Panama canal isn't for panama.

boredatwork

Banned
Well, no, but they'd be pissed. Very pissed. And colonial empires are a bit out of style these days, no?

Gibraltar, Falklands, Northern Ireland...

Are they only going out of style when the Union Jack isn't involved?
;)
 
hmmm... would the US and Panama be able to renegotiate the contract for continued US control over the canal zone? Seems like Panama would be at a advantage here, possibly being able to set a agreement to were they are making more money from the lease on the canal then from the fees gained from controlling the canal. Interesting result of this would be peeps in the US complaining the US should have given the canal back citing the massive cost of the new contract.
 

boredatwork

Banned
Not Panama - the Canal Zone.

After all - there haven't been any Isle-wide referenda in Eire supporting British Union either :p

But a Canal Zone referenda, back when the zone was under US control, would've been overwhelmingly positive. - as the Zone was primarily 'populated' by US military.:eek:

But the real question is - what would be the point of keeping the zone - from a practical sense as opposed to generic jingoism - for the US?
Anyone running the canal is going to be operating in the US interest in a practical sense, so there isn't a need to 'protect' it, absent a world war scenario.
Heck if we weren't going to annex Panama (unlikely, given our issues with latino culture, especially back then), then what is the point of demanding sovreignty over a strip a few miles wide right through the middle of the country? It's on par with demanding sovreignty over arab oil wells - what is the point? They have to sell the oil - there's nothing else going for them. Even Ayatollah Rock-n-Rolla Kook-zanny himself noted that the oil was only good for selling - his people couldn't drink the stuff.
 

General Zod

Banned
The USA might have kept control of the Panama Canal if back in 1903 they had annexed the whole Panama state after it broke away from Colombia in US-sponsored coup, and they eventually given it the same autonomous quasi-state protectorate status as Puerto Rico.
 

boredatwork

Banned
The USA might have kept control of the Panama Canal if back in 1903 they had annexed the whole Panama state after it broke away from Colombia in US-sponsored coup, and they eventually given it the same autonomous quasi-state protectorate status as Puerto Rico.

now that would be a possibility - we were still on our imperialism kick back then. Of course, a USA which would annex Panama in 1903 would probably also pick up several more of the carribean/central american states as/when they fail.
 

General Zod

Banned
now that would be a possibility - we were still on our imperialism kick back then. Of course, a USA which would annex Panama in 1903 would probably also pick up several more of the carribean/central american states as/when they fail.

Yes. A possible pre-1900 PoD could create a precedent for US annexation of Caribbean/Central American states. One might be that the US Senate approves the treaty to annex the Dominican Republic in 1870, another that Cuba is annexed just like Puerto Rico after the ASW. Or possibly both. Not to mention the various PoDs that let the USA annex Canada and/or Mexico in the 1800s and create a strong precedent for extensive Manifest Destiny. Any of this would make direct annexation of Panama look like the simplest solution for permanent strategic US control of the Canal Zone.
 
For half an hour.

I think the US occupation would be a little longer lasting that that.;) Rather suspect your confusing defeating a state's armed forces with maintaining control of its territory and population, which is a totally different matter.

Steve
 

General Zod

Banned
A related issue: do you think that if Panama had been a US territory, the Third Set of Locks Project would have been implemented in the 1940s/1950s as it was originally planned (the works were started in 1939 but were stopped due to the outbreak of WWII, and lapsed till late 2007) ? And how a super-Panamax compliant Panama Canal would have affected international commerce ?
 
Last edited:
A related issue: do you think that if Panama had been a US territory, the Third Set of Locks Project would have been implemented in the 1940s/1950s as it was originally planned (the works were started in 1939 but were stopped due to the outbreak of WWII, and lapsed till late 2007) ? And how a super-Panamax compliant Panama Canal would have affected international commerce ?
Two Part Answer to a Two Part Question ...

The Difference is they Probably would have been Completed Sooner in ANY Situation Where The Canal Zone Remains in American Hands, Simply because One doesn't Tend to Improve Something that Belongs to Someone Else ...

There would Now be a Panamax 2.0 Standard that Everyone would Hafta Comply with, Chile/Argentina and South Africa would See Less Traffic but that's About it!

:D
 
You could have a violence-free US retention of the Panama Canal if Carter doesn't sign that treaty back in the 1970s.

To mollify Panamanian nationalists, the Panamanian state could get a larger cut of the money.
 
Top