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 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.
