Philosopher, can you say more about your mention of poison gas
production?

Are you talking about uranium hexaflouride?

Thanks,
Oceans

I knew there was some interesting activity in Panama in 1964 and that
there was a push for the US to rewrite the treaty based on some event
there. It is interesting to hear your perspective on the treaty. No
doubt as a Panamanian you would share the Panamanian opinion that the US
should simply get out. Oh well. The original treaty did not spell that
out as a necessity. I think in 1964 there was some talk about changing
the terms eventually but that certainly was not binding on Carter or
anyone else.

I'm not entirely certain that it was a bad thing for the US to get out
of Panama. But I am certain that Carter brought it about. Many people
feel strongly that it was the right thing to do. Many feel strongly that
it was the wrong thing to do.

I think that there may have been some middle of the road solution that
would have benefited everyone involved. Apparently the issue had to be
dealt with and Carter certainly did not waste any time doing so.

As for Chavez being democratically elected, yes I will go along with
that. As for whether he had no outside support to get there, no way. My
guess is that he had plenty outside support and even political coaching,
not to mention the original local elections manipulated and controlled
by some strong arm tactics. Later he has become somewhat entrenched and
has solidified his support. But as this post originally started with the
question about whether the CIA was too much involved in Latin America
and South America, the Venezuelan issue is more relevant to the whole
topic. When the CIA sloughs off and does not influence things, other
countries do so. The result is to our detriment. Venezuela and some of
its neighbors are brought well under the soviet block philosophically,
economically and militarily. This occurs every time you take a 'live and
let live' approach to international relations, because other countries
will take advantage.

Overall, fair trade and honorable relations are the best approach to
foreign policy. But when international relations are underscored by
secret deals for power and bribery, things don't work they way you would
expect them to. The US and sometimes the CIA needs to have a look at
such secret deals and power plays and manage relations carefully to
avoid the pitfalls associated with such situations.

Alada, Many thanks for this history on the Panama canal and its legal
status....so much to know!

How significant do you think it is that the US may in effect have set up
'Panama' as a break away state in order to have more complaisant
'partner' for the Canal?

Oceans

Tell me sir, everything you know about Gutamala. You seem like a great
source of information, and I have to write a Report on it. Ive read the
www.cia report on it and the www.state department reports on it, what
else can you tell me? Seems like a nice place, if you like earthquakes,
Hurricanes, and Volcano's.

Philosopher did you read my post on the history of th Panama Canal?

I think thats exactly what happenned Ocean. The US is Responsible for
the creation of the country of Panama. American soldiers died for them.

Philosopher warns that we need to be careful about the underhanded
things we do in international affairs.

Much of our problem with Iran started when Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA
overthrew a freely elected government in Iran, that of PM Mossadegh. He
flew to Tehran and bought mobs with generous donations of greenbacks.

But we don't learn....
Today, we are backing a Iranian terrorist organization (so identified by
our own government) the Mujaheddin-al-Khelq. We have armed and supply
some 3,000 of them, hunkered down in SW Iraq, just waiting the word to
'invade' Iran.... I wonder how long it will take for this worm to turn
on us.

And speaking of turning worms: our blind support for various extremist
Kurdish groups is heating things up in northern Iraq, and leading to
increased anti-American concern and organization there and aong their
Turkish and Iranian neighbors.

Just posting these tidbits to make our evening!

Sadly,

Oceans

Today, we are backing a Iranian terrorist organization (so identified by
our own government) the Mujaheddin-al-Khelq. We have armed and supply
some 3,000 of them, hunkered down in SW Iraq, just waiting the word to
'invade' Iran....

Do you mean SW Pakistan here??

No, SW Iraq, just across the Shatt al-Arab.

Oooops! Sorry, Fanta. You are right: I mean SE Iraq -- not SW!

Oceans

In response to Oceans: "Alada, Many thanks for this history on the
Panama canal and its legal status....so much to know!

How significant do you think it is that the US may in effect have set up
'Panama' as a break away state in order to have more complaisant
'partner' for the Canal.

Totally. It was by the hand of the US that Panama broke from Colombia.
When Panama independent from Spain, Simon Bolivar suggested that we
joined Colombia as we were and are, a very small country. Colombia never
took notice of us, as being separated from the Capital City by a
murderous jungle. It was the forgotten state. When the French Canal
initiative failed due to ill administration of the funds, lack of
knowledge of the terrain and infirmity (yellow fever, malaria and
dengue), the country was at its poorest level. When the US started
exploring the possibility of purchasing the rights to continue the
construction of the Panama Canal they met with the opposition of the
Colombian Senate, that wanted more money for the rights. Panama was only
one of the options of building a Canal through the region, one of the
other was Nicaragua, which did not present as many political problems as
Panama did. But Panama was geographically, more feasible of an
enterprise. So colombian leaders born in Panama or sympathetic to the
Panamanian cause, started lobbying to finally get the treaty and thus,
the Canal. With Colombia's refusal to sign the Herran-Hay treaty,
Panama's possible progress originating from the construction of an
interoceanic canal through the Isthmus would never become a reality.

