The Case for Retention of Ihe Panama Canal
By RONALD REAGAN
(Following are the opening remarks
made by Oov. Reagan on the recent
live, nationwide TV debate with William F. Buckiey Jr. on "Fifing Life.")
i..
In the rhetoric surrounding the discussion of the proposed Panama Canal
treaties, there's been a tendency to
nuke die JMbc one of either these
treaties or tfK tutus quo. Perhaps tonight we CM pake it plain that rejectioa of theae pretties dowaot mean an
end to furthernegotiations nor «n effort
to better «or pianl for' the people of
Panannu We're debating theie specific
treaties, whether they are m oqr best
interest and the best' interest of the
people of Panama. In my opinion they
are not. They are ambiguous in their
wording. They are fatally flawed.
One is, you've been told, to cover the
transfer of the total ownership, control
and operations of the canal to Panama,
effective Dec. 31, 1999. The other is to
guarantee the permanent neutrality of
the canal, beginning in the year 2000.
The fatal flaw I mentioned is that the
transfer would not be gradual as it
would seem when we look down the
road to 1999.
Under the present treaty the HayBunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 the
United States has "all the rights, power
and authority which the United States
would possess and exercise if it were
sovereign in the territory, to the exclusion of the exercise by the Republic
of Panama of any such sovereign
rights, power or authority." Ratification of the new treaty would immediately cancel that treaty of 1903.
The. Canal Zone would cease to
exist. We would simply be a foreign
power w|th property in Panama.
There would be nothing to prevent
the government of Panama from expropriating our property and nationalizing the canal as they have'
Cmndcmn HtntUt 97 percent of »lf OM world"a shipping *nd 99 per cent of mH
the U.S.
13 ofourtorgost cerrien. Above, the U.S. 8. Tarawa ttwffft m cergo *Mp *s she
pmsses through the
in declaring that they must not violate
the U.N. Charter, and they backed
away. Suez became Egypt's, and the
neutrality of the canal was no more.
No traffic was allowed by ships to and
from Israeli ports. If we were to become
victims of expropriation as England
was in 1956 would we take the action
we refused to let them take? I don't
think so.
The second treaty which comes into
effect in the year 2000 when Panama
has become the sole owner and operator
of the canal promises complete neutrality for all users. This treaty is so
The new treaty for neutrality makes it very clear
that in the
event of war our enemies have the same right
of access to the
canal that we have.'
already nationalized the transit
campany and the power system.
International law permits expropriation by governments of foreignowned property within their borders,
but the United Nations Charter, which
supersedes all other treaties, prohibits
a member nation from using armed
force to prevent such expropriation.
This rules out the practice of force
majeure the idea that because we have
the size and strength we could just move
in.
In 1956 Nasser broke Egypt's treaty
with Britain and seized the Suez Canal.
They also broke the treaty which guaranteed the right of all nations to the
use of that canal. When Britain, France
and Israel moved armed forces agajnst
Egypt, the United States took the lead
ambiguous in its wording as to be virtually meaningless.
Nowhere in this second treaty, or
accompanying protocol, is the word
"guarantee" used. Guarantee is a word
of art. It carries the assurance that
there is a guarantor. Our negotiators
had capable lawyers advising them.
The omission could not have been an
oversight. Guarantee must have been
left out. at Panama's insistence, with
full knowledge of the consequences.
What is there for us to cheer about in
being granted, in word only, neutrality of the canal we buih and which presently we have in reality?
The new treaty for neutrality makes
it very clear that in the event of war
our enemies have the same right of access to the canal that we have. The pro-
10 / Hnmaii Events / FEBRUARY' 1 i 1978
j*£«—everythfng
Loekg.
tocol does more. It permits all other, that with the excuse of neutrali
the
nations like, say, the Soviet Union or United States would maintain * ty
guarCuba to become parties to the protocol. antee over the state of Panama
That's brought forth in the first was another cause for discussion. This
that
"whereas."
kept the negotiations detained until the
Thus Article 3 gives the right of any United States gave up on the idea of
nation to become a party to the proto- having a guarantee of neutrality over
col. So, by Article I, the contracting the canal."
parties hereby acknowledge the regime
The doctor doesn't seem to have any
of permanent neutrality of the canal. problem with using the word
That acknowledgment is meaningless antee" himself. He just doesn't"guarwant
unless some nation has the right to to see it in the treaty. As to our vessels
enforce it. Our treaty advocates going to the head of the line in time
of
tell us that we can claim that right, emergency, he had a few words about
and so, therefore, we're safe. But if so, that which have been overlooked by
the
then any of the other* parties to the treaty advocates.
protocol have the same right.
He says that oar negotiators
The wording of the second treaty and
wanted
privileged passage of Amerthe protocol is so ambiguous that alican warships, but Panama refued
ready the people of the United States
to allow .it. He said they did allow
are being told by our government that
us
a phrase "expeditious passage,"
we have rights which the government of
but
it has no meaning. They gave us
Panama is telling its people we don't
that, he said, because the American
have.
negotiators had to have something
We're told that from the year 2000
in order to sell the treaty to die
on to perpetuity the United States can
Pentagon.
unilaterally declare neutrality of the
The
canal has been violated, and we can under first treaty provides for a defense
a joint board composed of equal
intervene to restore it. We're told that numbers
of Panamanian and United
in time of war our naval vessels can go States
officers.
Now that has a friendly
to the head of the line and have privi- sound,
even
though
the treaty requires
leged passage through the canal.
us to close down 10 of our 14 military
We are not told that Dr. Romulo bases and to fly the Panamanian flag
at
Escobar Bcthancourt, chief negotiator the entrance of the other
four
and
in
the
of Panama and the chief adviser to the place of honor on each base. And,
of
dictator of Panama, has assured his course, since Panama will have
sovpeople we don't have any such rights. ereignty, Panama will also have the
We cannot unilaterally find that neutral- absolute power of decision.
ity has been violated, nor can we even
Joint defense. Now that brings to
deny the use of the canal to our enemies mind
a picture of friendly allies going
in the event of war.
forward shoulder to shoulder in friendly
Here are his words: "We did not want camaraderie, Americans voicing prob-
no
ably their customary marching chants
canal has never once been subject to
for the bankrupt French company his inajifvratio
such as the well-known, "Sound off.
sabotage.
a ftnaounced
as avid to get that $40 million for his would
One. two." The Panamanian Guardia
presid
e
o*«r
an
It
is
time,
I think, to offer a rebuttal clients as the Panamanians
Nacional will be chanting the words
were to get and the end to centuries of plague. Tm>
to
the
rewrit
ing
of
histor
y that I re- the canal. Bunau-Varilla negotiated
that they use in their present training. ferred
new nation began free of debt with a
to earlier. The Panama Canal the treaty with
They march to these words Que Zone
our
secret
ary
of
state,
SlO-b
illien endowment.-They set threeis
not
a last vestige of colonialism Hay. It was immediately
mutra. gringo. Gringo abajo. Gringo
and unani- quarters of a millimi aside for wofkmg
wreste
d
from
the
Repub
lic
of Panama mously ratified by the provisional goval pareddn. Translation: "Death to the
capital, $2 mifiioa for public works,
gringo. Down with the gringo. Gringo by force and coercion. Our Navy did ernment of Panama and subsequently and invested $6 million
not
io New York
interv
ene
to
bring about the seces- by the permanent government
to the wall." Now that should reassure
. Our own real estate mortgages, which shows they
sion
of
Panam
a
from
Colom
bia,
nor Senat took three months to fight over
us gringos about the kind of coopera- did
were not inexperienced. But the interest
it then intimidate Panama into it, andethen
tion we might have under the new granti
the vote was 66 to 14.
from
this provided the revenue for
ng
the
United
States the Canal
treaties.
Zone in perpetuity.
In the days ahead we're going to be
'Among top-ranking military officers who an ntiro
Without the canal there wouldn't
d and thus
treated to fireside chats from the Oval
free
to speak their minds... 324 an oppostd to the frwtfe
be
a Panama. Panama tried more than
sv ffal*
Office. Members of the Cabinet will
an in favor.'
SO times to free itself from Colombia.
^i*
..;
"
barnstorm across the country, playing Separ
ated by jungle, swamp and imone-night stands on the mashed potato
passable^mountains, it had no common
The United States paid Panama $10 running
circuit. There'll be a Madison Avenue bond
thdr cpuntry. They b»d «o
advertising blitz with billboards and felt with the rest of the nation and million in gold. Later in 1922 we paid fear of acrcsj^jwifbbonor of r*nftelevision spot ads in support of the Bogotaneglected by the government of Colombia $25 million because the land iation frooiCdoinbtt bec»Qse.'»t>«ir
*.
was actually theirs. We also gave request, tb$U
canal treaties. We might even possibly
*ittd St**e* guaranteed
When
the French failed in their ef- Panama $250,000 a year that was a rail- their independenc
hear from some who just happen to
fort to build a canal across the Pan- road royalty which had previously gone to build the«fch e. Ttea we
have an interest io banking.
M» woad«r o/
amani
to Colombia. We've since raised that to
I don't challenge their sincerity, but orizedan Isthmus, our Congress auth- about
We
haw
opera
ted die cwal foffeere:
the
two
million three.
President to negotiate a
based on some of the arguments that treaty
than 60 years <» a nonprofit naiir
to
build
a
canal,
either
Now, let this put an end to any
in Colomwe've already heard, we will hear his- bia
open to ati (he wpiid's shipping/jhavor Nicaragua. Indeed, Nicaragua that we pay rent and thus our claimtalk
tory rewritten by the State Department. was
to ama derives- one-fourth of its jBtoM
first
choice
with the majority in the Canal Zone is a kind of a leasehold. nation
The canal is fast becoming obsolete. It Congr
al product from the canaTaod
no longer is important to us commer- erupti ess until an untimely volcanic It's nothing of the kind. We not only has the highest per capita income ef
on tipped the balance to Panama. bought the Zone from Panama, we did
cially. None of the giant supertankers
any countr
Congress appropriated $40 million, something I believe was unique in the fourth-highey to Central America and
can use it. Well now, that last item is
st at ail of Latin America.
true, but if that's a reason for giving or approved it, to purchase the French history of great natidns in their dealings The citizens of Panama make *p .70
away the canal, we ought to .ask Gen. company equipment, excavation, and with smaller countries.
per cent of the canal workforce, with a
We went into the Zone and we payroll of $ 110 million.
Torrijos how much he wants to take geological research, providing, of
New York Harbor and San Francisco course, that Colombia agreed to the bought in fee simple all the privately
Somehow "rt boggles the mind to
bay off our hands because the super- treaty. The French agreement with owned land from the owners, including
think
that we're beta asked to tva
Colom
bia had only a few months to even homestead claims and squatters'
tankers were not built to use either the
over
a SlO-WBfc* taestme*
go.
The
Colom
bian
government saw rights. I've seen the figure of those purSuez or the Panama canals, and none
inchi
ng
hospkab, schools, M*
a
chanc
e
to
maybe
get
that
chases
$40
millio
set
of them can use a single port in the
at $153 million. This should
n
eve* bones the porkers five teUnited States. But the Panama Canal themselves if they stalled for a few answer the charges of some treaty adam! place America* people mi the ;
can handle 97 per cent of all the world's months, so they rejected the treaty. vocates that we have no claim to ownerAmerica* mffinry wrier the jw%shipping and 99 per cent of all the Panama saw its chance for freedom, ship of anything in Panama.
dktioa
of a government that was
declar
ed
its
indepe
ndence,' and inUnited States Navy ships everything
We built a sanitation system for their
net
elected
by the Panamanian
forme
d
us
it
would
sign
a
treaty
.
but 13 of our largest carriers.
people
,
that
holds power at the
Much
has
been made of the fact that
More than a thousand ships a month there
point of a gun, ami b an authoritarwere
Amer
ican
warsh
ips standing
go through the canal, and it's estimated
ian dictatorship.
that this will be approaching 1,500 a off Panama, there was nothing unusual
Well, in return for that we're not
year by the year 2000. That hardly in this. The railroad across Panama
even
going to There's no talk of purwas
Amer
ican-b
uilt
and
owned
,
and our
sounds like the canal is obsolete and
chase or a purchase price. We will, in1846
treaty
with
Colom
bia
pledge
d
us
going out of business.
stead, pay that government what will
to protect the right of way and guarantotal about a billion and a half dollars
About 75 per cent of the import and teed that there would be no interruption
in the 20-odd years to take this thing off
export for several South American of traffic across the Isthmus.
our
hands and also for them not to
countries goes through the canal. Farm
When the revolution in
a was
engage in bloody riots and disturbances.
produce from our own Midwest is ac- announced, the captain ofPanam
the
And we also promise not to build ancounting for about $9 billion of foreign Nashville received these secret U.S.S.
orders:
other
canal anywhere else without their
trade that passes through the canal.
"Maintain free and uninterrupted
consent.
transi
t
across
the
Isthmus and prevent
It's false to say, also, that the canal
Of course we have agreed to conis not vital to national defense. In the the landing of any armed force with
tinue
foreign aid which is now the
hostile
intent x government or insurVietnam War, substantial cargo deshighes
t
per capita in their country of
gent."
I
submi
t
that has a neutral
tined for the war zone went through
any
countr
y in the world that we help.
sound
.
The
uprisin
g
began
at
6
p.m.
that canal. There are present continAh, but we're told this will make us begency plans that call for the movement on Nov. 3, 1903. No shots were fired.
loved in all Latin America, but will it?
of 60 Pacific Fleet vessels to the Atlan- The revolution was bloodless, and it
He himself. Gen. Torrijos, has told
came about because Panama wanted
tic in the event of a NATO crisis.
journalists that only four countries
us to build a canal.
of Latin America support his demand. I
Among top-ranking military officers
In the current discussions our
Gov. Reagan is a m»mber of m "truth
have had personal contact with reprewho are retired and thus free to speak
President, the dictator of Panama,
squad" which has recently been trasentatives of governments who tell us
their minds,* I have seen a figure that
veling the U.S. to warn citizens of the
and Ambassador Sol Linowitz have
no that they don't. So far, I think
324 are opposed to the treaties; three
dangers of ratification of the canal
made
much
of
the fact that no Panthere
are alternatives.
are in favor. The Joint Chiefs of Staff
treaties.
amanian signed the 1903 treaty,
have stated that we cannot protect the
We
cities. We built bridges and highways treatie are not'saying no except to these
inference is that this indicates some
canal against terrorist sabotage.
s. The alternatives could involve
and a water and power system. Our
kind of skullduggery on our part.
a
govern
ing or policymaking board
greatest contribution, of course, was
That is pure, unadulterated nonThey are absolutely right, but if
made up of Panamanians, Americans,
the
elimin
ation of disease mainly and representativ
sense.
they'd be a little more candid, they
es of the other Latin
yellow fever which had killed more Amer
would have admitted we can't proican neighbor states. I. think that
On November 8, the provisional than 20,000 of the French workers on
tect the Capitol in Washington or
government of the new Republic of Canal. We took a country which was we could make vast tracts of the Zone
the Metro sabway system against
Panama named a Frenchman, Bunau- a disease-infested swampy jungle, and available for commercial development
th*t kind of attack. As a matter of
Varilla, as minister plenipotentiary we gave it a death rate that was actually for the nearly bankrupt .economy of
fact, the Capitol has already been
to negotiate the canal treaty with the lower than the one we have in the Panama. We could proceed with the
bombed. Bat for more than 60
third-lock plan which would conUnited States. They knew what they United States.
years through four wars the
tribute
about a billion and a half dollars
were doing. He was a representative
The first president of Panama at over a few years into their
economy.
I
111
FEBRUARY 11. 1978/ Human fy«?tS / 11