Basic HTML Version
Franco-German hegemony is not
the Europe that the Dutch, Danes,
Belgians, and llalia ns have in mind ,
lo say nothing of the British and
Irish . ..."
"Unity by degree" has run full
steam into age-old nationalism. And
now, Communist parties in Italy
and France threaten to gain power,
upsetting what little unity has been
painfu lly achieved over the past two
and one half decades.
It is now clea r that unity in Eu–
rope will have to be hammered out
on a ditferent a nvi l.
In this respect, the statements of
Pope Paul to a ga thering of Euro–
pean bishops last October 18 takes
on added significance: "We think
that only the Christian civilization,
from which Europe was born, can
save this continent from the void it
is experiencing .... And it is there
that our mission as bishops in Eu–
rope takcs o n a gripping per–
specti vc. No o ther human force
in
Europe can render the service that is
confided to us, promoters of the
faith, to rcawaken Europe's Chris–
ti an so ul, where its unit y is
rooted ."
o
PANAMA CANAL
CONTROVERSY
HEATSUP
In recen t presiden tia l primaries
former Cal ifornia gove rnor Ronald
Reaga n has repeatedly charged that
the administra tion plans to surren–
der the U.S.-built and opera ted
waterway to the control of the re–
gime of Panamanian strongman
General Omar Torrij as.
Presiden! Ford, for his part, has
called Mr. Reaga n's statements irre–
sponsible a nd said that if negotia–
tio ns with Panama were broken off,
"a recurrence o r the bloodshed that
took place in 1964" could result.
The Ford Administration has
judged that it would be in the inter–
est of the United Sta tes to reaeh a
compromise over the canal, and the
territory through whi c h it runs,
whereby thc United Sta tes would
retain access and defense rights, but
give up poli tical jurisdiction. Mr.
Reagan has Jabeled any such com-
The
PLAIN TRUTH
June
1976
promise as giving in to "plain black–
mail."
While much of the argument sur–
rounding the canal generates pas–
sionate emotions on both sides,
three maj or arcas of controversy
have emerged - sovereignty, de–
fense, and U.S.-Latin rela ti ons.
• On the first issue - th a t of
sovereignty - does the U.S. "own"
the Pa nama Canal and its accom–
panying zone in the same scnse that
it owns Alaska?
According to the terms of the
1903 trea ty between the U.S. and
Panama, Panama granted to the
United States " in perpetuity the use,
occupation and control" of the zone
and a uthorized it to exercise "all the
rights, power a nd au thority within
the zone . . . wh ich the United States
would possess and exercise if it were
the sovereign of the territory .. . to
the entire exclusion of the exe rcise
by the R epublic of Panama of any
such sovereign righ ts, power or au–
thority."
In implementing the treaty, the
United States proceeded to acqui re
outright ownership of all land and
other property in the Canal Zone by
purchase from the individual own–
ers. The rights exercised by the
Uni ted States in the Ca nal Zone are
derived , therefore, from a grant by
the government of Pa nama and pur–
chases from the individual property
owners.
The unusual phrase " if it were
sovereign" has caused untold con–
fusion. But clea rly thc United States
has the right unil ate rally under the
treaty to retain fuU control of the
zone
as long as it wishes
LO
do so!
The Panamania ns realize full well
th e meaning and intent of the
treaty. That is why they wantto tear
it up and write a new one. Unusual
wo rding no twithstand ing, thcre is
no dou bt who owns and who has
exclusive
rights to the canal and its
zona l buffer: the United States.
Panama, it is recognized , has
" titular" or " residual" sovereignty
only, that is, should the Un ited
States choose to leave. the a rea re–
verts to the na tion which made the
origina l grant - Panama. When
Panamania ns claim - as they often
do - tha t the zone is part of
"their
te rritory" or is
"their
greatest natu–
ral resou rcc," this rhetoric can be
understood in only the most theo–
retical, no t legal , terminology.
• On the issue of defense: lt is
claimed by some tba t the canal
is
indefensible. WiUiam Miller, who
was Ba rry Go ldwa ter's running
mate in 1964 and is now campa ign–
ing for Presiden! Ford, notes that
the American Joint Chiefs of Staff
estíma te that it would take 30,000
marines to protect the canal against
insurgent attacks on the pa rt of the
Panamani ans. He argues that, in the
post-Vietnam era, defending the ca–
nal aga inst a guerrilla war wou ldn't
be wort h the cos t in Amer ican and
Panamani an livcs.
America n opponents of any new
treaty point out tha t there already
ar e 10,000 American troops in the
Zone, and an extra 20,000 or 30,000
would not be an unbearable price to
protect an American possess ion,
pa rticula rly when one realizes that
Panama has no national army, only
a 6,000-man national gua rd.
Panama's primary agitat ion force
is composed of several thousand
university students, whom Tor rijas
claims lo be holding in check - at
leas t until after the elections.
T he big question on defense is
this: ls the Uni ted Statcs
willing-
it
is certainly ab le -
LO
defend prop–
erty that is clearly its own against
any and a ll thrcats?
• U.S.-Latin Relations: The con"
ventiona l wisdom in American dip–
loma tic ci r c le s is that U.S.
relinquishing of jurisdiction over the
canal is a " test ofmaturity" and that
conti nued American possession of
the canal represents a "colonialist"
enclave deep in the heart of a sover–
eign nation.
But there is another view, al–
though it hasn't rcccivcd much at–
tention in the med ia. This view
takes in to accou nt the Latin pre–
occupat ion with the concep t of
machismo,
or manliness. Specifi–
cally, it ho lds that if the United
States were lo demonstrate the na–
tiona l
wi/1
and
strength
necessary to
keep the cana l, it wou ld earn for the
U.S. at least a begrudg ing respect
from Latin nations - perhaps not
publicly, bu t privately.
Loss Would Be Great
The canal is still very importan! lo
the U nit ed States, both com-
7