Basic HTML Version
Brazil, where they have a giant mar–
ket, or to Western Europe. The Jap–
anese steel industry , in turn,
depends upon shipment through the
Canal for nearly all of its coa! and
coke supplies.
Writes Charles Maechling, J r. in
the Winter 1977 issue of
Orbis:
"One can imagine the crippling ef–
fect of a sudden closure on the Japa–
nese economy.... This is not to
mention the adverse impact such a
closure would have on countries like
Australia and New Zealand, which
have crucial European and Eas t
Coast markets."
Closure, or even restrictcd use of
the Canal, could be the death knell
of Britain's shaky economy. Down
through the years Britain, with her
far-tlung merchant marine, has con–
sistently been the second or third
largest user of the Canal. Each year
over 60 percent of British-registered
shipping transi ts the lsthmus.
Severa! Latín American nations
also have a huge stake in the Canal
operation. The trade between the
west coast of South America and the
Gulf and East Coast of the United
States passes almost directly north–
south across the Panama Canal
water bridge.
Thus, continued access to the
waterway for all nations and at rea–
sonable rates-which the United
States has guaranteed for 63 years–
is an issue atfecting virtually the en–
tire world. Yet the American gov–
ernmeot has allowed itself to be
continually outmaneuvered by Pan–
ama into treating the Canal prob–
lem as strictly an issue between the
U.S. and Panama, or at the very
most, between the United States
and Latín America as a whole.
Washington has consistently failed
to impress upon Panama that far
more is at stake than interna! Pan–
amanian politics.
Key to Hemlspherlc Defense
MilitariJy, the Canal is as vital as
ever to the defense of the United
States and other countries of the
Westero Hemisphere. The waterway
gives the U. S. Navy remarkable
tlexibility in its strategic p lanning-a
factor even more critica! today with
the stress placed on economy of op–
erations.
With the exception of the big air-
The
PLAIN TRUTH July 1977
PANAMA
'S military dictator, Omar
Torrijos, needs new Panama Canal
treaty to shore up faltering position.
craft carriers, alJ of the Navy's ves–
seis, including all submarines and
missi le-firing craft, can take advan–
tage of the Canal's quick ocean-to
ocean $hOrtcut. And for expediting
the movement of huge tonnages of
military cargo to far-tlung war
fronts, the Canal has proven its ines–
timable worth-as witnessed in
World War
IJ,
Korea and Vie tnam.
While the Pentagon has given its
approval to the State Department to
seek a new treaty, it has done so
very reluctantly. Mos t of the top
brass hold grave reservations about
political control of the Zone passing
into Panama's hands.
One American congressman who
is opposed to any fundamental
changes in the operation of the vital
seaway expresses its importance in
the bluntest terms: "The Panama
Canal , with its protective frame of
the Canal Zone, is a world waterway
absolutely necessary for inter–
oceanic commerce.... Its security is
of global significance in the current
struggle for world power, and its
loss would be a serious military
blow against all nations of the entire
free world comparable _ to defeat in
war."
A " Model Treaty"?
Even though public opinion in the
United States is said to run three to
one against relinquishing American
rights in the Canal Zone, the major-
ity of legislative members in Wash–
ington are not o f the same
persuasion. And the executive
branch of govemment, namely the
State Department, has been nego–
tiating off and on with Panama's
representatives for over 12 years
trying to accommodate Panamanian
demands for a new treaty designed
to tum control of the Canal over to
Panama in stages- with intended
safeguards for continued American
access.
The new Administration in Wash–
ington had hoped, in fact, to submit
a new treaty for the required two–
thirds Senate approval by early
summer. Howeve r, obstacles on
both sides-said to be a hardening
position on Panama's part and a
steady chorus of opposition against
a new treaty in the U.S. Sena te-are
once again threatening to forestall
the negotiations.
On both sides, quite a bit of per–
sonal pride is involved. For Panama's
dictator, General OmarTorrijos, who
assumed power in a coup in 1968, a
new treaty asserting Panamanian
sovereignty over the Zone and its
canal would assure him a prominent
niche in his country's history as the
one who secured Panama's fina l "lib–
eration." Without a new treaty, he
claims, he doesn't know bow he can
restrain Panama's left-wing students
and the country's National Guard
from marching en masse in anger to
seize the Zone. In fact , he has said he
might even lead them.
There is a term which normally
describes such boasting. It 's called
"blackmail."
F o r chief U.S. negotiat o r
Ellsworth Bunker, a new treaty
agreed to by both sides would cap a
quarter century of public service.
It
is his hope that the new pact might
provide, in his words, "a model for
the world to admire of how a small
nation and a large one can work
peacefully and profitably together."
Such wording, of course, ex–
presses a highly laudable goal, al–
though it is not quite accurate
in
fact. The United States and Panama
have
worked for the mos t part
peacefully, and, certainly for both
sides, profitably, in the Canal enter–
prise ever since the first ship sailed
through in 1914. The Canal has
greatly benefited American com-
7