talks first amendment college law requiring chinese company like dance or face a nation wide an live 10:00 a.m. eastern o c-span, free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. ♪♪ >> democracy is worth dying for. >> democracy belongs to us all. >> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> it falls to the great democracies. >> freedom and democracy must be guarded and protected. >> still at our court democracy. >> democracy is a thing.

♪♪ >> joining us now to discuss the history of the panama canal is university of texas clinical science professor orlando. thank you for being with us today. >> thank you for havingme me. it's a pleasure. >> we will that with the basics, we've been hearing about panamac canal the past few weeks. remind our audience what it is and why it is important the u.s. >> the panama canal is one of the most important in the world. global commerce passes through the canal on a yearly basis. it is over 40% passes through

the canal and 70% of canal traffic is from the united states among the leading users of the canal and it's important for trade between the eastern seaboard in the west. it cuts down about 7000 miles so in terms of global commerce is important. perhaps the mostan important oceanic waterway. we have to go back in history to

understand the importance of the canal, the world and the united stateses. it dates back to the 16th century. they are building a canal, technologically impossible in the 16th century so it's there galleons from south america would work in the civic died and transport their gold land and you'll related cargo atlantic

side. the 51-mile distance from the pacific at the shortest from the pacific to the atlantic transport would transfer the cargo and transport them cuba and a key component and the gold rush in california and interest

in the canal. panama was part of columbia and united states worked out a deal in the 50s and 60s to build a well groomed that connected on the pacific side with the largest on the atlantic side. that was instrumental in transporting people and cargo from the pacific and the westco coast to the east coast of the united states should.

in the 1870s, 80s, the french were involved in an attempt to build the canal and that failed because of disease and corruption, technology and the way they wanted to build the canal. they wanted to duplicate the success which is a sea level canal and that type is not possible geography so disease, efficiency, corruption led to failure of the french effort. at the end of the 19th century beginning of the 20th century

after spanish-american war success of the united states led the united states to enter the process trying to negotiate the rights to build a canal the canal became an important part of this international quality of and it had become global per atlantic and the pacific and they were key in reaching

agreement to build a canal. it was at that time a and subsequent to that it was in perpetuity for several decades until a couple of treaties resigned.

why were they signed? >> it opened in 1914 the united states were guaranteed in perpetuity is 1904. the united states and a frenchman. the work on the canal and acquired the right to the

equipment of the french canal company. the negotiator of the treaty and they remind them but they signed. for the rest of the 20th century saw change that came later access to the canal and it allows the united states in the zone a 10-mile wide mile long

territory.of to build the canal in an infrastructure around administration and management and protection of the canal. change that treaty. it was critical to panamanian.

about 20 dominions died the protest and the reaction protests. in the canal zone and they were repressed by military personnel and police. the start of negotiations now

the right to the canal zone in perpetuity. problem living in opposition in the united states in 1988 military dictatorship so there was concern in the early 70s.

the revision with the military dictatorship not in the interest of the united states. by the time president carter to power in 1977, those negotiations advanced significantly. i think carter and his foreign policy and engagement with latin america wanted to change the narrative of our relations with the region.

political figures in the united states was that a new treaty was necessary to change the nature of our engagement not just with panel mall but also for the rest of latin america. those negotiations were not easy but they let you as you mention those two treaties. >> i'm going to hop in here quick because i want to make sure our callers have the numbers to call in so they can join this conversation as well. we arere opening those phone lines.cr your line 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001 and independents 202-748-8002. our guest is orlando perez, a political science professor at the university of texas at

dallas and our discussions on history of the panama canal. professor perez apologies for jumping in. you weres talking about the treaties, what they allow us to do. please continue. >> guest: as i was saying, and please interrupt me whenever you feel the need to do that. i can get carried away with the narrative here. so two treaties, one, the panama canal treaty and the other one the neutrality treaty. the panama canal treaty basically set up a process by which the united states would eventually by 1999 turnover control of the panama canal, the management of the panama canal. this was a process that took about 20 years of gradually

turning over pieces and areas of the canal zone to panamanian management. so ultimately on december 31, 1999, panama received the management of the canal. the neutrality treaty was a separate treaty by which the panamanians committed themselves to maintaining the panama canal as a neutral waterway, not favoring any particular country or particular international power or actor, to treat every user of the canal equally. this has become an issue recently with the president-elect comments on panama canal.

