MemphisAg1 said:

---

Sometimes his ideas fall flat or get passed off as loony, but more often than not he gets traction simply by daring to state them. So many politicians are incredibly timid and measured. Trump is unconstrained and speaks his mind without apology. I've seen this movie before, and I'm going to enjoy the second edition much more than the first. He's been proven right on so many issues that were initially regarded as laughable by the "mainstream," only to see time prove him right.

---

also by putting it out there it will force the Panamanians to give us a better deal

just like with the Canadians and Mexicans

route canals

Yes, but TDS is a powerful disease.

Ag87H2O said:

---

He's not wrong. It was nuts to give it to Panama. At a minimum U.S. military vessels should have the right of free and priority passage in perpetuity, and American owned cargo vessels passage at a greatly reduced rate. We should have also demanded a permanent military base in close proximity to the canal.

---

Another bone headed move by President Jimmy Carter.
Panama takes control of the Canal, Dec. 31, 1999
quote from the article

• At noon on this day in 1999, the U.S. government, in keeping with a pair of treaties signed on Sept. 7, 1977, by President Jimmy Carter

edit: nevermind, I was late posting as this was pointed out several times previously in this thread.

Very good/on-point post by PBD about this matter:

Trump proposing to take over Panama Canal should be a top 5 issue for all Americans. Here’s why:

1. If China controls Panama Canal, the power of using Tariff as a leverage is done.

2. If China takes control, they officially CONTROL prices in the US economy.

3. Teddy… https://t.co/mYlGmMbUbc

— Patrick Bet-David (@patrickbetdavid) December 26, 2024

From the comments I see "$400 million per hour lost when it is blocked or backlogged." I have no idea if that is true, but if so (or close) it is a fascinating figure. The impact on tariff negotiations also should not be ignored.

The drought conditions backlogging the canal had massive implications for our economy earlier this year and caused disruptions and inflation. Not sure if that number is right, it feels high for a slow down. But companies were bidding millions of dollars to fast track to the limited spots available. Mostly LNG and other chemical containers were burn off is a problem.

I ran across an excellent letter, written by Ex- Panamanian Ambassador to US Juan Sosa to Brian Kilmeade of FOX News. I pulled it, with permission from an Aggie WhatsApp thread... Amb Sosa's brother is an Ex-Ag, who is the ex-Panamanian Consulate in Houston. And as I indicated in an earlier post, the Deputy Administrator for the Canal is Ilya Espino de Marrotta, who is also an Aggie...as was one of the manager level operators of the Canal.

It is an excellent piece...

Quote:

---

Amb. Juan B. Sosa
December 27, 2024
Mr. Brian Kilmeade Fox News
Dear Mr. Kilmeade
I am a regular Fox News viewer and in most cases am in agreement with its positions. However, I believe that Foxs recent coverage of the comments made by president-elect Donald Trump regarding the Panama Canal, are inaccurate. As someone that has been involved or followed the Panama Canal and its impact in relations between the United States and Panama for decades, including being a member of the Board of Directors of the bipartisan Panama Canal Commission in 1987-89, I can contribute a balanced view on the topic. I have lived for thirty-seven years in the United States after being Panamas Ambassador to the United States in the late 80s, a time that put to a test, successfully, the historic relationship between Panama and the United States.

I can unequivocally say that China does not have control, or even influence on the operations of the Panama Canal. The comments on this topic usually are related to Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong-Kong based container terminal corporation that is at the Pacific and Atlantic entrance of the Panama Canal, but outside of its area of operations. Hutchison Whampoa won the concession to administer the ports of Cristbal and Balboa in an open process in 1995 when Hong Kong was a protectorate of the United Kingdom and three major companies vied for it including Mitsubishi from Japan and Bechtel from the United States. Panamas sovereign rights over the canal have never been infringed by any nation.
Operation of the container terminals in Panama reflect the worldwide activity of this sector. The largest container operation is SSA Marine, a Seattle, WA company owned by Carrix, the largest container terminal operator in U.S.; a second terminal -PSA- is managed by a company associated to Singapore ports; a third -Evergreen- is run by a Taiwan company, and the other two by Hutchison Whampoa. There is a sixth terminal under construction associated with MSC, a European corporation and the largest shipping company in the world and in Panama Canal transits. Relations between Panama and the United States associated to the Panama Canal encompass three key areas: economics, security and geopolitics.

