Trump negotiating a new Panama Canal treaty for the American people

That's not Trump's intent. If you paid any attention to the OP and the Topic Title you would know that the goal is renegotiating, not canceling.

You claimed that Trump has zero leverage, and I simply pointed out that he has lots of leverage including the power to withdraw from the Treaty that transferred the canal from US control to Panamanian control.

 

Isn't withdrawing from a treaty the same as canceling it? Please explain the difference as I don't understand.

 

My point that Trump does have leverage in negotiation with Panama does not depend on a description of the difference between canceling and withdrawing, so I find the question uninteresting. If that is a topic of interest to you, do your own research.

 

I would agree in principle; doubt that Trumps thinks it can be done- but of course we know little of the details. The first place I would put blame is in Jimmy Carter selling the canal without some provisions protecting US future interests-. But he did. Just have to wait and see- but I believe we have many bigger and more important issues to deal with first.

 

And yet, Panama has already said no.

any additional protocols to an existing treaty that has already been ratified by the Senate must also be ratified by the Senate with 2/3 majority. This is after the two parties agree. If one of the parties has said no and contininues to say no, then there will be no renegotiated treaty to consider by anyone.

 

Tough ****. After Trump renegotiates it, he'll submit it to the Senate for ratification.

 

Trump has "planned" to make many deals, always patting himself on the back first, then never getting the great deal promised

I wonder how well this thread will age?

 

So no answer....
What leverage does he have?

 

Already asked and I already answered in post 4, 14, 36, and 51. The last three were direct replies to you.

Enough with the badgering.

 

There is no leverage that Trump has. Two treaties were signed and ratified by the Senate. the first treaty ensures that the canal remains open and secure. It is. The second treaty was the transfer of the canal to the Panamanian government, also ratified which the Panamanian government controls and maintains the canal. A withdrawal from either treaty still does not give the US the right to own that treaty for a "negotiated" deal that Trump is talking about. And to withdraw from either or both treaties that Trump wants, he needs the Senate. There is no provision in either treaty where the President can withdraw from the treaty, unlike NAFTA. This is a fool's errand that Trump is suggesting while not understanding how treaties are negotiated or ratified.

Trump has two options:
1. Let this slide during his administration when he is dealing with other complex issues, or
2. Invade Panama and similarly remove the current Panamanian president like GHWB did with Noriega.

The reason for the higher fees is because of droughts in Central America, which have affected the water levels of the Panama Canal which has reduced traffic through the Panama Canal. that is why the fees have increased. Those fees are applied to everyone who uses the Canal.

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/v...heck/536-22d4d1da-55f0-48a7-a371-5b02e486af80
https://pancanal.com/en/torrijos-carter-treaty/
https://apnews.com/article/trump-pa...999-handover-8db28fd0249377a3f102cbb0a81e9356

 

There will be no renogiations for this treaty. Panama is not willing to dance the dance that Trump wants.

 

Fake News. He can withdraw from the treaty that grants Panama the privilege of running the canal that the US built and operated, on the 10 mile wide strip of land that the US controlled.

 

Panama will negotiate with Trump.

 

These demands don’t sound too groundbreaking, it’s pretty much asking for Panama to continue things the way they currently are, and don’t allow China to use the canal for surveillance.

 

if Countries believe America's word means nothing, then they will treat it like nothing

 

"Withdrawing" means nothing unless Panama accepts it, the US Senate accepts it (advise and consent law) or Trump is willing to use force to take it back.

 

Nothing in the treaty says he can. Withdrawing from either treaty does not change the fact that the Panama Canal is owned by someone. Hence, your argument is moot.

 

Not with the Panama Canal it won't. It might negotiate with Trump in the dark back rooms on his legal issues, but that is about it.

 

That’s like saying Russia can withdraw the treaty to give the US control of Alaska. They can change their policy to acknowledge the territory is ours, but at the end of the day we’re already controlling that territory

The same thing is true about the canal, we can declare it’s ours again, but Panama is already controlling it, and withdrawing our acknowledgement that it’s theirs doesn’t change that.

Ultimately I don’t think anything will come of this, the demands are pretty much to keep things how they are now, and don’t allow China to use the canal for surveillance. My prediction is things will remain the same without us withdrawing from the treaty.

 

I don't expect withdrawal either, rather, I pointed out to those that claim that we have no leverage, that we do.

 

We have no leverage when it comes to Central America or even South America. We have some leverage with Canada and Mexico because of trade, but not with Panama or Greenland for that matter.

 

The Googles and Inter-weps did not close for Christmas

The Panama Canal and the Torrijos-Carter Treaties
The first, called The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, or the Neutrality Treaty, stated that the United States could use its military to defend the Panama Canal against any threat to its neutrality, thus allowing perpetual U.S. usage of the Canal.
https://history.state.gov/milestone...st, called The Treaty,U.S. usage of the Canal.

 

We do have leverage with Panama. They will negotiate with Trump.

 

Don't know what leg trump thinks he has to stand on. Unless Panama stops letting USA and other countries from using it.
We can use our military to open it up.


...

The 1977 treaty was supplemented by a separate, but interrelated, Neutrality Treaty that also went into effect in 1979 but has no termination date. Under the Neutrality Treaty the United States and Panama guarantee the permanent neutrality of the canal, with nondiscriminatory tolls and access for all nations; U.S. and Panamanian warships, however, are entitled to expeditious passage. No nation other than Panama may operate the canal or maintain military installations within Panamanian territory. The United States, however, reserved the right to use military force, if necessary, to keep the canal open; that was, in part, the rationale behind the U.S. military intervention in Panama in 1989–90, which, nonetheless, did not prevent the canal from being closed down for about a day in December 1989.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Panama-Canal/American-intervention

 

And there was no land sale either.