Hacker News Reader

Comment by suture | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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?

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 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.)

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

> 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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com