Economics
The claim that that United States ships are being rip-off in fees for transiting the Canal is unfounded and far from the truth. As part of the Panama Canal Treaties, a Neutrality Treaty was introduced by the United States that obligates the Panama Canal to treat all countries fairly and with the same tariffs, to avoid providing an advantage to one nation over another. Panama has never breached these guidelines. Tariffs are reviewed periodically and go through an open and transparent process that allow shipping lines to voice their opinions and provide recommendations. Fox News, and any other media company, can attend these hearings that are public. The process has been commended by parties involved.

While it is true that tariffs are usually adjusted upwards, this is a reflection of cost increases related mainly to improvements in technology, security, maintenance and management tools, in an era impacted by inflationary pressures. The Canals tariffs are competitive, otherwise vessels would switch to more attractive options. Moreover, the cost of transiting the canal in the final price of a product at the consumer level is minimal and the expansion of the canal in 2016 has had a positive effect in U.S. consumer prices to the point that today the route Asia-Gulf Coast through the Panama Canal is more competitive than the Asia-West Coast-Gulf states that used to be the route in the past.

Canal tariffs represent less than 1% of consumer prices in the marketplace. It is more expensive to offload a container in the port of New York, than the cost of transiting the canal, and the savings to U.S. consumers of transiting the canal instead of around the Cape Horn in South America or Cape Hope in South Africa, are significant. It could be that the high tariffs complaint is related to an auction system for daily transits, whereby vessels of high-value content can shorten delivery of a product by participating in auctions favoring the highest bidder, a practice that benefits the canal as well as the shipping line. This is a more refined practice than what is used by hotels, airlines and others that are constantly adjusting prices based on supply and demand. It does not affect regular established tariffs.
It is important that the public be educated to the realities of Panama and its contributions to U.S. economy and security. For instance, there is a Free trade Agreement between Panama and the United States 19 to 1 in favor of the United States, when at the time of a trade treaty negotiated in 2004, was 3 to 1. Hundreds of U.S. corporations operate in Panama, some of them using the country as regional headquarters. Four airlines from the United States: United, American, Delta and Spirit cover Panama. There are other examples that highlight the strong relationship between the United States and Panama but it would be too long to enumerate in a letter.

Security
Another complaint that is even more implausible is that the Panama Canal, under the influence of China, is becoming a threat to the security of the United States. As I said before, there is absolutely no influence of China in the management of the Canal who is autonomous, or the government of Panama, a country that every five years have free and democratic elections where the opposition has won the last six elections covering thirty years. Over these thirty years, pro-business policies have dominated the agenda and the left has never gotten more than 3% of the vote, hardly a country dominated by China, Russia or any other influenced by leftist ideology and global dominance.

The Panama Canal Treaties was a hard-fought political battle that was confirmed by a bipartisan vote of 67 U.S. senators. The turning point of that debate was when the leaders of the U.S. military stated in a hearing that the Panama Canal had no longer any military value, because of the U.S. Navy ships inability to transit the Canal with a width of only 110 feet. In fact, at the turn of the century, when the administration of the Canal was turned over to Panama, the canal, 86 years old then, was becoming obsolete and uncompetitive. What the United States, under the 1903 treaty had was the right to manage it as if it was sovereign; in other words, it was not ownership but an administrative concession to operate it.

The Panama Canal is the lifeline of the economy of Panama. Because of it, Panama placed priority in expanding the Canal and making it competitive to the trends of world commerce. In 2006 a referendum to expand the Canal was approved, with construction starting in 2009 and finalizing in 2016 at a cost of $5.5 Billion borne by Panama and the Canal. There is no way that the United States would have invested that kind of money, building an infrastructure in a foreign country.

The expansion of the Canal by Panama to 180 feet width, has made it possible for the U.S. Navy to transit the Canal, strengthening the security of the United States. Panama and the United States have a close cooperation related to the security of the region and the canal. No other nation, much less China, has this kind of relationship. Panama should be commended, not criticized, by its efforts to ensure the security of the canal. Moreover, Panama accepted a reservation in the 1977 Canal Treaty that allows the U.S. to act unilaterally in the defense of the Canal, if it is threatened, another sign of cooperation,
Thus, the actions of the Government of Panama to expand the Canal, has improved the secuhurity of the United States by making it possible for its war ships to transit the new locks of the canal. The Panama Canal of today is not the same canal that existed at the time of the transfer and has become viable in todays environment thanks to the vision, commitment and financing of Panama. It is important that the public be educated to the realities of the Panama Canal and its contributions to U.S. economy and security.

Geopolitical
The 1970s was one of the worst periods in U.S. relations with Latin America. Several countries faced the threat of an ambitious communist Cuba and the U.S., hijacked by its war in Southeast Asia, limited its Americas activities to supporting right-wing military dictators that although effective in containing the communist threat, did little to improve the overall relationship between the U.S. and Latin America.
The Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 provided a base for a new hemispheric relationship based on respect and cooperation. The new administration of president Ronald Reagan, under the leadership of George Schultz and Elliott Abrams in the Department of State, had a remarkable period when most of the military dictatorships turned to democracies with fair and free elections, halting the spread of communism and isolating Cuba. This was followed by the fall of the Soviet Union, strengthening the overall process.
Unfortunately, this could not be sustained and the emergence of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and left-leaning governments in other countries created a new and adverse paradigm, that was expressed in the Summit of the Americas of 2005 in Argentina when the U.S. proposed a Free Trade Area of the Americas and was defeated. Since then, relations between the U.S. and Latin America have had its ups and downs except with Panama that has remained a steadfast ally of the U.S., backed by the enlightened relationship created by the Panama Canal treaties.

Since the transfer of the Panama Canal there have never been an anti-American demonstration. Panama has become a haven for retirees and world-wide publications that track this sector place Panama as the #1 retirement haven mainly by U.S. expatriates commending the welcome they have received in Panama, one more proof of the positive relationship between the two countries. The threat to take the Canal back fails to recognize the history of the treaties debate when U.S. military experts widely accepted that the canal, with fifty miles of length and five each side of the canal, is indefensible unless in friendly territory, which would not be the case under a major power imposing its might on Panama, the Canal and its people.

Another claim is that the Panama Canal should be given to the United States because 38,000 people died during its construction. The reality is that 22,000 died during the construction of the French Canal in 1880-1886. During the American construction (1904-1914), when malaria and yellow fever, the main culprits of deaths were eradicated. Records indicate that 5,609 died, mostly Caribbeans that were brough in for the construction, Panamanians, and 375 white Americans (sic). If deaths were the deciding factor for the ownership of the Canal, probably the Caribbean Island of Barbados would have a claim.

Regarding the management and operation of the Canal, were Chinese nationals managing or even working at the Canal, you would have heard the voices of protests from disgruntled Panamanians. By the way, the president of Panama, the top three executives of the Panama Canal, the Minister of Foreign Relations, and the Ambassador of Panama to USA among others, are graduates of prestigious U.S. universities. This brings up the question, why destabilize Panama, one of the few countries with economic, social and political stability in the region, with threats that are part of the past and do not reflect the positive relationship that exists between the two countries today and covenants that regulate international relations between countries?

President Ronald Reagan was right that the ideological battle in the world is won by gaining the hearts and minds of people, supported by an ally that has the wherewithal and commitment to defend this principle, as his government did, tearing down the Berlin wall and defeating communism. What better example than the U.S.-Panama relationship of today? We need to continue building on these foundations instead of challenging them, and expand them to other countries in the region, strengthening the inter-American system and its security.

In closing, Panama has always treasured its relationship with United States since it declared its separation from Colombia in November 3, 1903 and was supported militarily by the United States which sealed Panamas separation followed by the signing of the Canal Treaty. Since the new Treaty was signed in 1977 and began its transition period in 1980, Panama has enjoyed excellent relations with eleven U.S. administrations (Reagan 1981-1985; Reagan 1985-1989; Bush 41 1989-1993; Clinton 1993-1997; Clinton 1997-2001; Bush 42 2001-2005; Bush 42 2005-2009; Obama 2009-2013; Obama 2013-2017; Trump 2017-2021; Biden 2021-2025). This has not been by accident but by the commitment of the two countries to work and cooperate together. The Panama Canal is at the heart of this relationship. It is somewhat ironic but at the same time admirable that Ronald Reagan, that at one point opposed the Panama Canal Treaties when competing for the Republican nomination in 1975, became a supporter of the Treaty when president.
I am available to expand on the above, perhaps in your well appreciated radio show, that would give more space to have a frank conversation, and bring a balanced narrative and better understanding of the topic.
Cordially,

