More coursework: 1 - A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I - J | K - L | M | N - O | P - S | T | U - Y

The panama canal

THE CRITIQUE OF THE PANAMA CANAL: The Crisis in Historical Perspective

In 1825, a group of American businesspeople announced the formation of a canal building company, with interests in

constructing a canal system across the Isthmus. This project was to take place in an area now called Panama. The

endeavor was filled with controversy. Though the canal itself was not built until the early 1900's every step toward the

building and ownership, was saturated with difficulty. Walter LaFeber illustrates the dilemmas in a historical analysis. In

his work he states five questions that address the significance of the Panama Canal to United States. This paper will

discuss the historical perspective of the book's author, address pertinent three questions and give a critique of LaFeber's

work, The Panama Canal.

For proper historical analysis one must understand the importance of the Canal. The Panama Canal and the Canal Zone

(the immediate area surrounding the Canal) are important areas used for trade. Even before the canal was built there were

to large ports on both sides of the Isthmus. Large amounts of cargo passed through the Isthmus by a railroad that

connected the two ports. The most important cargo was the gold mined in California before the transcontinental railroad

was completed in the United States. It has strategic significance because of its location, acting as a gateway connecting

the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This allows for rapid naval deployment between fleets in either ocean. These two facets

make the Panama Canal very important in the region.

LaFeber notes that Panamanian nationalism played a large role in the creation of the canal and, consequently, the cause

for the area's constant instability. The first expression occurred in the late 1800's with Panamanian struggle for

independence from Columbia. The United States eager to build the canal, and control its operation, used and backed

Panamanian nationalist. During the Roosevelt administration, not only did the United States manipulate factors isolating

Panama from other world powers through the Monroe Doctrine; but it committed troops aiding the revolutionaries against

another sovereign state. The reason this is a surprise is because the Roosevelt administration normally held a position

favoring stability. The United States had no legal right to use force against Columbia.

Nationalism came back to haunt the United States. With the treaty signed and a 99-year lease given to the United States,

the Canal was built. Since then, the United States has varied on its stance of ownership and the principles of sovereignty

concerning the Canal. The ever persistent debate of who owns the Canal and who should have sovereign control over it,

has not been solved. The United States has occasionally attempted to "claim" the Canal zone through various methods

such as military occupation, exclusion of Panamanians for important jobs in Canal operations and even through the

customary aspect of international law. However, each time the Panamanians have managed to maintain claim to the Canal

despite the United State's imperialistic posturing to get it.

The most recent and notorious of the United States' attempts to annex the Canal Zone was during the Reagan

administration. President Reagan said that the Canal Zone could be equated as a sovereign territory equal to that of

Alaska. The question here is, was he correct? LaFeber points out that, "the United States does not own the Zone or

enjoy all sovereign rights in it." He uses the treaty of 1936 in Article III that states, "The Canal Zone is the territory of the

Republic of Panama under the jurisdiction of the United States." The entire topic was summed up neatly by Ellsworth

Bunker, a negotiator in the region, when he said, "We bought Louisiana; we bought Alaska. In Panama we bought not

territory, but rights."

A second important question, is the Canal a vital interest to the United States? LaFeber gives three points suggesting that

it is not. First, the importance of the Canal decreased after 1974, because of the end of the Vietnam War and all related

military traffic ceased. Second, is the age of the antique machinery dating back to 1914. Inevitably the machinery will

need to be replaced. Lastly, the size of the new tankers and cargo ships. The capacity of the canal is too small to handle

such a large amount of tonnage. These are viable factors; however, the first argument is concerning whether a war is

taking place. It is circumstantial in providing a solid reason for increased traffic through the Zone. This can easily change

through and emergence of a new conflict or trading habits of other countries.

Thirdly, why have the Panamanians insisted on assuming total control of the Canal. The Panamanians are making millions

of dollars annually and the United States run the Canal efficiently. LaFeber points in the direction of economics as the

principal factor and nationalism as secondary. The Panamanians fear the amount of reliance they have on U.S.

investments. The fear is enhanced by the large dependence of their national economy on MNC's, American banks and

mining companies. LaFeber continues saying that Panamanians find it difficult to cross the Zone because of check points

and resent their country being split in half. Continuing he asserts that perhaps if the Panamanians were to have complete

control the Zone the amount of revenue would increase. Panamanians could also develop spinoff industries such as

drydocks and ship building creating an increase in profits.

Walter LaFeber develops a persuasive argument for the interpretation of historical events surrounding the creation of the

Panama Canal. As is consistent with other LaFeber's works, his research and fact finding technique in The Panama Canal

is complete if not exhaustive. He presents an objective outlook on issues surrounding the Canal. He uses a historical

approach in presenting his contribution to a subject that is lacking in information and scholarly examination.

In conclusion, this paper has addressed the historical perspective that the author of the book used. A discussion also

included three important questions concerning the Canal, its importance and the relationship between the United States

and Panama. Furthermore, this paper examines the effectiveness and usefulness of LaFeber's, The Panama

Canal.

Source: Essay UK - http://www.essay.uk.com/coursework/the-panama-canal.php



About this resource

This coursework was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.


Search our content:


  • Download this page
  • Print this page
  • Search again

  • Word count:

    This page has approximately words.


    Share:


    Cite:

    If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

    Essay UK, The Panama Canal. Available from: <https://www.essay.uk.com/coursework/the-panama-canal.php> [15-08-20].


    More information:

    If you are the original author of this content and no longer wish to have it published on our website then please click on the link below to request removal: