The Panama Canal has been returned to Panamanian control, but US Navy ships can still transit the canal in safety. Selle believes the US should have reworked the treaty to keep control of the canal for a longer period of time.
This observation—pregnant with foreboding—taken from an authoritative commentary on Shakespeare's Macbeth, sets the tone for present and future events in Panama.
Now there is a new day that will live in infamy: 31 December 1999. That was when our country let the Panama Canal slip through our fingers. As we enter the new millennium, our only tie now with Panama is the vacuous neutrality treaty, which is open to so many different interpretations that it is hardly worth the paper upon which it is written. Our only hope is that good will, common sense, and a strategic view will somehow prevail.
Things did not have to work out this way. It is regrettable that the United States did not comprehend long ago that the Panama Canal could remain ours if only we had been more forthcoming in making the entire Canal Zone bilingual, and if we had begun removing as many fences—both physical and intellectual—as possible. We also might have trumpeted—loudly—our bringing deadly mosquitoes under control and introducing electricity and clean drinking water for all people in the entire Canal Zone.
If we had pursued these simple, elemental goals, the resulting achievements would have been available to all, and all Panamanians would have pleaded for us to remain. Even now, the latest polls show that more than 85% wanted the United States to stay. Is this halcyon prospect now lost to us forever?
Some of the more dramatic elements in the woefully sad picture preceding our handover of the Canal cry out to be aired. The English and Spanish versions of the treaties never were harmonized; the English version said one thing while the Spanish version said another. Perhaps the most glaring difference is the absence of the DiConcini Codicil in the Spanish version. This provision—named after the then-senator from New Mexico—allows U.S. naval vessels to "go to the head of the line," and this primary statement introduced late in the Senate deliberations was the single element that provided its confirmation—by a single vote. These 1977 treaties were the first bilingual treaties that bear upon U.S. territorial boundaries. Heretofore, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 had declared English as the operative language for all U.S. treaty deliberations and implementations. It is an open secret that the contracts between Panama and the Hutchison-Whampoa Company (a Chinese government front operation) were agreed to "under the table," which effectively shut out other business interests from the entire bidding process. The Chinese now have long leases of 25 years, with 25-year extensions, at both ends of the canal at the choicest port facilities. In addition, there now are more than 100,000 Chinese nationals in Panama. What are they up to? Is their objective strictly commercial? Is the United States responding appropriately?
The United States employed as many as 14,800 Panamanians at our 12 bases in the Canal Zone, and these people now are unemployed. This raises the current unemployment rate there to around 20%, a dangerous and unstable level. These unemployed workers are responsible for more than 100,000 dependents. What future awaits these people? Another tragic loss is the Jungle Warfare School, which trained not only U.S. active-duty and reserve personnel, but also personnel from nearly every Latin American country.
Few people know that more than 70% of the traffic through the Canal either originates in or is destined for ports in the United States. In addition, almost all of the fresh produce and wines and spirits from Chile bound for the United States and Europe—a burgeoning market—transit the Canal, as well as nearly all Japanese and Asian car shipments to this country. There is absolutely no way our domestic highway and rail system ever could substitute for the loss of this vital waterway.
Lastly, what does the loss of the Panama Canal say to our friends and enemies in Latin American and around the world? Does the Monroe Doctrine still have something to say to us about the importance of the Canal? Do we think better of ourselves for this wrongheaded giveaway act? Do the governments or people in Latin America respect us anymore?
Dr. Selle is an adjunct naval advisor to the National Defense Council Foundation based in Alexandria, Virginia.