Final answer:
The return of the Panama Canal to Panama can be seen as a fulfillment of international agreements and the rectification of historical wrongs. President Carter's decision addressed issues of sovereignty and respected Panama's autonomy, despite political controversy in the United States. Panama has since managed the Canal successfully, fostering economic growth and global trade integration.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether America should have returned the Panama Canal back to Panama or retained control is complex and multifaceted. It involves considerations of international law, historical agreements, strategic interests, and issues of sovereignty and legitimacy.
The Canal Zone and the actual Panama Canal were indeed handed back to Panama in 2000, following the original provisions of the agreement. President Carter believed that the return was overdue because the Panamanian people had never properly authorized the cession of the Canal Zone to the United States, and international law recognized it as sovereign Panamanian territory.
On the other hand, the decision to return the Canal stirred controversy in the United States, with many opponents viewing it as a strategic error and a sign of weakness. Despite the conservative groups opposition, it can be argued that returning the Canal was a move towards rectifying a situation that had emerged from the U.S. intervention in Panama's affairs, which included supporting Panama's independence from Colombia without a clear mandate from the local populace for ceding the Canal Zone.
Additionally, Panama has proven its capacity to manage the Canal effectively since taking over, enhancing its economic development and integrating itself into global commerce and banking sectors. Historically, it is worth noting that the construction of the Panama Canal had significant implications, including altering the ethnic makeup of Panama and establishing the country as a critical junction for global trade.
The construction project, which was completed by the United States after its intervention in the separation of Panama from Colombia, had far-reaching political and economic consequences. The canal's importance to America was not only in its contribution to commerce but also for its strategic military value.