Amb. Juan B. Sosa, Former Ambassador of Panama to the United States
5353 Memorial Drive # 2061 / Houston, TX 77007 / Tel. (713) 408-1767 / E-mail: uspanama@msn.com

---

Thanks much to Mr. Arango Sucre for allowing to post it here...

As someone who has lived in Panama now for 25+ years, has worked with the Panama Canal Authority and knows current and former employees there, the Trump trolling about 'taking back control' of the Panama Canal was pretty idiotic.

First of all, the Panama Canal has been more efficiently run by the Panamanians than when the U.S. government was running it, including Panama investing significantly since the completed handover in 1999 to expanding and improving the canal with new locks designed for the huge classes of modern vessels that could not get through the original locks constructed back in 1903-1913 time frame.

So a significant portion of the canal today wasn't even built by the United States. It was paid for and built by Panama.

Second, Panama is considered one of the strongest allies if not strongest of the United States in Latin America. It is a geographically of strategic importance to U.S. with regards to not only the canal but also the Darien Gap with regards to controlling immigration flow coming up from South America. A notable number of the Panamanian skilled workforce is educated at U.S. Universities. A large percentage of the population here speaks English. The currency is the U.S. Dollar. A large number of American ex-pats live in Panama.

Panama is a VERY U.S.-friendly country and U.S. influenced culture. So WTF Donald?

Yes, some Hong Kong based companies run some ports and Chinese ships are the second largest number through the canal after the United States, so China is an important trade partner with Panama and the Panamanian government has catered to them in some ways...but every employee at the Panama Canal Authority is required to speak English...not Chinese. And Chinese ships are paying the exact same rates as U.S. ships and the Canal's annual financial results are transparent and readily available to anyone who cares.

Panama has no military. Small population of about 4 million. So sure, the United States could militarily invade (the only way that it could ever 'take back control' of the canal) and squash Panama in probably a few hours, squash a Western style general pro-U.S. democratically elected government in a day and...then what? Cause it didn't like how high tolls through the canal were? Wow, wouldn't that make the U.S. look like a total asshat to the rest of the world and many Americans as well.

Not to mention the canal is a complex operation with 8,500 employees that took 22 years of a very controlled measured handover from the U.S. from 1977 to 1999 to do that transition...so who exactly is Donald going to have operate the durn thing in any sort of semi-efficient way after some military invasion adventure? The same existing Panamanian workforce where the U.S. just invaded their country and spit at their country...is just going to like just go to work the next day like all is well? LOL.

So the U.S. trying to 'take back control' of the canal via a military operation would 'fix' the canal how exactly? By basically trashing it?

Long story short, Trump talking about 'taking control of the canal'...I haven't seen anyone here in Panama take that very seriously because they know he's not going to in any practical sense ever be able to actually do that. There was a protest of about a hundred people in front of the U.S. embassy for a single day, the Panama president said 'Yeah whatever, not going to happen' in a response, and that was about that.

It did piss off a lot of Panamanian people I know here however...conservatives who preferred Trump instead of Kamala...who thought that was pretty stupid that Trump would stir the pot in that way...doesn't really seem like the best way to work with the Panamanians when they are so important to...you know...WORK WITH. But whatever. He said what he said.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

It is a geographically of strategic importance to U.S. with regards to not only the canal but also the Darien Gap with regards to controlling immigration flow coming up from South America.

---

bang up job they are doing, im telling you.

We built it and we should own it. Period. It's of strategic purpose for the United States of America. We have an advanced Navy who patrols shipping lanes to ensure fair and strategic global trade, but we cant benefit from any of it now because Jimmy Carter (RIP) is a nice guy but strategic dumbass?

Why is it that the US has to stand up to long-standing treaties, but everyone can just mistreat and abuse us and its OK?