That's when Pres. Roosevelt forced his hand in our separation (and note
that I say separation: we were a state freely associated to Colombia,
and at liberty of separating at will, our only independence was from
Spain in 1821), providing the troops and inabilitating the Colombian
troops from intervening.

The Panama Canal treaty signed Nov. 18, 1903, 15 days after our
separation from Colombia, was signed by a Plenipotentiary Ambassador, a
French Engineer called Phillip Bunau-Varilla, for Panama and Mr. Hay,
for the US. Of course the US wanted Panama to be independent as the
negotiations with Colombia would have dragged for years, causing the US
investors to probably, look towards Nicaragua and other possibilities.

If, the Panama Canal is not necessary to the US as you said, then the
largest shipping companies, US Based, wouldn't be so concerned as to
wanting to become participants in the process of enlarging the Panama
Canal, that wilbe completed by 2014, 100 yrs after it was open to the
world. Maybe it is not a strategic stronghold in the region, military
speaking, as there aren't any more Dictators in the region.

Nowadays, the Canal has seen more improvement in 8 years since it was
reverted to Panamanian Administration, than it saw during the American
administration. The revenues of the Panama Canal revert directly in
social works, education, medical assistance, etc. During American
Administration, a very small portion was "paid" to Panama, everything
else was sent to the US treasure.
FANTA46 POSTED: "In 1903 the US proposed a treaty that would permit a
renewed effort to construct a canal across Panama's isthmus. The
previous attempt by the French had failed in the 1880's. When the
Colombian Government refused to allow the US to build the Canal, the
Panamanian people rebelled, and
supported by the US, ( the US military prevented the Colombian troops
from intervening) The Panamanians declared their independence and the
new country (Panama) immediately granted the US the rights to the Canal
Zone, 10 miles in width and 50 miles long. No money involved (YES $40
MILIION US DOLLARS WERE PAID FOR THE GRANT) and the Panama government
allowed the US all rights, powers, and authority in the Zone as if it
were the sovereign territory of the US. In the 70's the Canal had more
traffic than now and was generating millions of dollars in tolls, and
Panama started demanding it back. Given that the original treaty did not
give the US permanant possesion of the Canal the US renegotiated a
treaty in 1977 qnd began a staged withdrawl from the Zone, which was
completed in 1999."

The original treaty was a perpetual treaty that granted the US the
Admnistration, safeguard and defense, in addition to authorization to
the US government to interfere in Panamanian Politics if, at any point,
these policies were deemed or "perceived" to be in detriment of the
Canal. The staged withdrawal began in 1979 and ended in 1999. TWENTY TWO
YEARS AFTER THE TREATY WAS SIGNED. And it wasn't or itsn't important to
US strategy. I guess that's why the US Embassy is building a gigantic
compound in former Ft. Clayton, across the street from the Miraflores
Locks, right?

And no, the US wouldn't have the Canal back.

Oceans, this topic of the Panama Canal and the Separation from Colombia,
is exactly the topic of the book that I am currently translating, called
"With Ardent Flames of Glory", I will be happy to send you a copy when
finished.

OK, its not as... strategically important with our modern Navy's in both
the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets, but I am sure it still has some value.
Other than that and the $40 million we are in agreement, and the FACT
that if we wanted it back it could be done in days....LOL

Not that we could fit even the smallest of our effective military
vessels through the canal. Your tiniest of battleships are at least
three times wider than the waterway. And forget about sliding a sub
through.... heh....

Alada, I'd like to have a look at that. Sounds really interesting. I
always like stuff like that.

Fanta, I didn't get to read your historical comments yet, I'm working
and such. Several comments were added to the thread I want to read, but
I have kids for the weekend and I'm outta here. I'll look this stuff
over tomorrow when things calm down.

Yea, yea, your just attracted to yhe pretty girl. I know how it
is......

I concur with fanta. Oh well, take your best shot. She's a bit out of
my age bracket, anyways.

Hi Alada. You know I'd love to read FLAMES. Many many thanks.

Great thread!

Oceans

Maybe the US needs our own 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission'? It
could at least look at US actions overseas since the end of the colonial
period, starting, say, with the post-WWII period.

Palestine, Iran, Panama, Grenada, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua,
Lebanon...what else?

Oceans

How about Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, and about half of Africa and South
America?