the neutrality treaty also gives the united states the right to intervene in the canal if that neutrality is jeopardized. the reason to my canal treaties were done instead of one, my understanding is it had to do with the best way to get this entire process through the united states senate, which was not an easy process but the treaties were ratified by two-thirds of the u.s. senate in 1978. they went into effect in 1979, effectivelye implemented by december 31, 1991. >> host: our guess is orlando perez. our . our discussions on the history of the panama canal and a first caller for this segment is from

riverside, california. good morning, good morning. how are you? i just want to make it clear i'm a native panamanian. i was born in a country and they came in 1963 as a nine-year-old. i'm a citizen, 22 your military that and everything. what's misleading is what he's saying about the united states having the panama canal in perpetuity. it was a 99 year lease, okay? and that's what's misleading because that will hype the craziness from our fearless leader now, that they will take. it wasn't theirs to take back. we need to clarify that. yes, the canal zone was american and all, is actually govern by louisiana law with all the jim

crow trappings of gold and silver founds and the only reason there was a large number of black employees from the west indies because they spoke english. that in itself became divisive with the american hispanic public. this issue about we are going to take it back, wasn't yours to take back. yes, you did the construction but you have no sovereignty now over that land. >> host: professor perez, your response. >> guest: i agree. i agree totally. the question of whether it was prepa duty or 99 years, that has been a controversial issue and it has to do with the translation from english to spanish and spanish to english of the initial treaty. but i agree with roy. the treaty itself said literally

that the united states would act as if it was somber, but the m -- sovereign -- but the implication is of the sovereignty remained with fundamentally with the panamanians. i also agree with him that the canal was built mostly by black labor from the afro-caribbean region and from imported labor from other par of, again, the caribbean and latin america. and so ial agree with roy that, that indeed sovereignty rests with the panamanians and that any discussion of

sovereignty and any discussion of returning the canal back to the united states management is i think counterproductive to our relations with, not just panama, but with latin america in general. and i think if the aim of this discussion is to bully the panamanians to move away from chinese investments and chinese engagement in the region, i honestly believe it's counterproductive and it will not readily succeed. >> host: let usly hear from tina and alabama, , linee for republicans. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thankk you.

mr. perez, nice job. i lived there are 22 years in the '50s, 60s and 70. my father was a civil engineer who maintain government contracts. the panamanians and americans got along great and the influence of america in panama created a middle-class that no other central american country enjoys. panama at 137 bank charters when i was down there. but in 1962 with the cuban missile crisis it was cuba and russia who sit about it instigators down for the riots, that happened throughout central america. i would encourage you to look into that. but i appreciate you taking the topic on. thank you. god bless. >> guest: thank you very much trauma let's hear from sean in new york, line for republicans. good morning. >> caller: the morning. >> guest: good morning.

>> caller: professor, may be -- how are you doing today? >> guest: all right. how much just to bounce off of thema woman who was just on, dot like she's got it commits amount of background and knowledge of there. i mean, my dad actually was neatly needed and he spent time in panama and was stationed down there. i guess what is your take on the chinese influence in that area and what would you say, what influence, you know, the fact we built the infrastructure there and theyy do get the sovereignty aspect of that. i understand that. that is a sovereign nation but would be your -- i am getting the impression you don't appreciate what president trump is trying to do when you call a bowling of old you think is the best option? >> guest: eswill look, there's a question that the chinese are strategic competitors to the

united states, and the chinese engagement in latin america, specifically, has not been helpful in terms of democratization and in terms of dealing with some authoritarian rogue regimes such as in venezuela, in nicaragua and in cuba specifically. the fact is that chinese engagement in those three countries have allowed, chinese and russian engagements in those three countries have allowed thosewe countries to thwart sanctions and policies to try to democratize those countries, move them in a democratic way.

chinese investment in the region is significant, but chinese investment in the region is a double-edged sword. we had just recently of a chinesebo automobile maker that has invested in brazil, for example, being accused of using a fact is thatd a lot of chinese investment and infrastructure in the region do not treat workers in a way that we would want workers to be treated. they paywo very little. they use slave labor conditions in those infrastructures. so chinese investments is important in many countries because of the money and the resources and the jobs that they produce but they are a

double-edged sword. so china is a strategic competitor. in panama, since 2017 panama switched their relationships from taiwan to the prc, to the people's republic of china. china has made significant investments, particularly in port infrastructure at either end of the panama canal. and so, you know, i don't underestimate the challenge that china poses tohe the united stas in the region. i just think that this issue of animal sovereignty over the panama canal is existential for the e panamanians. this is critical for their own

national identity. and i do use the word bullying because that is a tactic that unfortunately the president elect tends to want to use in trying to negotiate with international partners. and i think in this case it is going to be counterproductive.e and i think the better way of dealing with this is to deal with panama on a narrative of friendship and mutual cooperation here after all, panama has a government that is friendly to the united states. there president is a conservative. he is pro-u.s. the panamanians are generally pro-u.s. panama is critical to the

migration issue which is so central to the united states and to the president elect. the gap has been a source of my quick transit, hundreds of thousands of migrants transiting from south america and from the rest of thero world through the gap, , cooperation from the pana and security forces from panama on the issue is essential. and you don't think it creates goodwill with the panamanians who are inclined to be pro-american, to begin with, to say that they are cheating the united states when that impose tolls on come for ships passing through the canal. or that sovereignty over the panama canal speedy we take you back now like to use senate lawmakers will be convening before heading to the capitol rotunda for a ceremony honoring former president jimmy carter.