Walter Lafeber的巴拿马运河分析|学校努力

1825年，一群美国商人宣布形成运河建设公司，兴趣在峡湾地区建造运河系统。该项目是在现在召集巴拿马的一个地区进行。努力充满了争议。虽然运河本身未被建成，但直到1900年初迈向建筑和所有权的每一步，难以饱饱和。Walter Lafeber说明了历史分析中的困境。在他的工作中，他说明了五个问题，解决了巴拿马运河对美国的重要性。本文将讨论本书作者的历史角度，解决了三个问题，并为巴拿马运河提供了批判的Lafeber工作。对于适当的历史分析，必须了解运河的重要性。巴拿马运河和运河区（运河周围的直接区域）是用于贸易的重要领域。甚至在运河建造之前，峡部两侧都有大型港口。 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.

这允许在任何海洋中舰队之间的快速部署。这两方面让巴拿马运河非常重要地区。Lafeber指出，巴拿马民族主义在运河的创造中发挥了重要作用，因此，塞伊亚不稳定的原因。第一个表达发生在1800年代后期，与哥伦比亚的独立斗争。美国渴望建立运河，并控制其运作，使用和支持巴拿马民族主义。在罗斯福行政当局期间，美国不仅使得通过梦露学说将巴拿马与其他世界权力的因素进行操纵;但它致力于将革命者反对另一个主权国家的革命。这是一个令人惊讶的原因是因为罗斯福管理通常持有偏好的位置。美国没有法律权利对哥伦比亚使用武力。民族主义回来困扰着美国。随着条约签署的条约和99年的租约给美国，运河建成。 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.”

读：

当我休假时：Anse Bundren分析

第二个重要问题，是管道对美国的重要兴趣吗？Lafeber给出了三分，表明它不是。首先，由于越南战争结束，所有相关的军事交通停止，1974年后，运河的重要性减少。其次，古董机械的年龄是追溯到1914年的。不可避免地需要更换机器。最后，新油轮和货船的大小。运河的容量太小而无法处理这种大量的吨位。这些是可行因素;但是，第一个论点涉及是否正在发生战争。提供通过区域增加流量的固体原因是间接的。这可以很容易地改变和出现其他国家的新冲突或贸易习惯。第三，为什么巴拿马人坚持认为假设总控制运河。巴拿马人每年赚数百万美元，美国有效地运行运河。 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 inprofits. 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.