|
Editor’s Note: This article is being rerun for obvious reasons.
The ceremony has been completed, the flag has been lowered, the troops have withdrawn. American military bases along the Panama Canal Zone are desolate and a country that does not even have a military is in control of one of the most strategic points in the world. What is wrong with this picture?
Many have argued that the Panama Canal has outlived its usefulness for military purposes. After all, we did not even use the canal during Desert Storm or Kosovo. But wait! Can a relatively small operation such as these be compared to all-out war? Rear Admiral Clarence A. Hill (Ret.), former commander of the battleship USS Independence and Assistant Chief of Naval Operations stated in the January 31 issue of The New American that these small disturbances, which resulted in few casualties, are not good indicators of our needs during a war in which we are actually attacked. Battleships may not be able to navigate the canal, but logistic supports rely on this passage. “A nuclear carrier will not run out of fuel for 28 years, but their aircraft will run out of fuel in about 5 days and their ammunition will run out in about 3 days” at full-strike capability. That is not enough time to chug all the way around South America, ’round the Horn, and sail back up north to service the fleet.
Supposedly the DeConcini Reservation guarantees that we will always have access to the canal and that we can use military force, if needed, to protect the canal if a foreign nation withholds access. The problem is that the DeConcini Reservation was never accepted by Panama. In fact, Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos added a clause to his version of the treaty (the United States and Panama signed two different versions of the same treaty, thereby creating unenforceable contracts), stating that the United States is not allowed to interfere in canal protection. The DeConcini Reservation means nothing. If we allow the Panama Canal to remain in the hands of the Panamanians as we are doing, we will hold absolutely no rights to this interoceanic passage. Our fleet will be severed in half.
The ramifications are great. Already a Hong Kong shipping firm named Hutchinson-Whampoa, a PLA front group, has leased the ports of Balboa and Christabol on either end of the canal. According to HJR 77, the bill introduced by Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-ID) to take the canal back, “Hutchison-Whampoa, a front company for the People’s Liberation Army of China, utilizing corrupt practices has acquired leases giving it control of the ports of Cristobal and Balboa at the Atlantic and Pacific ends of the Panama Canal, positioning the People’s Republic of China for de facto control of the Canal…and has the exclusive authority to hire the pilots who control all traffic through the Canal.” Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer said in the January 31 issue of The New American, “Pilots have complete control of all ships passing through the canal. They determine which ships may go through and when.”
On November 30, 1999, President Clinton made an interesting faux pas in an Oval Office press briefing when he was asked if he was concerned about Chinese control of the canal. He responded: “I think the Chinese will, in fact, be bending over backwards to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner….I would be very surprised if any adverse consequences flowed from the Chinese running the canal.” Even Clinton admits that the Panamanians have no power to control their own canal and that the Chinese have come in to fill the void. Since the Chinese have designated us to be their “main enemy” in military literature and communist party releases, Clinton may not be the most reliable source for your news. Congressman Chenoweth-Hage’s HJR 77 will restore the American presence in the Canal Zone and protect national security.
|
