Hola
Bien interesante el texto sobre el futuro del canal de Panama, asi como al
reverendo, el texto me recuerda el escenario hipotetico de un programa
simulador de vuelo de hace a�os. Basicamente contemplaba acciones punitivas
en Colombia desde el Comando Sur (Panama) por fuerzas norteamericanas, el
motivo era la falta de control sobre las guerrillas que hostigaban la
frontera y potencialmente el canal. Lo interesante es que citaban
precisamente los politicos de turno (J.C.Turbay A.) las guerrillas del
momento (FARC y M19) y desde luego el tratado Carter Torrijos. En lineas
generales no parecia tan descabellado (para ser un juego de computador,
claro).
At 04:34 PM 3/2/99 +0600, Paul Van Cotthem wrote:
>Interesante. Solo quiero agregar esta anecdota: En un concurso de
>television aqui en USA le preguntaron a un estudiante de
>High School donde quedaba el Canal de Panama? Contesto:"Entre Nueva
>York y Chicago"!
>El Reverendo
>
>> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:40:00 -0600
>> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> From: "FORERO, JAIME E. (JSC-CA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "'macondo'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: FW: Who Needs The Panama Canal?
>
>> Me mandaron esto sobre el Canal de Panama. A ver que les parece.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Jaime Forero
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 281-244-8779
>> NASA VITT
>> Siempre adelante !!
>>
>> > ----------
>> > From: Mahan[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:16 PM
>> > To: Mahan, Fred & Cheryl
>> > Subject: Who Needs The Panama Canal?
>> >
>> > Who Needs the Panama Canal?
>> > WorldTribune.com
>> > Robert Morton
>> > March 1, 1999
>> >
>> > In 1976, Ronald Reagan mobilized his conservative base and almost
defeated
>> > Gerald Ford for the Republican presidential nomination by campaigning to
>> > retain U.S. sovereignty over the Panama Canal. Ford won the nomination,
>> > lost
>> > the White House and on Sept. 7, 1977, Jimmy Carter signed a treaty with
>> > Gen.
>> > Omar Torrijos surrendering the canal to Panama on Dec. 31 of this year.
>> >
>> > The United States gained the goodwill of a leftist dictator and lost a
>> > prime
>> > geopolitical asset - one built and maintained with tens of billions of
>> > taxpayers' money in a nation with no army or navy. Polls show most
>> > Panamanians support continued American military presence. The
>> > installations
>> > fortify the economy, the native bureaucrats' competence at managing the
>> > canal is suspect, and the local police are no match for the
>> > narco-terrorists
>> > operating with impunity in neighboring Colombia where schoolchildren are
>> > taught that Panama is really Colombia. But does anyone really care about
>> > the
>> > Panama Canal?
>> >
>> > No one, it would seem, except Communist China's Military Industrial
>> > Complex,
>> > otherwise know as the People's Liberation Army (PLA). If the United
States
>> > does not consider the canal a strategic asset, the surviving communist
>> > superpower apparently does. In a deal reported by this newspaper on March
>> > 19, 1997, the Clintonesque government of Panama in effect sold the
Chinese
>> > rights to two prime, American-built port facilities which flank the canal
>> > zone both to the east and the west. The 50-year contract awarded Balboa,
>> > on
>> > the Pacific side, and Cristobal, on the Atlantic side, to a giant Hong
>> > Kong
>> > shipping firm, Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd. By any analysis this company,
>> > headed
>> > by Li Kashing is an interesting operation:
>> >
>> > * Hutchison has worked closely with the China Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO)
>> > on
>> > shipping deals in Asia even before Hong Kong reverted to Beijing's
control
>> > in 1997. COSCO, you may remember, is the PLA-controlled company that
>> > almost
>> > succeeded in gaining control of the abandoned naval station at Long Beach
>> > California.
>> >
>> > * Li Kashing has served on the board of directors of China International
>> > Trust and Investment Corp., a PLA-affiliated giant run by Wang Jun whose
>> > name may ring a bell.
>> >
>> > Yes, the very same Wang Jun enjoyed coffee at the White House in exchange
>> > for a modest donation to the Clinton-Gore 1996 slush fund.
