Posted on 12/17/2006 12:20:18 PM PST by j_accuse
Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer, author of five best-sellers on Latin American affairs and whose syndicated column appears in 55 major U.S. and Latin American newspapers, comments on the latest events in Latin America and U.S.- Latin American affairs. He is a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. He also won the 1999 Maria Moors Cabot Award, the 2001 King of Spain prize, and the 2005 Emmy Suncoast award.
I am pro-Hispanic, but I remember the debates. It had nothing to do with dislike or fear of Panama. It had more to do with "We bought it, we built it, it's ours."
Was TR doing some strong-arming? Yes. But there would not be an independent Panama without it. They got plenty of dough, and we didn't have the Red Chinese managing things.
My but the Chinese and the Conquistadors do spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone how wonderful they are.
The company partially owned by the Chinese is managing the ports and not the Canal.
The article has one little dig at the Americans that I think needs some light shed on it. The accident rate went down when the ACP changed what was deemed an accident. Under the old Canal Authority, any ship touching anything was written up and reviewed. The ACP however does not follow this practice.
Also, there are still plenty of Americans working at the ACP. Mostly in management and there you are. The Canal is working just as well under the ACP as the Americans :-)
Thanks for the corrections regarding the ChiComs. In any event, the main original argument in '76 (which carried Reagan to the conventin, saving his bacon in Texas and beyond) was largely a matter of justice, not whether the Panamianians could run the operation well.
I don't particularly want the ChiComs being part owners of the management company running the ports either. The secondary argument had to do with the United States being able to move in and act to protect the Canal as needed without interference. That's a slam dunk when you already own it.
This is the 21st Century and at some part we had to turn over the canal. Just like we would had given up the military base in Cuba if the country didn't become Communist.
None of those statistics are really inpressive.
My wife still hates Jimmy Carter for giving away the canal. James Baker (R-TN) at the time, helped Jimmy push this through. Yes the same James Baker on the Iraq Study Group.
I think those Paqnamanians who are doing a good job managing the canal would be annoyed to be lumped together with illegals committing identity theft.
You are welcome.
BTW: All the Pentagon people I speak with say it is still is a slam dunk to protect the Canal. Treaty wise and militarily.
"None of those statistics are really inpressive"
Neither is your grasp of facts. The Baker you speak of was Howard Baker(R TN). The Baker of the Iraq Defeat Committee is James, a Houston lawyer
I'll split the difference: we keep the Canal, and we should have let them keep Noriega. Any good will we received was more than lost by going in and seizing the head of state on drug charges. That little act can be used as a pretext for all kinds of mischief by many a state.
What's done is done, and I'm glad there have been no serious flare-ups, but I would typically favor Reagan's judgment over Carter's and Buckley's put together.
Your right. My mistake. It was Howard Baker.
Where did I mention identy theft in my post?
Good question.
Chavez is a thug and most of the countries down here are playing this by ear but they also know who carries the big stick. They want to sell to the USA at some point.
There is a huge immigration of wealthy Venezuelans coming to Panama to ride out the storm over there. At some point, my guess is that they will hire someone to take care of the situation.
Ortega may or may not be refomed. Educated guess around here is to wait and see how the talks go between his government and the US. If we see a lot of rich Nicas coming to Panama, then we know the answer. Costa Rica is basically for the poor Nicas by the way.
Bump. Correct.
In the short run, yes. Long run...they are angling to have China buy up their oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
