Basic HTML Version
the U .S. should tum it over to Pan–
ama before she riots again and
someone "bombs a lock" or com–
mi ts sorne oth er aggressive act.
Those who know better realize such
arguments a re spurious and alarm–
ist.
It
is
precisely the fact that the Zone
is in U.S. hands which makes the
Canal defensible. The U.S. has been
able so far, by operating within the
cushion of the Zone, to defend the
wa terway through two world wa rs,
as well as against violence directed
at it from Panama itself, including
the riots of January 1964. Even dur–
ing the three days of chaos 13 years
ago, sbipping was able to proceed
unaffected precisely because the
"fa llback" a rea of the Zone kept
tro uble from interr upting com–
merce.
Wi th the Zone passing out of
existence and its area incorporated
into Panama, this defensive cushion
would be lost. Trouble could extend
right up to the water's edge and the
Canal indeed
would
become inde–
fensible, no matter what military
presence the U.S. might still retain
under a new treaty.
UglyVision
Because of lack of foresight on
America's part, one can easily envi–
sion a time when a radicalized Pan–
ama, under Soviet or even Un ited
Nations Thi rd World pr essu re,
could adopt a "selective pol icy" of
who could use the Canal and who
couldn't, such as: No Ame rican
ships. No U.S. vessels unde r fo re ign
flags (such as Liberia). No ships of
any nation trading with any country
on which the U.N. should decid e to
slap an embargo. The ships of leftist
La tín countries would be perm itted
to go through , but not those ofChile
or Brazil- or even those of Japan or
Britain going to any of the above
countries.
And- irony of ironies- we cou ld
even see engineers, pilots and tech–
nicians from the Communist world
manning the Canal jobs vacated by
Americans!
What a mess it would be. And
who would get the blame? The
United States-for making it all pos–
sible by givin g up its responsibili ty.
America would indeed be the scorn
of many na tions-and for good rea–
son .
10
Ceding Territory-
ADangerous Precedent
' 'The claim that changed condi–
tions justify the renegotiation of
old treaties involving cessions of
territory is a petard charged with
dynamite for the future of the
United States.
"State Department officials seek
tojustify theabrogation ofthe treaty
of 1903 with Panama with the plea
that that treaty was concluded 72
years ago and that in the meantime
conditions have changed. Will they
also insist as a corollary that the
older the treaty of cession, the
greater is the need for renegotiating
it? Is a period of
72
years the mín–
ima! or the maximal terminal date
for territorial cessions? In the early
1950s Soviet Russia addressed a
demand to the State Department to
show proof of ownership ofAlaska,
which the United States had pur–
chased from Russia sorne 85 years
before. It may weU be that only the
later admission of the territory
Alaska into the Union as a state
forestalled further demands along
Few realize tha t Ame rica's obli–
gations regarding the Cana l go back
even before
1903. Speci1ically, the
U.S. has an obligation under the
H ay-Pa u ncefote T reaty of 1901
(with Great Br itain) to keep any
Isthmian cana l "free and open to
the vessels of commerce and of war
of all nations," on terms of entire
eq uality and without discrimina tion
as to "coodi tions and charges of
tra ffic." The Republic of Panama
was not a party to this treaty com–
mitment (and in fact, was not even a
separate na tion a t the time).
The United States also has a sep–
a ra te treaty commitment with Co–
lombia guaranteeing that nation,
the former sovereign of Panama,
cer tain special rights in the use of
the Canal.
Replacing the 1903 treaty in no
way abrogates these other solemn
agreements! The ma ritime powers
of the world, moreover, have ac–
quired rights of use of America's
this line for the time be ing.
"Or will the State Department
insist upon the renegotiation of the
Gadsden purchase and return all
of southern Arizona and southern
New Mexico to Mexico because
the Gadsden purchase treaty was
concluded 122 years ago, and since
then conditions have changed?
And what about the Florida pur–
chase treaty, which is 158 years
old, and the Louisiana purchase
which occurred 172 years ago? As
a matter of fact, the Panama Canal
is not operated solely under the
1903 treaty but under that treaty
as modified and reaffirmed in the
treaties of 1936 and 1955.
" By scrapping these latter
treaties our negotiators are estab–
lishing a precedent for the dis–
memberment of the national
territory."
-Donald M. Dozer, professor of
Latin American History and lnter–
American Relations, University of
California, Santa Barbara.
Canal " by prescription" (that is,
continua!, dependa ble usage over
many years). Wash ington is thus on
the verge of abandoning a grave
worldwide responsibili ty
it
had once
assumed-and it, not Panama, will
pay very dearly for t he con–
seq ue nces sho uld a nythi ng go
wrong.
Yielding to Blackmail
Down through the years, America's
officials have consistently whitt led
away at their nation's sovereign po–
sition in the Zone. The treaties of
1936 and 1955 each relinquished
elements of the 1903 treaty, though
lea ving t he fundamental sover–
eignty issue intact. But president ial
decisions in the 1960s a llowing the
flying of the Panamanian flag at se–
lected points in the Zone seriously
and needlessly compromised Amer–
ica's sovereign posi tion.
Explains Professor Dozer: "Every
new concession by the United Sta tes
The
PLAIN TRUTH July 1977