Trump is throwing his weight around before he’s in the job.
Trump threatened to reassert U.S. control over the Panama Canal, accusing Panama of charging excessive rates to use the Central American passage, which allows ships to cross between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
Says the guy who bills his own Secret Service agents when they have to stay at his Florida hotel.
The post was an exceedingly rare example of a U.S. leader saying he could push a sovereign country to hand over territory. It also underlines an expected shift in U.S. diplomacy under Trump, who has not historically shied away from threatening allies and using bellicose rhetoric when dealing with counterparts.
Aka picking fights and creating enemies.
“The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the U.S.,” Trump wrote in his Truth Social post. “It was not given for the benefit of others, but merely as a token of cooperation with us and Panama. If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question,” he wrote.
But it’s in Panama. Trump isn’t going to give part of Florida to Panama and Panama isn’t going to give part of Panama to Donald Trump. (It wouldn’t be to the US, it would be to Trump, the person. Everything is personal with him.)
It is not clear how Trump would seek to regain control over the canal, and he would have no recourse under international law if he decided to make a play for the passage.
How about he sends Junior Kennedy on a white horse?
Comments
15 responses to “And what’s yours is also ours”
Redirecting his attention to Panama might reduce the pressure we’ve been feeling north of the border since his round of “Canada is the 51st state” “jokes” he’s been floating lately. And I’m sure that there’s plenty of relief in Nuuk that Trump hasn’t made any more suggestions about buying Greenland. Why go through all the hard work building relationships with others when you can just buy them or take them over, right? Once a real estate huckster, always a real estate huckster.
Well, there is a precedent.
Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 and was then invaded by Britain, France and Israel. Israel made the first attack on Sinai, and that provided the pretense of destabilization that French and UK governments used to enter the fray.
Due to efforts of Canada Les Pearson the UN established it’s first peace keeping force and brought an end to hostilities and ensured the canal remained under Egyptian control.
Is there anyone in the “51st state” who would stand up as Pearson did should Trump decide to invade Panama?
And that’s not the first time, Rev. They also did that in the late nineteenth century, while the canal was still new. Not exactly an invasion of Egypt that time, more of Sudan, but the whole idea was to make sure the canal was under control of someone friendly, and the Muslims who took over Sudan were not friendly…and they were showing remarkable ability to take things over.
Wasn’t Reagan going on about the Canal during the 1980 campaign? If so it’d be the first Reaganite thing he’s done in ages…
Yeah, Blood Knight. It was during Carter’s term that the canal was returned to Panama – the treaty was signed in 1977, and they were to have full control by 1999. Reagan wasn’t happy about that (nor were my parents).
It’s so unfair that the canal is in Panama. They should have built it in South Dakota!
But if they built a canal in South Dakota, where would they run the pipeline through? It might get in the way!
At the time the canal was being built maybe the US could have offered to make Panama a state of the US.
A major impediment to that would have been racists in the US objecting to making all those brown skinned people into full US citizens.
No one should build anything in South Dakota *ever*…
Srsly. It’s almost as bad as North Dakota.
I’m sure there are lovely natural wonders in South Dakota, for those who seek out such things, but the only item on my mental list of must-see attractions in the state is one of those things that have been built: the National Music Museum, in Vermillion, on a state university campus.
That kind of thinking is what lured so many people into trying to homestead in the Dakotas. The reality is that it’s a grim place.
I’m not sure what kind of thinking you’re referring to. Building universities and museums in the state? It is certainly an odd location for a museum of that nature (although probably in welcome proximity to the musicolology department at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople). What I was trying to indicate, though, was that I have no particular interest in visiting South Dakota, except for this one oddly-located attraction.
That you’re sure there are beautiful thingies. Just joking.
Hey, there’s a Pole of Inaccessibility in South Dakota. I found the state well worth visiting; don’t think I’d want to live there. We visited during a snow storm, and it was gorgeous, but I wasn’t sure about driving back home in it.