reply with bullshit and braggadocio.

The argument isn't emotionally driven, we had an Imperialism period - that's a fact. We have poor reputations in most of Latin America because of actions we've taken - and you don't appear to know the actions we've taken. Most of us get our history of Latin America as a series of articles we read, maybe a podcast or two. So just look it over. Look up Smedley - he's partly a likeable kook it seems.

The US negotiated with Colombia for the Zone, but the Colombians wanted more money. I think it only took a thousand men in a bloodless action to kick Colombia out and we made a treaty with the new Panama.

SNIP The Canal and the Panamanians

The frayed relations between the U.S. and Panama began almost immediately after the signing of the 1903 Hay-Bunau-­Varilla treaty that allowed the U.S. to build and maintain the Panama Canal on the Isthmus of Panama. Panama was established as a country, with U.S. assistance, shortly before the treaty was signed in 1903. Over the years, the Panamanians sought to obtain more equitable provisions from the original treaty than the U.S. was willing to concede. The two countries addressed these issues through adjustments to the original agreement during the treaty negotiations of 1936, 1942, and 1955.

The need for continued negotiations was due to what the Panamanians viewed as improper interpretations by the U.S. of the original treaty. These misinterpretations revolved around matters such as the sovereignty issue, the “in perpetuity” clause, flying the Panamanian flag in the Zone, the importing of third party goods into the Zone, the exclusion of Panamanian goods and services from Zone markets, and discrimination against Panamanians working in the Zone. The U.S. on the other hand felt that the Panamanians viewed the Canal as “their meal ticket” and exploited it accordingly.

Most Panamanians were convinced that the United States did not deal with them fairly and felt a high sense of frustration with Panama’s failure to obtain adjustments in the Canal treaty structure that would favor Panama’s interests. Panama deeply objected to the exercise of sovereign powers by the United States in the Canal Zone and considered the situation an affront to her national dignity. The following documents illustrate Panamanian reaction to this situation...


...If the United States wanted to improve its relations with Panama, it had to recognize that there were real misunderstandings concerning the treaties, that these misunderstandings needed to be addressed, and that U.S. basic rights concerning the Zone needed to be altered in some way to benefit Panama. Recently declassified records focus on issues such as whether or not the U.S. needed to make concessions, what type of concessions, the extent to which Panama needed to be involved in the Canal’s operation, and Panama's economic link to the Canal Zone. This constant back and forth over what the treaties allowed or didn’t allow created tension between the countries. What follows is a sample of the various documents that focus on this issue... Dox in link

...In addition to treaty issues, the day to day Zone operations and living conditions between Panamanians and Zone officials and employees also created tensions. The United States Ambassador was charged with the responsibility for the conduct of relations with Panama. However, there were other U.S. government agencies in the Zone which also affected relations with Panama. This included the Governor of the Zone who was also President of the Panama Canal Company, and the military as represented by the Commander-­in-­Chief Caribbean Command (CINCARIB) later known as the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). These organizations operated independently of each other and did not always consult with each other before determining policy or acting on that policy. The following documents focus on the organizational problems and tensions and how they impacted internal U.S. and Panamanian government relations... Dox in link

...The Canal civilian officials were accused of discriminating against the Panamanian labor force in the Zone while the U.S. citizens that worked on the Zone, known as “Zonians”, were seen as having colonial attitudes when dealing with Panamanians. The presence of U.S. troops and military installations was seen as an “affront” by the local Panamanians to their sovereignty. Whether Panama was or was not treated as a territory or a colony deeply colored the U.S. relations with Panama and affected social and economic interactions between the countries. The following documents highlight this situation...

...The problems between the U.S. and Panamanians reached fever pitch in 1959 and 1964 with overt riots and demonstrations against U.S. presence on the Isthmus. Although the 1959 demonstrations took place first, they are seldom cited while the 1964 demonstrations are better known and highlighted often to show Panamanian displeasure with the U.S. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson attempted to address Panamanian violence and demonstrations prior to 1964. In response to the 1959 violence, President Eisenhower issued an announcement of a nine point program to improve relations between the United States and Panama. The program called for such things as pay increases and improved housing for the Panamanian employees, and increased pensions for disabled former employees. However, the program failed to institute changes prior to 1964. The following documents focus on the pre­-1964 events that acted as a catalyst to the 1964 riots...

...1964 saw more riots and mob violence. The riots revolved around not allowing the Panamanian flag to fly next to the U.S. flag at the Balboa High School. Even though an agreement had been reached sometime in 1962 under President John F. Kennedy to allow the Panamanian flag to be flown alongside the American flag at civilian locations, this order was not carried out. Therefore, on January 9, 1964, with the Panamanian flag still not being flown next to the U.S. flag at Balboa High School, some of the Panamanian students decided to march to the entrance of the Canal Zone to show their displeasure.

What resulted were three days of riots, destruction of two million dollars’ worth of property, and at least 20 people killed. Panama broke off relations with the U.S. and accused them of aggression and appealed to the Organization of American States and the United Nations. The incident was used as a rallying cry among Panamanians against U.S. authority in the Canal Zone. On December 18, 1964, President Johnson issued a statement announcing that the United States would proceed with plans for a sea level canal and would negotiate with Panama a new treaty to replace the Treaty of 1903. The following documents highlight the considerations entertained by the U.S. government to defuse the rioting...

