|
By Father Joseph Ware
“Dooley, I undersand the gover’mint was greatly
disappointed that we didn’t find life on the moon.”
“Yis, Hinnessey,” said the old philosopher, “twas
the last chance we had to expand our give-away program.”
The question being asked by many today is whether or not the
United States should ratify the treaty with Panama which has been initiated,
i.e., should we give away the American Canal in Panama or not? I think not.
To get a better understanding of the situation it would be well to
review briefly the history of our presence there. As early as the close of the
18th century the United States had expressed interest in a canal
across the Isthmus of Panama. In 1846, Colombia, of which Panama was a
province, granted the United States the right to transportation across the
Isthmus if the United States would agree to preserve law and order there.
Shortly afterwards the United States constructed a railroad across the
territory. The project was completed in 1855.
In 1903, the United States obtained from Colombia the right to
build and operate a canal from ocean to ocean. The Colombian senate, however,
refused to ratify the treaty. The Panamanians, fearful that the United States
would construct the canal in Nicaragua instead, revolted against Colombia. The
United States refused, in this instance, to come to Colombia’s aid but
sided, instead, with the Panamanians.
Once Panama was recognized as an independent republic, the United
States signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty whereby we obtained permission to
build the canal in return for $10 million cash and an annuity of $250,000. The
United States also paid private landowners over $160 million for property and
facilities obtained from them. As Governor Reagan’s rallying cry so
succinctly puts it: “We bought it, we paid for it, it’s ours.”
Today the Canal Zone through purchases and through salaries paid
to Panamanian employees of the Zone, pumps about $260 million annually into the
economy of Panama. The per capita income in Panama is over $1,000 which far
surpasses the annual average for other Latin American countries. Were it not
for the American presence there this would never have been. It is well to keep
this in mind when we hear of government officials comparing our keeping the
Canal Zone with Russia’s dominating the smaller nations of Eastern Europe.
These small nations were taken by force, and if there have been any economic or
political agreements they have been one-sided, and it doesn’t take a
genius to determine which side was favored.
According to the Treaty of 1903 the United States would hold
control “in perpetuity” of the 10-mile stretch of land (Canal Zone)
dividing the country from ocean to ocean. In this Zone the United States would
hold “all the rights, power, and authority” that it would possess
“if it were the sovereign of the territory.”
We are told that the major concern is simply the presence of the
United States in the Zone. The Panamanian leader, Brigadier General Omar
Torrijos, insist that the people want the Americans out. “My people do not
want to be the enemy of the Americans, but if they become disheartened and
discouraged, they may become unfriendly.” Some call it blackmail. Some
dissident groups will not be satisfied as long as one American remains in the
Zone. We have dissidents here who act in a similar manner in other matters but
they do not represent the mind of the American people. Senator Strom Thurmond
of South Carolina says: “We cannot hope to deal effectively with other
nations if we yield to blackmail. That is the only way to describe the threats
of violence in Panama and the Canal Zone and threats of sabotage to the canal,
which treaty proponents are using as their chief argument for
ratification.”
Some believe that surrendering rights acquired by the United
States in the Treaty of 1903 will insure troublefree operation of the Canal in
the future. The opposite view seems to be more tenable. In a letter in the
National Review (Sept. 16) an American engineer who spent some time in the
Canal Zone indicates that the three vulnerable spots in the Canal are the locks
at Gatun, Pedro Miguel, and Milaflores which extend over a limited area easy to
protect if we control the Zone. The locks could not be put out of commission by
a few hand bombs. It would take a day or so of unhindered work by a skilled
team of demolition experts to plant the necessary explosives, which would be
all but impossible if we controlled the Canal. The United States has been able
to protect the Canal and keep it open to shipping even through four wars.
An ideal treaty would be one in which an increase of benefits
would accrue to the Panamanian people. One that would help them develop their
resources. One that would give them a fairer sharing in the polls. A treaty
such as the one which has been initiated, one which would give the Canal away,
is not the ideal.
|
