Talk:Torrijos–Carter Treaties

Why did the US agree to do this? - Tεxτurε 20:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sabotage attempt

Since this is discussed in Torrijos' article could we just link to it? CSTAR 23:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't object. I thought that it gives an insight into Torrijos' fierce nationalism, though. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I found an alternate (I hesitate to say more credible, helas -- the Chicago Tribune. Aug 12, 1990) . For copyright reasons, I won't insert here the complete Trib article. This is the gyst of the article:

According to confiscated documents, Torrijos asked Noriega to draw up plans to sabotage the Panama Canal and attack U.S. military headquarters to insure ratification of the Canal Treaties. Noriega's notes on the plan were found during the 1989 invasion. In August 1990, when the article was written, the files were being held in a warehouse in Corozal, Panama guarded by the U.S. Army.

Apparently portions of the plan were published in the September 1990 issue of New York-based Details magaizine (never heard of it)

A note in Noriega's handwriting referred to the plan called "Huele A Quemado"; it called for a series of commando units to attack and sabotage the targets. In the Tribune report, it said that acording to Details magazine the plan was continually updated, even after Noriega became head of the PDF. One unit was to attack the lock gates, another the canal locomotives which pulled the ships through the locks.

A document marked "SECRETO" said "Mission: Make inoperable the Panama Canal and areas of defense of same,"

I think that part of the article should be rewritten. For copyright reasons, we also may have to delete this part of the talk page.CSTAR 03:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More on sabotage

FWIW, here's another citation supporting the threat of sabotage. I have not read the book myself, so I cannot vouch for the correctness of this summary, or for the original author's veracity. It's just something I found on the internet. -Willmcw 21:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Finds it Difficult to Hand Over the Panama Canal

By JONATHAN POWER December 29, 1999

The bitterness ran very deep. A taste of it can be found in Graham Greene's chronicle, "Getting to know the General". In it Greene recounts one of his many intimate conversations with General Omar Torrijos, the military president who negotiated the Panama Canal Treaty face to face with Carter. "The Canal is easy to sabotage", said Torrijos, "Blow a hole in the Gatun dam and the canal will drain down to the Atlantic. It would take only a few days to mend the dam, but it would take three years of rain to fill the canal. During that time it would be guerrilla war waged from the jungle". (The forest and mountains that link Panama and Colombia are among the most impenetrable in the world; and all attempts to link the two countries with a road have failed.)

Greene became the friend and confidante of Torrijos during the difficult days of the treaty negotiations. He observed that Torrijos "would not be entirely unhappy if the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Treaty (as it nearly did). He would be left with the simple solution of violence, which had often been in his mind, with desire and apprehension balanced as in a sexual encounter."

-The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research

Jimmy Carter and the Canal

Worst President Ever. Gave up the Canal the United States Army built, to a country that would not of existed without the USA involment. The USA should reclaim the Canal immediatly.\

And do you want to know why that "country" did not exist or become independent in the 19th century like most other Latinamerican republics did?...Because the governments of the US and Colombia (through a little known treaty known as the "Bidlack-Mallarino Treaty") would not permit this little country's independence....Together, Washington and Bogota bullied Panama for almost 60 years and prevented it from separating from Colombia...All of Panama's attempts at separation from Colombia during the 19th century were DOOMED to failure...Why?...Because Colombia allied itself militarily with the world's Superpower to prevent strategic Panama from becoming independent..........It wasn't until 1903, when the Colombian Senate refused to ratify the Canal treaties, that the US government "conveniently" decides to no longer support Colombian sovereignty over Panama....Almost overnight, the US government, very "conveniently", decides to (for the first time in 60 years) support Panama's decades-old dream of separation from Colombia....After they had vehemently opposed this scenario for several decades, almost overnight, they decide to "approve" Panama's independence....So, they stab their old ally (Colombia) in the back...And they welcome Panama with open arms into the community of nations of the world........Hypocritical, I know....But that's US Foreign Policy for ya.

It is true: USA involvement in the separation of Panama from Colombia was crucial. But the same occurs with the involvement of France in the USA Independence.

HEY Let me remenber all of you that Bolivar (the guy who freed colombia) didn`t came to Panama to fight the spanishs. Actually Panama did its own independence of Spain while Bolivar and the colombian army were fighting in Venezuela. After that Panama voluntarily joing the "Great Colombia Republic". And of course, the Canal that the American Army Built IN PANAMENIAN SOIL!! Why did`nt they built a Canal in the US? Can`t they cut a canal from New York to LA?

Speaking of seperatism, are there not islands-people in these lakes that claim to be sovereign nations? How large are they if you just meassure the dry land? If we assume Panama to be a by-product of the canal, and that Carter was a softy, should these people be affoerded independance...yeabutnobut?82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I for one has always though of Carter as a softy. He condoled, but never condemned the "unfortunate" death of the Lord Mountbatten. He was evacive towards the Irish lobby, while in his post presidential career, he would or would not pretend to be tough on the Israelis with his personal peace foundation...I'm sorry. It's enough to confuse me.82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

William F. Buckley

I noticed that the article states that William F. Buckley disagreed, together with Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, on the Canal treaties. In fact, Buckley agreed with Jimmy Carter on returning the Canal to Panama. Here is a link to his remarks when debating this issue with then Gov. Reagan www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J9TTllu8eU --Schonbrunn (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

References to the Actual Treaties???

I came here looking for links to the actual treaties. I'm a little surprised that an article on a treaty wouldn't reference the treaty itself...Nevertheless:

The Neutrality Treaty-- http://www.pancanal.com/eng/legal/neutrality-treaty.pdf (in english)

The Neutrality Treaty--http://www.pancanal.com/esp/plan/documentos/referencia/acp-plan-ref-tratado.pdf (en español)

The Panama Canal Treaty--http://www.mexicodiplomatico.org/art_diplomatico_especial/panama_tratados_canal_torrijos_neutralidad.pdf (en español)

The Panama Canal Treaty--http://www.pancanal.com/eng/ctransition/treaty/frame.html (in english, but unfortunately not a PDF).

Maybe someone with some editing skills could put it into the "References" or "See Also" section... --72.47.85.92 (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)