...In the meantime, experts were to determine the need for another canal through 1980 and attempts would be made to give the Panamanians, according to Department of State officials, “enough more or less meaningless concessions over the next few years to keep them from raising too much hell over the issue.” Concessions were always a negotiating point both sides used as leverage against the other as shown in the following documents...

https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/p...

And there's more. The next section starts:

U.S. Foreign Policy, the Canal, and Panamanian Politics

Canal issues and treaty negotiations dominated Panama’s internal politics and relations with the U.S. Both sides saw the canal dispute as an explosive issue that could disrupt the upcoming Treaty negotiations. The treaty negotiations in 1964 became a campaign issue in the Panamanian elections. Various Panamanian political groups used the names of the U.S. and the Canal as reminders to the voters that they have been treated as a territory or colony and not as a sovereign partner as promised in the 1903 treaty...
----------------------------

I think it's an emotional argument to say, "We built it, spent billions...", but recognizing our defense interests isn't an emotional argument. So we have to keep an eye on it and have friendly relations while letting them know breaking neutrality will have serious consequences. That's best communicated in private and not by a tweet or presser. It's an easy read Dope, but I don't think you'll read it.

I think you do
…need to educate you on the canal’s history. Go read you some David McCullough.

Literally nothing you’re saying is addressing my main point: both the canal and Diego Garcia are vital to US national security. You can call me all the names you want but it won’t help you front any kind of argument.

Meanwhile, the Nicaraguans are wanting to explore ways to build their own canal, which would potentially address some of the limitations of the Panama one.

Literally nothing you’re saying is addressing my main point: both the canal and Diego Garcia are vital to US national security. You can call me all the names you want but it won’t help you front any kind of argument.

Prove you didn't read my post why doncha? I did address your point of national security. I didn't call you a name - that's Sano, so you're getting me confused with Sano? I'm much handsomer. :)

And 1pg. my asking about culture shock was to see if he had lived in a country that long. He'd narrow minded and apparently hates history. :)

both the canal and Diego Garcia are vital to US national security.

Yes they are. So are Canada and Greenland.

In the same way that Ukraine is vital to Russian national security, or the Ruhr Valley and Baku oil fields were vital to German security in 1940.

Hopefully we wont choose the solution that Russia and Germany chose, just as we pray and attempt to discourage China from choosing that same solution as regards its national security interest in Taiwan.

In the same way that Ukraine is vital to Russian national security, or the Ruhr Valley and Baku oil fields were vital to German security in 1940.

Right. We’re totally the same as those folks. Then again, the left thinks that Cheeto Hitler is going to bring back the 1930’s, so who knows.

Well, I/m unsure that Dope has a really good idea of what we've done in Latin America.

And elsewhere. But he's not entirely to blame. My roommate one year in the grad dorm was a Latin American Studies major. I had no idea that we deposed the duly elected leader of Chile (Allende) and installed a ruthless despot (Pinochet). Because Allende was talking to Castro (note: oversimplified, but that is mostly it).

As you say, the Noriega affair was one of the few times our meddling yielded a positive outcome.

And 1pg. my asking about culture shock was to see if he had lived in a country that long. He'd narrow minded and apparently hates history. :)

Yeah, I got that.

I was just pointing out that there are a few kinds of imperialism. One type where a society chooses to listen to Taylor Swift, and drink Coca-Cola, is fine. Their choice. Another type is forbidding the teaching of the native language to young native peoples (e.g. Navajos), or dictating what sexual positions are OK (it's called the "missionary position" because missionaries of old said that was the only acceptable way to do it). And then there's the threat of violence (or actual use of it). IMHO, only the first one is acceptable because the society in question is making a choice. The other examples, they are not.

Yeah, I got that.

Not really.

And elsewhere. But he's not entirely to blame. My roommate one year in the grad dorm was a Latin American Studies major. I had no idea that we deposed the duly elected leader of Chile (Allende) and installed a ruthless despot (Pinochet). Because Allende was talking to Castro (note: oversimplified, but that is mostly it).

Yes, we backed Pinochet. I follow an old journo that was one of Allende's translators. He wrote a book 'Pinochet and Me' which was a bestseller for a period. Pinochet murdered or disappeared some 3000 and much more were tortured. And we backed the coup because Allende was a socialist, and he committed suicide

I was just pointing out that there are a few kinds of imperialism. One type where a society chooses to listen to Taylor Swift, and drink Coca-Cola, is fine. Their choice. Another type is forbidding the teaching of the native language to young native peoples (e.g. Navajos), or dictating what sexual positions are OK (it's called the "missionary position" because missionaries of old said that was the only acceptable way to do it). And then there's the threat of violence (or actual use of it). IMHO, only the first one is acceptable because the society in question is making a choice. The other examples, they are not.

Usually language is part of the Imperialism takeover of an area, but not always. We taught English to the Philippines after we put down the insurrection, but it didn't take until parts of our culture came over and had influence. But that was back when education of the populace was becoming mainstream.

Sexual Imperialism sounds kinky. :)

Sexual Imperialism sounds kinky. :)

Hey...I don't judge role-playing. Whatever revs the engine...

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.