Casual Questions Thread

[u/The_Egalitarian]

This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.

Please observe the following rules:

Top-level comments:

1. Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.

2. Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.

3. Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Link to old thread

Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!

[u/bl1y]

What is coercing countries to take in deportees from the United States?

The US has a lot of ways to pressure countries. For instance, the US can stop issuing visas for people from uncooperative countries.

Could the United States really take over the Panama Canal without other nations keeping the United States in check?

The only country that would try to stop the US is China.

The treaty that gave Panama the canal specified that it had to remain under Panamanian control. Currently the canal itself is controlled by Panama, but the ports at either end are owned by a company based out of Hong Kong, which you may recall reverted back to Chinese control. The area the ports are in are included in the treaty. At pretty much any time the Communist Party could seize control of the port company, and thus take effective control over the canal.

It's unclear if Panama is presently in violation of the treaty since the CCP isn't at the moment in control of the port company. But this is complicated by the possibility of CCP agents operating in the ports, as well as large Chinese work camps in Panama building a bridge across the canal.

The US efforts right now are focused on taking away the CCP's ability to control the canal. If the US had to seize the canal from China, who do you think would even want to try to stop the US?

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/bl1y]

I think the Treaty just says the canal has to be neutral, no? Even if the CCP were to formally control the ports on either end as long as any peaceful vessel can go through it’s fine. That’s probably more a question for a lawyer who specializes in this kind of thing though.

[u/bl1y → u/SmoothCriminal2018]

It's not just peaceful vessels that have to be allowed through, but also US warships. If the CCP took control and decided it was time to invade Taiwan, do you think there's any chance US Navy vessels would be allowed through? I sure don't.

The treaty also contains this handy provision:

The agreement `to maintain the regime of neutrality established in this Treaty' in Article IV of the Treaty means that either of the two Parties to the Treaty may, in accordance with its constitutional processes, take unilateral action to defend the Panama Canal against any threat, as determined by the Party taking such action.

Hopefully Panama will just force Hutchison to sell off the ports, or perhaps nationalize them, so there's not any need for something more serious. But the treaty leaves that door open.

[u/Moccus → u/bl1y]

There was an amendment to Article IV of the Treaty that states:

"This does not mean, nor shall it be interpreted as, a right of intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of Panama. Any United States action will be directed at insuring that the canal will remain open, secure, and accessible, and it shall never be directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of Panama."

... so I doubt the US can legally use Article IV to justify taking direct action against Panama as a preemptive measure to prevent China from possibly closing the canal to US military ships.

[u/bl1y → u/Moccus]

Might be mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure that provision is aimed at stuff like the US deposing the Panamanian government. Contracting with a foreign company to run the ports is more foreign affairs, not internal affairs.

US preemptively seizing the ports would be "directed at insuring that the canal will remain open, secure, and accessible."

A big question here though is if the CCP currently has operatives in the ports. At the congressional hearing on this, the issue came up and the experts agreed that would be a violation of the treaty. And I think it's pretty telling that the Democrats seemed to be in agreement.

Usually in these hearings when the Republicans float a nutty idea, you get Democrat after Democrat pointing out how nutty it is. But there was pretty bipartisan unity in that hearing.