Panama delivers a lesson to isolationists

The Oppenheimer Report on Latin America ^ | 10.29.2006 | Andres Oppenheimer

[j_accuse]

PANAMA CANAL'S LESSON: U.S. MUST BUILD BRIDGES, NOT FENCES --- LA LECCION DEL CANAL DE PANAMA

Last weekend's decision by Panama to embark on a $5.2 billion expansion of the Panama Canal should teach a lesson to the new crowd of U.S. Latin America bashers -- often disguised as immigration control advocates on cable television networks -- about how wrong their predecessors were in one of Washington's biggest debates over Latin America ever. I'm talking about the 1977 Panama Canal treaties, which turned over full control of the canal to Panama in 2000. Read the full column here, and let us know what YOU think.

posted by Andres Oppenheimer at 9:44 AM

26 comments

 

Published: 10.29.2006

My opinion Andrés Oppenheimer : Panama delivers a lesson to isolationists

My opinion Andrés Oppenheimer

Last weekend's decision by Panama to embark on a $5.2 billion expansion of the Panama Canal should teach a lesson to the new crowd of U.S. Latin America bashers — often disguised as immigration control advocates — about how wrong their predecessors were in one of the biggest U.S. debates over Latin America ever.

I'm talking about the 1977 Panama Canal treaties, which turned over full control of the inter-oceanic canal to Panama in 2000. During the Carter administration, when the U.S. Congress debated passionately over whether to ratify the treaties, powerful senators and journalists claimed that Panama would be incapable of running one of the world's biggest waterways.

"Panama is woefully lacking in management skills," Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a congressional committee during the 1978 ratification process. "It is very doubtful whether it will acquire the capability to maintain and efficiently operate the canal."

"The mechanisms of the canal do not operate by means of good feelings … but requires the skillful manipulation of a complex series of locks," then-Sen. Paul Laxalt, R-Nev., told the same committee. "Panama does not have such qualified people."

The late Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., was quoted by The New York Times on Feb. 23, 1978, as saying that Panama's corruption would ruin the canal. "I know these Latin countries. I know when it's perfectly all right to lie. You couldn't get away in the United States with the things we see gotten away in many other parts of the world," Goldwater said.

But opponents of the treaty turned out to be dead wrong. Last week, after approval of a referendum in Panama to expand the canal, I decided to do a reality check and find out how the Panamanians have managed the canal since they took it over on Dec. 31, 1999.

On virtually all counts, Panama did extremely well:

● The Panama Canal's income has soared from $769 million in 2000, the first year under Panamanian control, to $1.4 billion in 2006, according to Panama Canal Authority figures.

● Traffic through the canal went up from 230 million tons in 2000 to nearly 300 million tons in 2006;

● The number of accidents has gone down from an average of 28 per year in the late '90s to 12 accidents in 2005;

● The average transit time through the canal is averaging about 30 hours, about the same as in the late '90s;

● Canal expenses have increased much less than revenues over the past six years — from $427 million in 2000 to $497 million in 2006.

"All the indicators are positive," Panama Canal Authority head Alberto Aleman Zubieta told me in an interview this week. "Contrary to the claims of those who said that Panama would be incapable of running one of the biggest routes of world trade, the opposite has happened: It has been managed just as well, if not better, than when it was under U.S. control."

Former U.S. Ambassador to Panama Linda Watt, who served in Panama from 2002 to 2005, agrees. She told me in a telephone interview that the canal operation under Panamanian hands has been "outstanding." She added, "The international shipping community is quite pleased."

Some of today's anti-immigration isolationists — such as CNN's Lou Dobbs and recurrent presidential candidate Pat Buchanan — have cried wolf over the fact that Panama has allowed a Hong Kong company, Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd., to run two of Panama's six ports. Panama says it's a business operation like any other. U.S. Ambassador to Panama William Eaton was quoted by the Associated Press this week as saying that China's interest in the canal is "purely economic."

My opinion: Latin America may have all kinds of unresolved problems, but history shows that America's Hispanic-allergic isolationists are often more influenced by their prejudices than by reality.

Instead of building walls to further separate the United States from Latin America, Washington should follow the European example and build bridges to the region. As the Panama Canal story shows, it can be done, if we just give people a chance.

[j_accuse]

About the author

Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer, author of five best-sellers on Latin American affairs and whose syndicated column appears in 55 major U.S. and Latin American newspapers, comments on the latest events in Latin America and U.S.- Latin American affairs. He is a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. He also won the 1999 Maria Moors Cabot Award, the 2001 King of Spain prize, and the 2005 Emmy Suncoast award.

[Old_Mil]

Nice attempt at trying to tie two entirely unrelated issues together. Turning over the canal to Panama after we spent the blood and sweat to built it was foolish. Allowing the Chinese to get involved, even moreso.

