Latin American perspectives; Panama

Latin American perspectives a program of comment and analysis about current Latin American problems and their historical setting. The commentator for these programs is Dr. C. Harvey Gardner research professor of history at Southern Illinois University. Here now is Dr. Gardner. The storm clouds are out. I'm not thinking of those that suggest that Arlene will give way to bula bula of course is going to be long remembered as a storm. I'm not thinking of those Her Ricans that start in late summer and continue into early autumn but then are over. I'm thinking rather of a storm a little farther down the alphabet. Somehow we never get down to the letter P with our Hurricane One that doesn't necessarily come in late summer doesn't necessarily go away in early autumn. It's been with us for years. It promises to be with us for additional years. I'm referring to the storm that might be denominated Panama.

Or if you like Panama canal Panama Canal Zone. Panama is a country of 1 million people of an area about one half that of the state of Illinois. Recently efforts have been made to renegotiate treaties with Panama and now the dole word is out. The new Panama Canal treaties are dead a word about this background and the prospect. The United States helped create Panama. Indeed that tiny country would not be on the map were it not for certain things that President Theodore Roosevelt in his administration did back in the autumn of 1903. Almost with the speed of the hurrican in three days time in November

1903 a province of Columbia was separated from that country to become independent. Panama. From the very moment that we helped create indeed inspired and supported the creation of Panama and recognized it in less than 72 hours after the first shots were fired we of course brought into the picture our fundamental desire that of an interim transportation system a canal system. And so in due time within that very same month of November 1903 we concluded a treaty with the infant country Panama a treaty that permitted the construction of a canal that Canal Treaty of 1903. States that the United States can do a number of things that as if it were sovereign. It does not say we are sovereign.

It doesn't say this territory is not Panamanian but it says we can do as if we were sovereign. And so we have very much our own way proceeded in time with the building of a canal the inauguration of it the operation of it the defense of it. The Panamanians on more than one occasion objected to the terms particularly the terms that said in perpetuity. This of course simply means forever and forever is not just a long time. It's an impossibly long time and no country and no people no individual will accept the view that what it is will be forever. Indeed if we had accepted that idea the Europeans would never have come to America. If it were to be forever what it had been initially it would be for the Indians only. If

we had never concluded that change was the order of business to which we subscribed we would never have broken away from the British Empire. If we had thought that one old order was here to stay forever we never would have terminated slavery. I'm suggesting it throughout our lives we have subscribed to change and the Panamanians and their insistence that the treaty that was hastily drawn by an agent of the Panama Canal Company more thinking in terms of the canal than of the interests of the country of Panama was an ill fitting document one that ill suited the dignity and long range purposes of the Panamanians and so they've complained there were times in the 20s when their complaints the 1920s did not result in treaty revision. There were times in the 1930s when their complaints did result in treaty revision. There were times in the

1950s when their complaints led to more treaty revision. We have then come to accept in the past with revision on repeated occasions the fundamental idea that the document of 1903 was not a perfect arrangement. Indeed it will suit our purposes as well as the purposes of Panama. If anyone looks at it fully and objectively today. But the fact is that the United States with troubles on many other fronts domestic and abroad likes to have a sense of security likes to keep things as they are where they are in a manner that it presently likes and saw it off times is loath to change. We who believe in evolution in many matters at home have taken what amounts to a frozen categorical viewpoint.

This says it is forever and forever pleases us. This says the United States will act as if it's sovereign and that means we'll do as we please. It means fundamentally then that what is a bi lateral arrangement and arrangement between two countries has been made for the advantage of the one has been made for the interpretation of the one has been made for the pleasure of the one the Panamanians have through the kind of complaint that gave rise to rioting and 1964. You suggested that yet another time for reconsidering the basic document is not what happened. Now if you're wondering why I reconsider the basic document why not put some more patches on the old treaty. I would remind you that here too there is precedent in American history. There was a time immediately

after our American Revolution when we concluded that the formula for government was what we call the Articles of Confederation. Those article who served our purposes well far less several years and then the loopholes then the deficiencies became apparent. In fact it became apparent when a certain number of men went off to a convention to amend it that the amendment called for were so numerous that the patch quilt that would result would be such an untidy unseemly thing that it was much the better thing to do to write a new document. It's in this matter of course that we came up with our present United States Constitution. Panama has said through a riot through complaint and through a great deal of backing of world public opinion that the time for fundamental changes in relationships are in order. We have

increasingly come to accept this because we now know that the strategic advantage is that the canal once represented are no longer operative in the same manner that they once were. I mean to say that when the canal was opened in 1914 any public vessel any cruise or any battleship any destroyer or any naval craft of the United States could make its way through that canal. But that is no longer true. And so the canal does not offer us the facility for shifting naval units affecting rapid defense of the hemisphere that we once had in mind. And this of course has caused us to think in terms of yet another canal canal that well take care of. So the dimensions of some of the modern shipping so even as we talk about arranging a new pattern of relationship with with Panama

we speak of a competing and new canal. The new canal can be built either through Panama or through some other Central American area to the north or the south. It could conceivably be a Colombian territory. It could conceivably run through the common border between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. In the system of the sun one river use all means that for a nuclear Now system there are potentially four countries competing for the economic advantage that they're being on this trade route. We automatically give them it suggests then that if Panama is to get the new canal it has to be easy with its demands in reference to the old canal. It can't be as hard nosed and insistent upon its rights in reference to the old lest it lose the package deal that includes the new. Now this matter of tying a new canal to the old

canal in our diplomacy and I might say this time has been a very complete one because we presently have three new treaties with the canal with Panama about canal subjects. That are awaiting action by the two governments. This matter of tying an old when a new win together suggests that we may fundamentally be stumbling into the same kind of dilemma the same kind of long range decade after decade headaches with a country that we have already known with Pennell. I mean to say this back in 1003 when we were not quite a hundred million people and Panama was less than 1 million. We threw our weight around our power our size our strength and we got a treaty to our liking. Today we know that treaty was unequal unfair and needs revision and we have agreed to such. But at the same time we are throwing into the hopper of consideration

the idea that yet another Canal Treaty is needed because another canal is needed and that there should be competitive bidding by four countries to see which gets it each one is interested. Each one may well want to undercut the other and to do so it may well subscribe initially in an agreement with the United States. That is once more so unfavorable to it in the long run. So overwhelmingly favorable to us in the short run that we are again creating the same kind of headaches. Lot of unreasonable unfair treatment of a small power in the early stages of a negotiation. Panama then represents a problem for the future. It represents a problem for the past it represents a problem in strategic diplomacy for the defense of the hemisphere. It represents the kind of problem that shouldn't be swept under the rug. But

it's on this last point that I must add a moment word. Panama will hold elections next spring. If these treaties that have been concluded are not ratified soon they're going to be thrown into the arena of public debate and a lot of unnecessary bickering in Panama. We have an election coming in autumn of next year and there will be further postponement then. Now this is not theoretical. The riots of January 1964 did not lead to any settlement between the two countries in that year because it was an election in both Panama and the United States then we have wasted most of four years between 64 and 68. Are we going to waste even more time. I submit that if something is not done soon there may be more riots. There may be a stepping up of activity in Panama that suggests that we have been twiddling our thumbs while the fires of

confusion range to the south. This was a Latin American perspectives with Dr. C. Harvey Gardner research professor of history at Southern Illinois University. Join us for our next program on Dr. Gardner We'll examine another aspect of life in Latin America. Latin American perspectives is produced and recorded by station WFIU Af-Am at Southern Illinois University and is distributed by the national educational radio network.