Do you think any other country would tolerate this nonsense?

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

It is a geographically of strategic importance to U.S. with regards to not only the canal but also the Darien Gap with regards to controlling immigration flow coming up from South America.

---

bang up job they are doing, im telling you.

We built it and we should own it. Period. It's of strategic purpose for the United States of America.

---

Well, as they say...the train left that specific station a looooong time ago. And that decision plus removing Noriega in 1989 allowing Panama to transition to a freely elected U.S. style democratic government which has been not only great for Panama becoming one of the best places to live in Latin America but also incentivized significant expansions and investment to the canal helping not only the U.S. but global supply chains in general.

Anyone who actually has lived and worked in Panama the past couple of decades...it is pretty hard to think that person would be thinking 'oh, it would have been a lot better if the U.S. government had stayed running things and kept the status quo!'.

So I'll assume you've never actually lived here

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

It is a geographically of strategic importance to U.S. with regards to not only the canal but also the Darien Gap with regards to controlling immigration flow coming up from South America.

---

bang up job they are doing, im telling you.

We built it and we should own it. Period. It's of strategic purpose for the United States of America. We have an advanced Navy who patrols shipping lanes to ensure fair and strategic global trade, but we cant benefit from any of it now because Jimmy Carter (RIP) is a nice guy but strategic dumbass?

Why is it that the US has to stand up to long-standing treaties, but everyone can just mistreat and abuse us and its OK?

Do you think any other country would tolerate this nonsense?

---

Benefit from it how? Like not pay any tolls whatsoever? Not pay enough tolls to run the canal as well as improve it as well as guarantee a strong ally & economically stable country of Panama around it where the canal is situated?

Note here is the 2024 financial results for the Panama Canal. Total revenue a little less than $5 billion this past year. Just to give you a measuring stick for the financial size of this apparent 'problem'.

Panama Canal Presents Financial Results for FY24 with a Focus on Sustainability and the Future - Autoridad del Canal de Panam

Pumpkinhead said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

It is a geographically of strategic importance to U.S. with regards to not only the canal but also the Darien Gap with regards to controlling immigration flow coming up from South America.

---

bang up job they are doing, im telling you.

We built it and we should own it. Period. It's of strategic purpose for the United States of America.

---

Well, as they say...the train left that specific station a looooong time ago. And that decision plus removing Noriega in 1989 allowing Panama to transition to a freely elected U.S. style democratic government which has been not only great for Panama becoming one of the best places to live in Latin America but also incentivized significant expansions and investment to the canal helping not only the U.S. but global supply chains in general.

Anyone who actually has lived and worked in Panama the past couple of decades...it is pretty hard to think that person would be thinking 'oh, it would have been a lot better if the U.S. government had stayed running things and kept the status quo!'.

So I'll assume you've never actually lived here

---

Agreed...good assumption. And probably has low reading comprehension scores...

Im confused. Your first post was talking about how we made ****** decisions in the 70's and we cant take them back..

And your subsequent post is how this is actually not so bad, and US ownership would somehow hurt us...for building the asset we are arguing about.

Which is position is it that you are defending?

Frankly, don't care if you are confused. I had my rant on this forum about the idiocy of that one particular comment by Trump…as someone with extensive time living in Panama and knowing the Canal history and it's current operations well…and that is what I had to say.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

It is a geographically of strategic importance to U.S. with regards to not only the canal but also the Darien Gap with regards to controlling immigration flow coming up from South America.

---

bang up job they are doing, im telling you.

We built it and we should own it. Period. It's of strategic purpose for the United States of America. We have an advanced Navy who patrols shipping lanes to ensure fair and strategic global trade, but we cant benefit from any of it now because Jimmy Carter (RIP) is a nice guy but strategic dumbass?

Why is it that the US has to stand up to long-standing treaties, but everyone can just mistreat and abuse us and its OK?

Do you think any other country would tolerate this nonsense?

---

Benefit from it how? Like not pay any tolls whatsoever? Not pay enough tolls to run the canal as well as improve it as well as guarantee a strong ally & economically stable country of Panama around it where the canal is situated?

Note here is the 2024 financial results for the Panama Canal. Total revenue a little less than $5 billion this past year. Just to give you a measuring stick for the financial size of this apparent 'problem'.