Selective colonialism isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if you support immigration controls.

[sittnick]

I am pro-Hispanic, but I remember the debates. It had nothing to do with dislike or fear of Panama. It had more to do with "We bought it, we built it, it's ours."

Was TR doing some strong-arming? Yes. But there would not be an independent Panama without it. They got plenty of dough, and we didn't have the Red Chinese managing things.

[Regulator]

Oh, another legitimization of the theft, er, giveaway of American property by the Carter administration?

My but the Chinese and the Conquistadors do spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone how wonderful they are.

[j_accuse]

		REFERENDUM 2006
		El Pictures of Panamanians voting on the future of the Panama Canal

[allen08gop]

The company partially owned by the Chinese is managing the ports and not the Canal.

The article has one little dig at the Americans that I think needs some light shed on it. The accident rate went down when the ACP changed what was deemed an accident. Under the old Canal Authority, any ship touching anything was written up and reviewed. The ACP however does not follow this practice.

Also, there are still plenty of Americans working at the ACP. Mostly in management and there you are. The Canal is working just as well under the ACP as the Americans :-)

[sittnick]

Thanks for the corrections regarding the ChiComs. In any event, the main original argument in '76 (which carried Reagan to the conventin, saving his bacon in Texas and beyond) was largely a matter of justice, not whether the Panamianians could run the operation well.

I don't particularly want the ChiComs being part owners of the management company running the ports either. The secondary argument had to do with the United States being able to move in and act to protect the Canal as needed without interference. That's a slam dunk when you already own it.

[MinorityRepublican]

This is the 21st Century and at some part we had to turn over the canal. Just like we would had given up the military base in Cuba if the country didn't become Communist.

[packrat35]

None of those statistics are really inpressive.

My wife still hates Jimmy Carter for giving away the canal. James Baker (R-TN) at the time, helped Jimmy push this through. Yes the same James Baker on the Iraq Study Group.

[ClaireSolt]

I think those Paqnamanians who are doing a good job managing the canal would be annoyed to be lumped together with illegals committing identity theft.

[allen08gop]

You are welcome.

BTW: All the Pentagon people I speak with say it is still is a slam dunk to protect the Canal. Treaty wise and militarily.

[Figment]

"None of those statistics are really inpressive"



Neither is your grasp of facts. The Baker you speak of was Howard Baker(R TN). The Baker of the Iraq Defeat Committee is James, a Houston lawyer

[sittnick]

I'll split the difference: we keep the Canal, and we should have let them keep Noriega. Any good will we received was more than lost by going in and seizing the head of state on drug charges. That little act can be used as a pretext for all kinds of mischief by many a state.

What's done is done, and I'm glad there have been no serious flare-ups, but I would typically favor Reagan's judgment over Carter's and Buckley's put together.

[packrat35]

Your right. My mistake. It was Howard Baker.

[packrat35]

Where did I mention identy theft in my post?

[allen08gop]

Okay, but there is a whale of a lot more to that story than is published. Noriega had to go and it got to the point that he was simply asking for it. A lot, and I do mean a lot, of stuff never hit the press.

Especially in the last few months before the invasion.

Frankly, I think it isn't all that bad that we gave it to them. It seems to have cemented the relationship between us quite nicely and given the neighbors around here, that's a good thing.

I don't give Carter any credit for that as I think his motives were in a different direction. It just happened to work out pretty well. Panama is firmly locked in our tent. They really know who their friends are.

[sittnick]

Okay, but there is a whale of a lot more to that story than is published. Noriega had to go and it got to the point that he was simply asking for it. A lot, and I do mean a lot, of stuff never hit the press.

Okay, now . . . how do we take out Chavez, who is triple the threat Noriega ever was. (Personally, if we must act, I'd rather we be indirect.) Since you seem to have insider knowledge, is Ortega sufficiently "reformed" (even if for pragmatic reasons)?

[allen08gop]

Good question.

Chavez is a thug and most of the countries down here are playing this by ear but they also know who carries the big stick. They want to sell to the USA at some point.

There is a huge immigration of wealthy Venezuelans coming to Panama to ride out the storm over there. At some point, my guess is that they will hire someone to take care of the situation.

Ortega may or may not be refomed. Educated guess around here is to wait and see how the talks go between his government and the US. If we see a lot of rich Nicas coming to Panama, then we know the answer. Costa Rica is basically for the poor Nicas by the way.

[Paul Ross]

Turning over the canal to Panama after we spent the blood and sweat to built it was foolish. Allowing the Chinese to get involved, even more so.

Bump. Correct.

[Paul Ross]

They want to sell to the USA at some point.

In the short run, yes. Long run...they are angling to have China buy up their oil.