Since the 1840s, Americans had considered constructing a central American canal to facilitate inter-ocean transportation, but little was done until the 20th century. A French company—Compagnie Universelle du Canal de Panama—obtained the rights to build a canal in the Colombian province of Panama in 1881, but the effort ended in bankruptcy. When an American commission recommended a construction of a canal in Nicaragua, representatives of the defunct French company, who held the rights to a Panama canal, lobbied Congress to adopt their route. When the group, led by Philippe Bunau-Varilla, lowered their asking price for the rights to build in Panama from $109 million to $40 million, Congress authorized an American canal zone 10 miles wide for $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. As the Colombian government considered the treaty, Raul Perez, Colombia’s ambassador to the United States, published an article in The North American Review that I would like you to read (by clicking here; please read pgs. 63-68). Although not representing Colombia’s official position, the article indicates apprehension over America’s intervention as well as Colombia’s potential loss from the canal.After reading the article, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: For what reasons does Raul Perez oppose the Hay-Herran Treaty? In what ways does Perez propose a better treaty for Colombia? What happens to Colombia’s interest in the canal a few months after this article appeared? How would Alfred J. Beveridge respond to Perez’s views? Your thoughts…
14 comments:
Perez opposes the treaty because Colombia would be seizing their land to another country, and for colombia panama is important. he also says the people of colombia dont want to lose panama because since its part f their country they want to be the ones thriving from it not some other country. because unlike whn the russins sold alaska and the french louisiana panama is actually attached to colombia so it wouldn't be the same. and he said the panama canal wouldn't be like the sueze canal because their is no tourit attractions their. he proposes that Colombia nd the us have a partnership instead of just selling it to the us because colombia wouldn't benifit from thir land the us would and it might harm thir conomy instead of improving it. also that no amount to money is worth more to the colombian people than their land.
Mr. Prill can you put up pictures from the Afrikaners in the concentration camps so I can use them in my debate?
Thanks!
i don't particularly want to post those pictures on the blog b/c they are a bit graphic, however, all you have to do is google image "boer war concentration camps" and several photos will pop up.
Perez says that he doesn't want the Americans profiting off the Panama Canal when it's Columbia's territory, and that Columbia wouldn't be benefiting much at all from the Panama Canal. People would just want to "go through as rapidly as possible," so they wouldn't be stopping along the way to trade and provide business. Perez proposes that Columbia have a share of the profits from the canal gotten by the US, so they would be actually benefitting also.
Beveridge would say that the US a) has divine right, b) has superiority as whites (social darwinism), and c) that the Columbians probably are "not capable of self-government" like he said of the Filipinos.
I have a question about my document for the debate tomorrow. I have the speech in India and while writing my summary I just wanted to make sure that the person (Thomas babington Macaulay) was one of the englishmen who wanted to change education in India. Point of view on this will change everything so I want to make sure i understand this.
you've got it
The US does it again...another one in the bag!
(sarcasm)
The colombians knew the value this canal would make...leading to millions and millions...so that puny 10 million was an insult but the US stabbed them in the back, basically dividing a country in two parts that had no reason to divide except for US govt. implications of the canal.
It was confusing to me at 1st but now its clear whose side Perez is on. He basically is saying that the canal would not be valueable to the Comombians as everyone thinks, and he tries to use this for the United States government to justify what they have just done...unbelieveable
Perez doesnt want this treaty because he doesnt want the United States to benifet from something that belongs to Colombia and if they get the Panama canal it would break up colombia and he doesnt think that any piece of land is worth breaking up the country
Perez realized how much the Panama Canal would be worth and knew that the U.S. was trying to cheat them out of a fair share. It would also make ports on the Panamanian coast useless because ships wouldn't need to stop there to refuel. He proposes a compromise but believes firmly that the U.S. shouldn't actually own land in Panama and that is illegal anyway.
Perez does figure out that his country will get no profit from this Canal being built, as much as the US says it will. It is sad because the document says that the colombians are willing to make an agreement in which both the US and Colombia wins economically. The Hay-Herren treaty sounds like it states that the Colombian government will have no say or imput in the owners of the canal. It is just opposite of what the Colombian government wants, which is to make everyone who owns or controls the canal to have the same rIghts as ALL colombians! But the US still thinks they are superior...wow! They think that they can't goverb themselves efficently so they come in!
i thought it was smart how the US got panama to revoke against the Colombians out of nowhere and get panama to let them build a canal. too bad panama didnt know who much profit they could have gotten from that canal.
The Colombians didn't like this at all, they knew they would lose a lot of money from their loss of the canal, and the some of the country's remnants would be under U.S. land. Only 10million dollars to pay for 1st the canal, which was Colombia's land for a long time in the first place. The separation of land because of U.S. smack in the middle. It wasn't good for Colombia either way. 10million wasn't going to compensate, but us Americans got a way, of course to get it cheap, "legally", as long as it wasn't us...
Perez doesn't agree with the treaty because the United States would be profiting off of the canal which used to belong to Colombia. He knew by selling it they would be loosing out on tons and tons of money that they would have profitted if the Panama Canal was still theirs. He proposes that Colombia could get some of the profit so they would make a little bit of money out of their own canal.
the US got these two countries to divide just for there benefit. we are a bunch of buttholes.. perez says that the canal would not be valueable to the colombians as everyone has been thinking
Post a Comment