Trump negotiating a new Panama Canal treaty for the American people

The USA paid Panama $10 million to let us complete the canal. Then the USA controlled it. liberal Carter gave control back to Panama (without being compensated) because most liberals think the USA is prosperous at the expense of other countries and wants the USA to let foreign countries share our wealth. Which means we send them our tax dollars. At last, we now have a president who will wheel-and-deal for the benefit of the USA. It's about time.

 

That it belongs to Panama, but US has the right to use the canal and even use military force to keep it open.

 

This kind of thing is what Presidents are supposed to do. The "deal with the Taliban" is an example of how Joe can ruin any agreement. Take Remain in Mexico. Day 1, Joe decides waiting for your court date to come into the US is racist, and a flood of illegal immigrants come in from every prison in Central America. The Taliban deal was fine until Joe decided to announce the exact timeline of the withdrawal so the Taliban could plan their attack.

 

Americans succeed by bloody conquest. It worked on the native Aboriginal inhabitants, so simply walk into Panama and obliterate any resistance by deadly force.
Then turn attention to the war with Denmark as America tries to conquer Greenland.

 

and then Panama will just give it back?

1. The Chinese aren't there.
2. You mean we should start a war and take it back?

Before we "take it back" think a bit:
How do we get troops there to take it back?
What if Panama comes under attack and it decides to destroy the canal before the US can take it? Then there would be no canal.
How many US lives is the canal worth?
What would the rest of the world feel about dealing with the US and its new reputation as an aggressor and a country willing to turn on its friends??
There is no positive result here.
All of this to save a few $$ for American shipping companies?

 

Of course, what you are saying is basically true. But I don't think it sums up the game here. The government of Panama is generally pretty stable, current president has a five year term that began in July.
I would doubt that declaring the treaty void would lead to the return of control of the canal; that would be fantasy. However, that doesn't mean that Trump has no leverage. Sometimes concessions are won where the thing offered to gain them is not so tangible, like a lawsuit being settled to make it go away and avoid the costs it would involve. Trump is quite skilled at knowing how to find and use leverage.

I did some research on the way the canal charges for passage, and it's pretty clear that they are taking advantage of the fact there is no competitive alternative. It made me think of an old story where a man wanted to buy a wagon, and was told the price was $200. When the man didn't flinch, the seller added that the wheels- would also be $200. When the buyer still didn't flinch, the seller said "Each".

You pay a fee to get in line to go through. That's not for passage, just for being in line. Sometimes, vessels are in line a long time, anchored and waiting. One tanker carrying liquid petroleum gas paid a fee to move to the front of the line- $2.5 million, on top of the $500K they were paying for passage anyway, plus the inspections, the fee for a pilot, fees for the line handlers.
They do take advantage wherever it is to their advantage to take advantage.

And- if a Panamanian goes to the overview decks to see the locks in operation, they pay a $3.00 fee to enter. If an American tourist goes to the same place, it's a $10 fee.

Trump is right about the injustice of the fees and practices. What he can do about it remains to be seen.

 

It is certainly worth laying down a marker over. South American governments are weak, but appreciate strength. Trump is that strength.

Where will America be in 100 years? The Chinese have an idea. Trump has an idea. Do you?

 

Suggesting that we “withdraw” from this treaty because Panama is “charging us more” is based on BS and is the thinking like an infant. Are we prepared to maintain the canal? Who will we send to carry out this tempest in a teapot policy? Importantly, will Panama meekly go along with Trump’s stupid ideas? If not, what do we do about it?

 

No, it isn’t. It’s yet another trivial non-issue Trump vomits out in the public domain and his dutiful minions suddenly become pretend experts on and parrot his nonsense.

“Lay down a marker”? No, it’s not worth abusing American prestige on such a stupid issue. We have more important issues to address and if Trump is going to tilt at windmills, we’ll have less credibility on issues that do matter. “Bbbut Trump is just doing things differently blah blah blah”. Nonsense. He still has no idea what he’s doing and it shows when he devotes his attention to dipshit issues like this.

 

Let's just think about this for a moment. If you were Panamanian, wouldn't you think that your government would be anti-Panamanian, if they charged anything less than they could for ships to pass? If they charge too much, ships will go through the Suez canal. They will only take the Panama canal if it make economic sense, despite the fees. Now, why is Panama obliged to give the shipping industry a handout? Why is it that MAGA always thinks America first, but they can't think about other countries having voters who also want to maximize the return for their own country?

In terms of the Chinese, the invest worlwide into infrastructure. In essence, this is economic "warfare" to establish Chinese interests and influence all over the world. The US could do the same thing, but they have in the past preferred the barrel fo the gun to exert influence. And now, MAGA wants the US to retreat from the international scene. Again, this is a competition, just like alternative energy. You fail to compete, you suffer the consequences down the road. If the US wants to leave the alternative energy market to China and India, it's at their own peril.

 

You asked what leverage Trump has, I told you. The rest of your post was just your mental construct.