Panama Canal Presents Financial Results for FY24 with a Focus on Sustainability and the Future - Autoridad del Canal de Panam

---

Nations should pay us handsomely for the convenience of not having to circumvent South America to get goods to market.

We built it, we should own it.

Why do we always wring hands over stupid **** that only furthers to hurt our country? This is basic, common sense.

thanks bud. super fail, i had suez on the brain

The last president to invade Panama was a Bush, and Trump despises that family so, unlikely.

I'm not going to question your expertise on the canal since you live there and I e never visited, but I do have a question on your statement.

You say it would be a very bad idea for the US to piss off Panama because they are such a great ally, but then you say they are a country of 4 million people with no military. How big of a stick do they carry in SA diplomatically other than 'we have a canal'?

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

It is a geographically of strategic importance to U.S. with regards to not only the canal but also the Darien Gap with regards to controlling immigration flow coming up from South America.

---

bang up job they are doing, im telling you.

We built it and we should own it. Period. It's of strategic purpose for the United States of America. We have an advanced Navy who patrols shipping lanes to ensure fair and strategic global trade, but we cant benefit from any of it now because Jimmy Carter (RIP) is a nice guy but strategic dumbass?

Why is it that the US has to stand up to long-standing treaties, but everyone can just mistreat and abuse us and its OK?

Do you think any other country would tolerate this nonsense?

---

Benefit from it how? Like not pay any tolls whatsoever? Not pay enough tolls to run the canal as well as improve it as well as guarantee a strong ally & economically stable country of Panama around it where the canal is situated?

Note here is the 2024 financial results for the Panama Canal. Total revenue a little less than $5 billion this past year. Just to give you a measuring stick for the financial size of this apparent 'problem'.

Panama Canal Presents Financial Results for FY24 with a Focus on Sustainability and the Future - Autoridad del Canal de Panam

---

Nations should pay us handsomely for the convenience of not having to circumvent South America to get goods to market.

We built it, we should own it.

Why do we always wring hands over stupid **** that only furthers to hurt our country? This is basic, common sense.

---

What a precedence to set. Going to be redrawing world maps entirely!

gkaggie08 said:

---

I'm not going to question your expertise on the canal since you live there and I e never visited, but I do have a question on your statement.

You say it would be a very bad idea for the US to piss off Panama because they are such a great ally, but then you say they are a country of 4 million people with no military. How big of a stick do they carry in SA diplomatically other than 'we have a canal'?

---

Panama is small but geographically uniquely important. Both because of the canal and as an optimal choke point and intelligence gathering for drugs and human trafficking flowing from South America through the Darien Gap.

Multiple times over the years while at a local gym, I have seen and briefly visited with special ops guys (SEALS, etc) who came in to work out while in-country for a time. Working with the Panamanians on…whatever

The infrastructure and geographical location and friendly investment regulations has made Panama a premier hub in the region. A lot of Americans have bought real-estate here. And I have been told direct from a current customs & immigration law enforcement guy currently stationed down here his opinion that Panama is our best relationship in Latin America.

I haven't ran into him yet since the Trump's comment but I'll ask him when I can expect U.S. paratroopers to be landing in my neighborhood to get those canal tolls decreased

Anyway's Trump's 'take back control' comment…which is a toothless and empty threat…was pretty 'WTF?' to everyone I have spoken with down here and out of left field.

Panama isn't perfect obviously. It has its share of politician corruption and scandals. But if the U.S. wanted to 'squeeze' Panama as some negotiating ploy I would think some economic related tactic with the actual chance of teeth would make sense. Not some implied military action jab which is again…a toothless threat not taken seriously.

Now if you want to literally unite 100% of Panamanians on a topic, the Canal is of immense national pride. It would be like France president tweeting they were going to take back the Statue of Liberty because the U.S. didn't deserve it anymore or some justification, and imagine the typical American's reaction to that sort of comment would be.

Local news here isn't talking about this anymore and moved on, as I said there were a few protesters the first day of Trump's comment at the U.S. embassy but all quiet since. Xmas Day I was actually over at the Miraflores Locks visitors center and it was packed with U.S. tourists (among other countries) and I overheard a few jokes about Trump's canal bloviating while navigating the crowd but that was it

Remember when @BenBergquam exposed how the UN & Clinton Foundation occupy an old US base in Panama to help supply illegal aliens en route to America?

