The Panama Canal Treaties Were ‘Mush From the Wimp’

My mother always told me not to gratuitously speak ill of the dead at the time of death. For that reason, I have said absolutely nothing about the recent demise of former President Jimmy Carter, who pretty much everyone agrees was not one of our better presidents.

However, I believe there is an exception to this rule of etiquette – when the issue in question is still a salient issue that needs to be discussed.  So, I believe this is a loophole I can exploit regarding the Panama Canal Treaties, which are very much in the news these days. This is because incoming President Donald Trump recently tweeted his disgust with the Panama Canal Treaties, said the U.S. should try to get the Panama Canal Zone back, and later doubled down on his views while speaking at a public appearance. 

Here is the relevant history – President Carter’s Panama Canal Treaties – there were two of them, The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal and The Panama Canal Treaty – were agreed to in 1977 and endorsed by the U.S. Senate in 1978. Carter’s treaties were negotiated with Colonel Omar Torrijos, a left-leaning dictator who had seized power from the elected President in Panama. Under these treaties, the U.S. supposedly retained the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations. They also allowed Panama, on December 31, 1999, to assume full control of Panama Canal Zone operations and become primarily responsible for its defense.  

There is no nice way to put it – these treaties were a disaster, from a national security perspective, and the perfect example of an elitist and poorly-thought-out leftist foreign policy decision made because of a belief that the U.S. was an evil imperialist nation that had somehow taken unfair advantage of and harmed the poor Panamanians. In other words, in the lingo of the times, the treaties were just another example of some more “mush from the wimp” (i.e., Jimmy Carter). And a precursor of what was to come with future Democrat Presidents – see Clinton, Obama, and Biden. (Another precursor of what was to come was that Carter initially was cool to the idea of giving the Panama Canal Zone to Panama, until the 1976 presidential election was safely over.) 

I – and President Trump – are in good company when we say this. In the late ’70s, there was a conservative Republican revolt against the Carter-negotiated treaties, led by former California Governor and (soon-to-be-President) Ronald Reagan. Strikingly, this conservative rebellion did not include William F. Buckley, the celebrated conservative thinker. Both men appeared in a “Firing Line” program to debate these treaties, with George Will, Patrick Buchanan, and Admiral John McCain (the father of the later U.S. Senator) playing supporting roles. In the U.S. Senate, other prominent conservative Republicans, including Barry Goldwater, Paul Laxalt, Orin Hatch, Richard Lugar, and Bob Dole, all supported Reagan’s position.

The debate is a fascinating watch to understand the issue. I encourage my readers to view both Buckley’s (starts at 4:43) and Reagan’s speech (starts at 24:20) during this debate. You will note that Buckley’s entire argument essentially rests on how giving the Panama Canal to the Panamanians: 1) was the “right thing to do” as it would be “something of a magical restoration of the nation’s (Panama’s) dignity: the elimination of an ugly birthmark that now condemns Panama to wander around the world conspicuously sullied”; and 2) would be good for the U.S.’s popularity in the world. This is a more traditionally left-wing argument, which Buckley is surprisingly echoing.

Gov. Reagan, on the other hand, more accurately represented the conservative side. His argument was practical, grounded in actual U.S. national interests, and stated several pertinent facts that would (presumably) be a surprise to most modern readers. These included: 

1. The U.S. could always choose to negotiate a better treaty(ies) rather than the two specific treaties that were ambiguous in language and not in U.S. national interest. For example, the Carter treaties allowed for the possible nationalization of U.S. property and deliberately did not “guarantee” that the Panama Canal would be operated in U.S. interest even during times of war. Further, “expeditious passage,” which is used in the treaties, has no meaning.

2. The Panamanians had unsuccessfully tried over 50 times to achieve independence from Colombia until the U.S. agreed to help them in return for being given the rights to the Panama Canal Zone. Thus, this was not an example of an imperial power taking advantage of the native peoples to unfairly seize control over their territory.  

3. The French representative who signed the original Panama Canal treaty of 1903 had a great interest in achieving a beneficial deal for the Panamanians, as it was good for his company as well, and after he signed the treaty, the Panamanian government heartily endorsed that treaty.

4. The U.S. had done all the work in building the Panama Canal Zone and spent all the money needed to do so. It also paid Panama — and its private citizens — for the rights and the land. 

5. The U.S. had run the canal at no profit, had maintained its neutrality, and had vastly benefited Panama by assisting in developing that nation’s economy and giving it the highest quality of life in Latin America. 

6. The dictator of Panama who signed the treaties did not necessarily represent the will of the Panamanian people, as many Panamanians who lived and worked in the canal zone opposed the treaties and the transfer of control.

7. Surrendering the canal to Panama would constitute another strategic retreat on the part of the U.S. that would concern our allies and embolden our enemies.

8. Only U.S. control could guarantee that the canal would remain open to all commercial traffic and enable the U.S. to protect its security interests in the Western Hemisphere.

Gov. Reagan was entirely correct in his arguments regarding the Panama Canal Treaties. The U.S. was indeed harmed by these treaties and gained nothing positive of any consequence from them. Carter’s weakness, so clearly shown in Panama, marked him as a pathetic president, which greatly harmed the U.S. and led to world chaos, which in some ways still exists to this day (see the Islamist regime in Iran).   

And for the record, there is no hard evidence that the U.S. benefitted in popularity throughout the world or Latin America for turning over the Panama Canal Zone to Panama.  

PS: Of course, since we are discussing Panama, here is a crucial link for you to see.

This post was originally published on this site