why did Jimmy Carter hand the Panama canal over to Panama?

[zleppelin]

In other words, for those of you familiar with the subject, why did Jimmy Carter sign the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977, which annulled the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903, which granted the U.S. perpetual control of the canal?

Sure, some of us might argue it was the right thing to do. But in reality, the U.S. does not make decisions based on morality. There are always underlying political, military, and economic reasons when it comes to that type of decisions; especially when it comes to nullifying a treaty which allowed for the U.S. to legally control the canal forever.

 

[Feath]

It's in the name, obviously.

 

[zleppelin]

Yeah it must be the name. Guess we should give New Mexico back to Mexico. By the way, my avatar is better than yours

 

[delusional]

because the money we paid to make the canal was paid back

 

[Cole]

In other words, for those of you familiar with the subject, why did Jimmy Carter sign the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977, which annulled the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903, which granted the U.S. perpetual control of the canal?

Sure, some of us might argue it was the right thing to do. But in reality, the U.S. does not make decisions based on morality. There are always underlying political, military, and economic reasons when it comes to that type of decisions; especially when it comes to nullifying a treaty which allowed for the U.S. to legally control the canal forever.

The people who lived in Panama were getting mad. They wanted it back. There government and there people. A canal like that requires people to operate it. That brings jobs. Adding jobs to a country that needs jobs will help the economy along with the taxing for ships that use the Canal. Panama simply wanted to improve there economy and the U.S. didn't want to look greedy.

 

[<RJMC>]

dont ofend but that sound very selfish "omfg why give the canal???" in that case the USA should give some of there lands to the UK since they where the ones that conquered it

 

[CptStern]

In other words, for those of you familiar with the subject, why did Jimmy Carter sign the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977, which annulled the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903, which granted the U.S. perpetual control of the canal?

Sure, some of us might argue it was the right thing to do. But in reality, the U.S. does not make decisions based on morality. There are always underlying political, military, and economic reasons when it comes to that type of decisions; especially when it comes to nullifying a treaty which allowed for the U.S. to legally control the canal forever.

while it doesnt go into specifics on the deal brokered by carter it does paint a picture of the motivations behind US foreign policy (panama, the invasion and cia drug running is briefly mentioned)

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

 

[zleppelin]

if it was written by Chomsky it's probably worth reading. thanks

 

[zleppelin]

dont ofend but that sound very selfish "omfg why give the canal???"

Then how do you suggest I present this question?

It's not a complaint. It's just a question.

 

[15357]

Because, mon ami, the United States of America is prone to random things every now and then. It mostly happens internally, but this is a rare case.

 

[kirovman]

Because the military leader at the time was going to destroy the canal otherwise?

The trade loss wouldn't have been worth it.

 

[Hired-Gun]

Because the military leader at the time was going to destroy the canal otherwise?

The trade loss wouldn't have been worth it.

Manuel Noriega???

 

[theotherguy]

The canal should have been property of the country it was in. They had paid the debt, and we weren't getting much money out of it.

Also, the canal might have constituted a colonial outpost, which is illegal under the constitution. (but this would really have to be stretched)