This human trafficking operation was used to invade our southern border

Now do you see why Trump is going hard at Panama? https://t.co/8ylqNhO3MC

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) December 29, 2024

Pumpkinhead said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

I'm not going to question your expertise on the canal since you live there and I e never visited, but I do have a question on your statement.

You say it would be a very bad idea for the US to piss off Panama because they are such a great ally, but then you say they are a country of 4 million people with no military. How big of a stick do they carry in SA diplomatically other than 'we have a canal'?

---

Panama is small but geographically uniquely important. Both because of the canal and as an optimal choke point and intelligence gathering for drugs and human trafficking flowing from South America through the Darien Gap.

Multiple times over the years while at a local gym, I have seen and briefly visited with special ops guys (SEALS, etc) who came in to work out while in-country for a time. Working with the Panamanians on…whatever

The infrastructure and geographical location and friendly investment regulations has made Panama a premier hub in the region. A lot of Americans have bought real-estate here. And I have been told direct from a current customs & immigration law enforcement guy currently stationed down here his opinion that Panama is our best relationship in Latin America.

I haven't ran into him yet since the Trump's comment but I'll ask him when I can expect U.S. paratroopers to be landing in my neighborhood to get those canal tolls decreased

Anyway's Trump's 'take back control' comment…which is a toothless and empty threat…was pretty 'WTF?' to everyone I have spoken with down here and out of left field.

Panama isn't perfect obviously. It has its share of politician corruption and scandals. But if the U.S. wanted to 'squeeze' Panama as some negotiating ploy I would think some economic related tactic with the actual chance of teeth would make sense. Not some implied military action jab which is again…a toothless threat not taken seriously.

Now if you want to literally unite 100% of Panamanians on a topic, the Canal is of immense national pride. It would be like France president tweeting they were going to take back the Statue of Liberty because the U.S. didn't deserve it anymore or some justification, and imagine the typical American's reaction to that sort of comment would be.

Local news here isn't talking about this anymore and moved on, as I said there were a few protesters the first day of Trump's comment at the U.S. embassy but all quiet since. Xmas Day I was actually over at the Miraflores Locks visitors center and it was packed with U.S. tourists (among other countries) and I overheard a few jokes about Trump's canal bloviating while navigating the crowd but that was it

---

Thanks for your contributions to this thread. One of the things we all love about F16 is the participation of people with perspectives far beyond what you'd see in legacy media on seemingly whatever the topic is.

As to this specific topic it's important to understand Trump and how he operates. He's a negotiator and this is his first offer in a negotiation to change the relationship between the U.S. and the Canal/Panama. We don't know his end game but I'm confident he isn't interested in invading and taking over the canal. I do think it has something to do with illegal immigration and I won't be surprised if exposing the Clinton's involvement in facilitating the flow of illegals while also cutting off that flow is his real goal. He's the first president in my 54 years to do something other than talk about stopping the flow of illegals and I think that's probably where his head is at.

Agree on both of your points, and the contributions. Also, note that even…wait for it…a McCain says Trump is right on this one.

Donald Trump Truth Social 02:43 PM EST 12/30/24 pic.twitter.com/h58FuqCn1G

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) December 30, 2024

nortex97 said:

---

Agree on both of your points, and the contributions. Also, note that even…wait for it…a McCain says Trump is right on this one.

Donald Trump Truth Social 02:43 PM EST 12/30/24 pic.twitter.com/h58FuqCn1G

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) December 30, 2024

---

Well that had to be painful. Glad to see someone able to agree even with someone they don't like. Kind of a novelty on 2025 America.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Trump likes to flood the zone. I think it helps him get things done

---

Yep. And the big ask, and then let his enthusiasts run with it. Now he has a half million people who weren't even thinking about Panama a month ago, creating political leverage.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

One of his billionaire friends must own a shipping company.

---

Those fees get added to our imports and cost us all money. The same fees make US exports more expensive, hurting US industries that rely on exports. Not good for Americans either way.