>> >
>> > As Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, USN (Ret.) testified before the Senate Foreign
>> > Relations Committee on June 16, 1998, "My specific concern is that this
>> > company is controlled by the Communist Chinese. And they have virtually
>> > accomplished, without a single shot being fired, a stronghold on the
>> > Panama
>> > Canal, something which took our country so many years to accomplish." Not
>> > to
>> > worry, the spin goes. This is 1999. The Soviet Union is dead, Russia is
>> > bankrupt, the really big ships can't fit in the canal anyway, and we
could
>> > always seize control in wartime. As the clock ticks down to Dec. 31,
1999,
>> > there is no anxiety like that engendered by the Y2K computer crisis. Just
>> > how important is the Panama Canal? Speaking on his car phone after a busy
>> > post-impeachment day at the office, U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., was
>> > emphatic.
>> >
>> > "I think the geopolitical significance of the Panama Canal in 1999 is the
>> > same as it has been for the past 85 years - critical." The new Chinese
>> > presence there only adds to its significance, he said. Mr. Barr who was a
>> > schoolboy in Panama and served in the CIA, traveled to Panama last
January
>> > with Lt. Gen. Gordon Sumner, (U.S. Army, Ret.) a former chairman of the
>> > Inter-American Defense Board. At the June 16 hearing, Mr. Barr testified
>> > on
>> > the importance of a continuing U.S. presence to offset the
narco-terrorist
>> > threat in a region for which Panama serves as a transportation and
>> > geographic nexus. He laments the lack of interest in the issue by the
U.S.
>> > congress and especially by the White House. "We don't have any strategic
>> > thinking," says Gen. Sumner. "There is no long-term vision. Whatever you
>> > think of Henry Kissinger, he had a strategic vision."
>> >
>> > The Chinese certainly have "strategic vision," according to former Soviet
>> > GRU officer, Col. Stanislav Lunev. "The Chinese intention to develop
>> > ocean-going capabilities for its navy is well-known," he wrote in an
>> > article
>> > for Insight magazine in November 1977. "This is the reason that Chinese
>> > entrepreneurs are actively in the market for abandoned port facilities in
>> > strategic locations." "They take a long view of history," says Mr. Barr
>> > who
>> > noted that the Chinese have also been quietly increasing their
presence in
>> > Cuba.
>> >
>> > Shortly after President Clinton announced the departure of the U.S.
>> > military
>> > from Panama, the Bank of China extended a 15-year, $120 million loan to
>> > Panama at a 3 percent interest rate. Nice. This was during the 1996 U.S.
>> > presidential campaign, incidentally, when boatloads of Chinese money were
>> > also making their way into the coffers of the Democratic Party. And the
>> > DNC
>> > chairman that year was Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd who along with Jimmy
>> > Carter's National Security Advisor, Robert Pastor, supports the turnover
>> > as
>> > passionately now as they did in 1977.
>> >
>> > So when several American companies including Bechtel International
>> > tendered
>> > bids in the neighborhood of $2 million for leases on the strategic ports
>> > at
>> > Balboa and Cristobal, Panamanian President Ernesto "Toro" Balladares
>> > secretly changed the rules of the bidding process and accepted Hutchison
>> > Whampoa offer for $22.2 million a year.
>> >
>> > Well, if the White House was for sale, why not the Panama Canal? The fine
>> > print in the China-Panama deal should outrage any competent commander in
>> > chief. Panama's Law No. 5 was a secret provision, passed by the
>> > legislative
>> > assembly on Jan. 16, 1997 that may have violated both the 1977 Panama
>> > Canal
>> > treaties and the Panamanian constitution. Among other things Law No. 5
>> > provided Hutchison Whampoa:
>> >
>> > * "First option" to take over the U.S. Rodman naval station;
>> >
>> > *"Rights" to operate piloting and tug boat services for the canal and
>> > private roads near the two ports;
>> >
>> > * Authority in the words of Adm. Moorer's testimony "to deny ships access
>> > to
>> > the ports and entrances of the canal if they are deemed to be interfering
>> > with Hutchison's business - in direct violation of the 1977 Panama Canal
>> > Treaty which guarantees expeditious passage for the United States Navy."
>> >
>> > "What the hell are we doing?" asks former Reagan administration official
>> > Martin Anderson, now at the Hoover Institution. Good question. Another
>> > good
>> > question is "what are the Chinese doing?" But that is none of our
>> > business,
>> > Janet Reno has ruled.
>> >
>> >
>> > Robert Morton is managing editor of the National Weekly Edition of The
>> > Washington Times in which this column was first published in the March
1-8
>> > edition. He is also a media fellow at the Hoover Institution. Robert
>> > Morton
>> > can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arq. Juan Pablo Ordonez Q.
Contexto Urbano Ltda.
mailto: juordone @openway.com.co
http://www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/3189
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