 

Much of what you say has been true for some time. Even since before Trumps first term. Panama does not treat the US any differently than any other nation. Panama has the right to give discounts to its own citizens. The US government does not have the right to set that price. The US is not forced to use the canal, but they do use it because it is cheaper than alternative routes therefore they need to pay the price.

 

France feels they were cheated when the US bought the Louisiana Purchase. They have withdrawn from the treaty and are sending the US its 15 million dollars back. They will soon re-assume control.

Upon hearing this Russia stated that they too were cheated and are sending back the 7.2 million dollars they received for Alaska. They too expect to take back control.

Mexico is reconsidering the Treaty of Guadalupe which ceded California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. They contend that they were truly cheated because the US didn't pay them anything.

 

Your claim is fake news.

 

Or else what? LOL.
War? With China or Panama?
I always knew the MAGA crowd is war mongerers.
Over what some liar at fox lies thinks?

Where's your proof. Not some idiot opinion piece from fox lies.

I thought MAGA was against globalism. So, why worry about Panama and China?
They are not USA and isolationism.

 

It was known you could not answer what treaty trump can withdraw us from.

You don't even know the story of the Panama Canal. How can you make informed posts?

 

Um, what's he going to do?
You know, 2/3 of congress let go of the treaty with Panama?

We've had no say in the canal for over 3 decades. There's no treaty anymore.

WTF do you think the convicted felon can do today? That he couldn't do the last term?

 

Link/Source?

 

Many of the USA Americans are humanity orientated.

While some others care less for any other humans but themselves. The USSC allowed the Biden admin to act in humanitarian ways with migrants.


...xxx
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed a treaty with Panamanian military leader Omar Torrijos that granted Panama free control over the canal and guaranteed the waterway's permanent neutrality.
This took effect on Dec. 31, 1999. The canal has since been administered by the Panamanian government's Panama Canal Authority, and remains a key source of income for the country.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Climate change has contributed to increasing droughts that have impacted water levels in the lakes feeding the canal, forcing the canal authority to limit transits as it balances Panamanians' water needs.
On Sunday, Trump threatened to reimpose U.S. control, citing what he said were excessive fees to use the canal and a risk of Chinese influence. A subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings (0001.HK)
, opens new tab has long managed two ports near canal entrances.
"It was given to Panama and the people of Panama, but it has provisions," Trump said of the canal.
"If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, quickly and without question."
PANAMA'S RESPONSE
Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino rejected Trump's threat. He said the canal's tariffs were carefully and transparently evaluated, and that these maintain the canal and helped expand it in 2016, boosting traffic and global trade.
"Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its surrounding area belongs to Panama and will continue to do so," he said in a statement on Sunday. "Our country's sovereignty and independence are not negotiable."
"The canal is not under any direct or indirect control from China, the European community, the United States, or any other power," Mulino added.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/what-is-panama-canal-why-has-trump-threatened-take-it-over-2024-12-23/

 

Where is Manuel Noriega, the former leader of Panama?

 

Interesting to see that you put America last. The choice for shippers includes many things beside the canal, such as total distance and days at sea, miscellaneous risks such as pirating in the areas approaching the Suez. For instance a ship from Asia can avoid the canal by travelling around South America- and adding 8,000 miles to the trip. And neither I nor Trump said Panama shouldn't profit from operating the canal; just not selectively rip off some shippers just because they can. America DID build the canal, DID pay Panama for a 10-mile wide stretch on land it would be built on. Panama did not contribute, it only gained- and wound up with the entire thing, updates and all, going back to them for $1.00. That's what we did for them. The canal produces 12% of the nations total GDP. The new approach to things isn't "retreating" from the national scene, it's saying the people that we have given so much help need to pitch in.

 

So, you have no problem with the logic arising from the fact we paid Panama for the land the canal was built on, built it, and it has been a major revenue provider for them as well over the years; now we sell the whole works back to them for $1.00- so why should we expect any gratitude?

That makes a lot of sense to you?

 

There will be no new treaty. Panama has said no to trump in no uncertain terms. This is pure fantasy on trump's part and the MAGA world. Trump also has other more important issues to deal with first whether you agree with those policies or not. And this issue will take a back burner in more ways than one.

Second, for the treaty to be enforced, 2/3 of the Senate must agree, much like the Treaties that Carter signed with negotiations that began in the Nixon Administration.

 

Our lease was ending and the negotiations started with Nixon, then Ford, and finally carter. The Senate ratified the treaties by 2/3s of the majority with 18 republicans voting in favor of the Treaty.

 

Of course but if any of those countries did try to cancel the treaty and wanted their land back do you think we would give it to them? Why should we expect other countries to do something which we obviously would not do?

I am not expecting gratitude. I feel it is wrong for the US to cancel a Treaty it willingly signed and take something that does not belong to them.
Doing so would damage the US reputation with other countries, anger nations that are our friends, hinder our ability to negotiate treaties and make us no better than any imperialistic state like Russia or China.