---

Not to mention we give them tons of aid to maintain the thing and that maintenance is decades behind schedule.

Meghan is on Halperin's streams often. Having children and getting away from The View has really mellowed her out.

Street Fighter said:

---

Buck Turgidson said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

One of his billionaire friends must own a shipping company.

---

Those fees get added to our imports and cost us all money. The same fees make US exports more expensive, hurting US industries that rely on exports. Not good for Americans either way.

---

Not to mention we give them tons of aid to maintain the thing and that maintenance is decades behind schedule.

---

WTF? Uh...no.

The Panama Canal is notably improved today than where it was in 1999 when the handover from the United States was completed (25 years ago).

A huge $5+ billion dollar expansion project was executed and completed about 8 years ago that dramatically increased throughput allowing for larger vessels to get through.

Panama Canal expansion project - Wikipedia

The folks who run the canal are sharp, high-level professionals. Every single one of the approximately 8,500 employees is required to be fluent in both English and Spanish. The leadership typically has strong connections to the United States be that either U.S. university educated and/or U.S. company professional experience.

Note that the Panamanian canal administrator who led the Canal during the expansion project is actually a Texas Aggie (Class of '73). Alberto Alemn Zubieta. Got both Civil and Industrial Engineering degrees at A&M.

Regarding the U.S.'s current trade agreements with Panama as well as canal usage, this might be of interest to some:

U.S. Relations With Panama - United States Department of State

Note in that article the number I bolded below. If roughly accurate, the United States Government actually annually provides more direct foreign investment to Panama than what is being paid in Canal tolls.

If Trump was really that concerned about Canal tolls, seems like he could just cut down those other foreign investment dollars being sent to Panama to compensate. But as another poster said on here, in Trump's chaotic way this recent spat probably has much more to do with illegal immigration flow through the Darien Gap than Canal tolls.

The United States and Panama signed a bilateral investment treaty and a Trade Promotion Agreement. The trade agreement significantly reduces or eliminates tariffs and other barriers to U. S. exports, promotes economic growth, sets high standards for the treatment of investments, provides a framework for resolution of investment or trade disputes, and expands trade between the two countries. U. S. exports to Panama include oil, machinery, aircraft, agricultural products and consumer goods, and account for 25% of all goods and services imported by Panama and 60% of all food imports. U. S. imports from Panama include seafood, tropical fruits, cane sugar, coffee, and precious metals.

In addition to bilateral trade, Panama facilitates trade as a transshipment hub for all Western Hemisphere economies, including the United States, which creates an important service-based economy in the country. The expansion of the Panama Canal in 2016, which permits larger "New Panamax" ships to transit, has provided substantial benefits to Panama and many U. S. East Coast ports. The United States is the number-one user of the Canal, with 72 percent of all transits heading to or from U. S. ports. In 2022, trade in goods between the United States and Panama totaled $12.5 billion dollars. The United States provides more foreign direct investment in Panama than any other country, with a total direct investment position of $3.8 billion in 2022. The energy and infrastructure, finance and insurance, and wholesale trade sectors lead U. S. direct investment in Panama, while the real estate and wholesale trade sectors lead Panamanian direct investment in the United States.

Adding to my previous post, also note that Trump himself had real-estate holdings in Panama. Hotel and luxury condos in Panama City.

Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower Panama Condos for Sale or Rent, Panama Real Estate via Punta Pacifica Realty

Anybody interested, looks like you can currently buy a 1-bedroom, 1.5 bath 1300 square foot apartment for $415,000.

The Ocean Club Panama - Luxury Apartments for Rent & Sale

Now this is amusing that I found from 5-years ago (late in Trump's first term as POTUS) related to those properties. Some sort of business related legal spat about Trump's companies not paying some Panamanian taxes.

Trump Companies Accused of Tax Evasion in Panama ProPublica

The owners of a 70-story Panama City hotel tower formerly managed by President Donald Trump's companies are accusing them of stiffing the Panamanian government.

In a legal filing Monday in an ongoing lawsuit in Manhattan federal court, private equity manager Orestes Fintiklis and the company he leads, Ithaca Capital Partners, claimed that two Trump companies failed to pay Panamanian taxes equal to 12.5% of the management fees they drew from the hotel.