On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:41:10 -0500, in alt.politics.communism redflag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: THE PEOPLE FEBRUARY 2000 VOL. 109 NO. 11 RETURN OF PANAMA CANAL DIDN'T END U.S. CONTROL By Diane Secor In accord with the Carter-Torrijos treaty of 1977, after nearly a century of U.S. military occupation, the Panama Canal was handed over to the Panamanian government on Dec. 31. The decision to relinquish direct control over the canal has been hotly debated by U.S. politicians and in the bourgeois media. Conservatives decry it as a "giveaway" that will adversely affect vital "national security" interests, while "liberals" praise the transfer as an attempt to rectify a historic injustice. Both arguments are based on a false premise. The implication is that the United States has actually surrendered control of the canal and has given up the "right" of intervention to defend it. Also implied is that, on the whole, U.S. economic, military and strategic interests have been sacrificed to honor the principle of self-determination for the Panamanian people. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the United States has retained the right of intervention to defend its material interests. Moreover, the "privatization" of the Canal has been a bonanza for U.S. and other multinational corporations. While the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 did nominally cede control of the canal to Panamanian jurisdiction, there is a catch to it called the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, or the Neutrality Treaty. A Web site maintained by Americans who grew up and went to school in the former Panama Canal Zone (czbrats.com), posts a document that explains how this makes a mockery of any U.S. claim to "give up" its hold on the canal. Unlike the Panama Canal Treaty, there was and is no termination date on the Neutrality Treaty, as the full name indicates. It stipulates that "both in time of peace and in time of war [the canal]...shall remain secure and open to peaceful transit by the vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality." Panamanian sovereignty was further eroded by another provision that U.S. and Panamanian "warships were entitled to 'expeditious' transit of the canal." President Carter was quite satisfied with this. However, the military officer who was then president of Panama, Brig. Gen. Omar Torrijos Herrara, acknowledged that this arrangement would indefinitely "place [Panama] under the protective umbrella of the Pentagon" and that it would be tough to sell it to his country men and women who would feel "sold out." To try to smooth things over, Carter and Torrijos signed a Statement of Understanding in October 1977, saying that the U.S. "right to act against any aggression or threat directed against the Canal...does not mean or shall it be interpreted as the right of intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of Panama." Many Panamanians who had examined the documents in question just didn't buy it. They were even more skeptical when the U.S. Senate got their hands on this Neutrality Treaty and with good reason. Among the amendments the Senate added to the Statement of Understanding was the DeConcini Condition, providing that "if the Canal is closed, or its operations are interfered with [the United States and Panama shall each] have the right to take such steps as each deems necessary...including the use of military force in the Republic of Panama, to reopen the Canal or restore the operations of the Canal." It was also made clear that this type of intervention would not be considered as "intervention" as defined by the Statement of Understanding, thus making the entire "agreement" between two sovereign states into a farce. As amended, the Neutrality Treaty was ratified by the Senate, and in June 1978 it was signed by Carter and Torrijos. Torrijos signed under protest, and to placate Panamanian opposition added a statement that Panama would "reject...any attempt by any country to intervene in its internal or external affairs." Nevertheless, no well-informed person, either in Panama or in the United States, was fooled by this. The facts were painfully obvious. According to czbrats.com, "The DeConcini Condition, because it was attached to the Neutrality Treaty, would remain in force permanently." Thus, as amended, the Neutrality Treaty "was never ratified in Panama [and] was received there by a storm of protest." This "Neutrality Treaty" amounts to little more than a unilateral declaration that seeks to justify U.S. military intervention on grounds of protecting the canal. The formal transfer of the Panama Canal has opened the door for investors from all over the globe to buy chunks of territory formerly occupied by the U.S. armed forces. These "privatization" contracts are "worth more than $1.5 billion," according to a report issued by Business Wire. (Dec. 16) Ancillary agreements to the canal treaty laid the groundwork for this, providing for U.S. loan guarantees, including "$20 million...by the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation," "$200 million...provided by the U.S. Export-Import Bank for financing Panamanian purchase of U.S. exports" and up to $50 million in foreign military sales credits over a 10-year period," to give American capitalists a head start. As in any intensely competitive and complex set of circumstances of this nature, some elements of the U.S. capitalist class will benefit more than others. There will be some winners and a few losers. However, according to Business Wire, some of the most prominent and powerful U.S. corporations have fared pretty well. Among them are "Mobil Oil, ICF Kaiser, Kansas City Southern Railroad, Sea Land and Stevedoring of America," as well as "17 companies...in the Techno-Park, including Oracle [and] Eli Lilly & Co...." In addition to attractions such as raw materials, cheap labor and opportunities for expanding markets, U.S. companies are lured by "Panama's strategic location...the Colon Free Zone, Panama's international banking center, ports at either end of the canal, and the canal itself, [which] have attracted manufacturers interested in export processing, light manufacturing and logistics." Moreover, foreign capitalists from countries such as "the United Kingdom, Italy, Mexico, Costa Rica, Taiwan, Hong Kong [now under Chinese control], South Korea and Canada" have also made substantial investments "in former Canal Zone properties" and related areas. Far from diminishing the U.S. role in the region, this international investment serves to enhance the U.S. position as de facto guarantor of "security" in the Canal Zone. Since so many nations have a stake in maintaining an environment in which commercial interests can flourish, they are more likely to support U.S. military action if the canal is threatened. Given the track record of both Democratic and Republican administrations to intervene in Panama's internal affairs with the support of the "international community," i.e., ruling classes of the world, imperialist "gun boat" diplomacy is alive and well. The basic nature of capitalism has not changed. -- "Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared with criticism of existing property relations." Access The People on-line by using our gopher on the Internet at gopher://gopher.slp.org:7019 Access our web page at http://www.slp.org
