I grew up in the Canal Zone (former American colony in Panama). We Americans built roads, sewer, water systems, etc. in Panama. We paid good wages by Panamanian standards. This is the standard imperial justification. We thought Panama would never be able to run the canal without us. We were wrong. Panama ended up much better off without our presence. While we were “benign” colonists we held the country back.

Someday, hopefully, powerful nations will not feel the need to be in control of other nations even when those nations do uppity things like control their own destiny.

The US is still heavily involved in Panama and used force to remove the narco-authoritarian leader Manuel Noreiga. Panama received a huge gift in the form of the canal. Panama still uses the dollar as its currency. Without US involvement Panama would look more like the other country considered for a canal -- Nicaragua. Panama's per capita GDP is 6x Nicaragua. US imperialism was fantastic for Panama.

I grew up there and came to the United States to go to college. I was there during the Noriega years but was in the U.S. during Just Cause. As I recall Panama uses the Balboa as its currency and the Balboa is pegged to the dollar. Panama does not make paper currency but it does have its own coins (which are the same size, weight as American coins).

As one rabiblanco put it to me the last time I was there, “When America left we had to grow up.” Therein lies the pernicious nature of benign colonialism.

You have no idea what Panama would look like had the canal not been built. Maybe it would be more like Costa Rica than Nicaragua. The difference between Costa Rica and Nicaragua is that Nicaragua had the temerity to get a government we didn’t like. Heck, you don’t even know if Panama would be a country in the alternate timeline where the canal isn’t built.

How do you know the extent of my knowledge of Panama’s history based on my original response? Must I be ignorant simply because I believe the U.S. ended up being bad for Panama by the time of the Treaty? Who propped up Noriega and encouraged the expansion of the PDF? Who wanted Battalon 2000 to be in Amador and was fine with the PDF being the de facto rulers of Panama? (Until Herrara Diaz made his accusations and the people rose up.)

> Heck, you don’t even know if Panama would be a country in the alternate timeline where the canal isn’t built.

I mean, the US more or less sponsored Panamanian independence from Colombia solely because they didn't like Colombia's terms on offer for acquiring the land for the Panama Canal.

You probably want to explain to them that rabiblanco is slang for white Panamanian elite (ie not Noriega and co)

But Costa Rica is so rich because it's a western tourist state. It's entirely white settler colonialism behind Costa Rica AND panamas relative success...

Always hilarious to see people justify colonialism / controlling another country. I'm sure you wouldn't feel that way if this was your own country that would not control its destiny and was controlled from imperial powers abroad.

Ask anyone in Panama, they feel much better being independent. Yes Panama is obviously still having strong ties with the US, but they are happy that their own land is not owned and managed by of a foreign army.

By that argument California would be much happier being independent and not under the boot of a federal power.

After a while assimilation and integration occurs and thus the argument would not apply to present day California. The U.S. made no attempts to incorporate Panama, as a whole, into the U.S. Poor Panamanians were prevented from getting mangoes in the Canal Zone. It took rioting and deaths before the Panamanian flag was flown in the Canal Zone. I don’t think the comparison to California is apt.

Having that canal here in Panama and having the guarantee that the US will intervene with force of the security of the canal is threatened is the best thing for Panama. Without the ousting of Manuel Noriega by military invasion, this country would look a lot more similar to Nicaragua or Venezuela. There are still people here that are bitter about it, but there are also many that recognize that Panama owes much of its success and stability to the US.

Hmm.

A guarantee of force by a different nation isn’t always in the best interest of a nation: the comparison that comes to my mind for external application of force when a canal’s “security” was threatened, is the Suez Canal.

I agree in general that it could be a bad thing. But in the case of Panama and the US I see it as a very positive thing.

For one, Panama doesn't have a military anymore since Noriega was ousted in the invasion. That's a huge blessing of stability to the country. You don't have to look far in Latin America, Asia, and Africa to see how dangerous a military is to democracy. And we don't need a military for defence, because everyone knows the US will rush to the defence of Panama if the canal were threatened. Purely from self interest, but that aligns nicely with the intersts of Panama in this case.

I wouldn’t consider the return of stolen property a “gift” regardless of how much it may have been improved by the thief.

It was not stolen, the lease was based on mutually agreed treaty, which has also advantages for Panama (by US providing support during its independence revolt).

(Although one could say it was stolen from Colombia, through support of Panama independence.)

>(Although one could say it was stolen from Colombia, through support of Panama independence.)

The Panamanian independence movement from Colombia had existed for decades. Did the US leverage it to obtain territory for the canal? Yes. Did independence reflect local sentiment? Yes.

I disagree with that characterization. The Panama canal was a huge gift to Panama, and the country has benefited immensely from it (I live in Panama.)

I think that Panama would not be any near as well off had the Canal Zone remained. We stunted Panama’s political and national growth. It’s not a coincidence that the Thatcher Ferry Bridge was the only bridge across the canal on the Pacific side while America was in control. The political will to develop the infrastructure of the country simply was nonexistent until after we left.

I agree with that, but it doesn't take away that giving the canal to Panama was a gift. One might argue a deserved gift, since it's Panama's territory, but it was a gift nonetheless. Panama wouldn't necessarily exist as an independent country were it not for US imperialism and constructing that canal in the first place.

However, the Noriega business would have the death of Panama had it not been for the US intervention. That was some necessary tough love for Panama.

You're right though that, at the end anyway, the canal zone was holding the country back. In the early days it may have been different. It's tough to say.

I understand better your point and agree with it. I have been concentrating in my remarks in the tail end of U.S. control of the Zone. It was beneficial to Panama to get the Canal as a result of the treaty.

How was Colombia going to govern it with the Darién Gap still being a thing?

Nicaragua is not such a good analogy since US foreign policy had a deliberate negative effect on Nicaraguan politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States. A better analogy would be a country that was non-aligned but didn't experience much interference. I can't think of many examples, aside from maybe Botswana or something.

Nicaragua was also subject to American imperialism, with entire cities razed to the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_War

Several other Central American states are still extremely poor due to the banana republic economic imperialism supported by the United States.

Neighboring Costa Rica avoided that.

Smedley Butler had some things to say about this too:

https://man.fas.org/smedley.htm

I had never heard of Smedley Butler before, powerful speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

The excerpt isn't long.

> War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

> I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

> I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

> There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

> It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

> I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

> I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

> During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

You can see him in archival footage talking to the Bonus Army in Washington DC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ

Analysis of speech to Bonus Army https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/marine-medal-of-honor-sm...

10 minute newsreel https://youtu.be/Q_vJH2nrMl8?t=120

This is phenomenal, MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower led the removal of the Bonus Army from Washington DC and showed their colors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Angelo

This is shit we should have learned in history class.

This is exactly the shit they standardize out of history class. What they tend to cover is wars. It makes for a good militaristic political nationalist student that gives credence to the idea that the US Government is a moral authority.

Haitians of German descent* had a stranglehold on Haitian ports and maritime commerce. Wasn’t that a casus belli? We could have de-Germanized those industries, handed them back to majority along with Haitian government and it would have been a win-win without occupation.

*Yes I know what Haitian constitution said about everyone being black but unlike Polish Haitians German Haitians resolutely intermarried only with each other to the point of inbreeding like Greeks in Ancient Egypt.