WI: U.S. Keeps the Panama Canal Zone?

What if the US kept the Panama Canal Zone? Reportedly Noriega threatened to blow it up if it wasn't returned to Panama proper, but what if that was just him bluffing/posturing (as it likely was).

Does the U.S. just have a strip of land in central America? What are the effects of maintaining it as a territory?
 
For one thing it depends on how we decide to keep it. Is it because the treaty fails or because Carter doesn't even try to push it? If its the former then Reagan still has a campaign stick to beat in 1980, but if its the latter then it takes one part of the campaign from Reagan.
 
I mean, you could have the government fall, rendering the Treaty null as the entity with which the Treaty was ratified with would no longer exist...

Though I don't see how likely that is (don't know enough of relevant Panamanian history to say, though.
 
Panama could try to use force to take the canal, leading to any US government not giving the canal for fear of nationalization.

Trying to physically take the canal through violence would be the least possible way for Panama to obtain the canal. Even during the Hollow Army phase of the 70's the US would still outweigh the Panamanian like a gorilla to a ant. The canal zone isn't Goa, the Panamanians aren't India, and the US isn't Portugal.
 
Trying to physically take the canal through violence would be the least possible way for Panama to obtain the canal. Even during the Hollow Army phase of the 70's the US would still outweigh the Panamanian like a gorilla to a ant. The canal zone isn't Goa, the Panamanians aren't India, and the US isn't Portugal.

I know, Panama tries to take the canal suez like, America stomps Panama then the US distrusts Panama and keeps the canal
 
What advantage does the U.S. gain by keeping the canal? It had become marginal as a defense asset after WWII when aircraft carriers grew too big to transit the canal. It did have some advantage as a forward base for efforts in South America but that had become limited. Turning it over peacefully with agreements that gave the U.S. some influence over potential use by an unfriendly foreign power made sense. Some suggest that the U.S. should sabotage the canal before turning it over but that just earns infinite ill will for the U.S. The Canal payed for itself during WWII, let it go .
 
What if the US kept the Panama Canal Zone? Reportedly Noriega threatened to blow it up if it wasn't returned to Panama proper, but what if that was just him bluffing/posturing (as it likely was).

Does the U.S. just have a strip of land in central America? What are the effects of maintaining it as a territory?
the question is when? 1977 when the Torrijos–Carter Treaties where negotiated? a horrible crisis, as the URSS was still an important Political Actor and most of Latino-america was in the USA Side by the force of Dictatorships backed by the USA.
1983-89? What happened with Noriega and the Invasion of Panama in OTL is the most probable resolution
1999 when the Torrijos–Carter Treaties must take hold? USA soft diplomatic Power take a nosedive similar that the one they have right now with Trump.
 
the question is when? 1977 when the Torrijos–Carter Treaties where negotiated? a horrible crisis, as the URSS was still an important Political Actor and most of Latino-america was in the USA Side by the force of Dictatorships backed by the USA.
1983-89? What happened with Noriega and the Invasion of Panama in OTL is the most probable resolution
1999 when the Torrijos–Carter Treaties must take hold? USA soft diplomatic Power take a nosedive similar that the one they have right now with Trump.

If Reagan was in office in 1977, what would happen then? I imagine there wouldn't be a treaty, so would it just be delayed?
 
I could see something halfway perhaps.

The US gives up 99% of the Canal Zone to Panama, but say in exchange for maybe Howard AFB and one or two other installations, the US government offers a carot and stick approach and offers a $10 or $20 billion aid/investment package.
 
Would the U.S. keeping it make it easier politically/economically to keep working on it?

Maybe we'd keep it if against all odds Panama and other central american states became hardline communist soviet client states. Then there would be a apparent need to continue occupying the zone for national security reasons. In that case the Canal Zone would probably be heavily fortified and militarized like the DMZ or Guantanamo bay.
 
Would the U.S. keeping it make it easier politically/economically to keep working on it?

That was why we kept it as long as we did. The old ' The dumb Panamanians could never run this thing' mindset. Since it was important for commerce the U.S. felt they needed to keep control. But as ships grew and while busier than ever it was less critical (without major improvements) It made sense to let go. From what I saw on a cruise through the canal a couple years ago they seem to be doing a good job.
 
Three words: Huele A Quemada. Panamanian nationalists try to bomb the shit out of the Canal to sabotage America, basically saying that, if Panama can’t have the Canal, no one can. America won’t allow that - they’d rather have an ally control it than not have it at all.
 
Top