CONTROLLING THE CANAL

December 1999
		Does handing over the Panama Canal pose national security dangers to the United States? William Ratliff of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and John J. Tierney of The Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., respond to your questions.

Forum introduction Is the Panama Canal an American territory? Do Marxist movements in Latin America threaten the security of the canal? Can handing over the canal -- in a spirit of international peace -- increase security in the canal zone? What will the hand-over's economic impact be to Panama? How will the canal be run differently by Panama? Can the U.S. strengthen ties with Panama via free trade relations?   Online Special: The Panama Canal Dec. 13, 1999: An in-depth look at the Panama Canal and U.S. interests. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of Latin America.     The Hoover Institution The Institute of World Politics The Panama Canal Commission The U.S. State Department

The construction of the Panama Canal came with tremendous human and financial cost. Nearly 20,000 people died during its creation as the U.S., following French attempts, struggled to carve the 51-mile passage. In addition, the final bill rose to more than $387 million -- following a $40 million investment for the land and 10 years of digging. But when the canal opened in 1914, it was immediately heralded one of the world's great engineering achievements. More importantly, it formally opened a transit way to the western United States and the Pacific Ocean. The average traffic until World War I was about 2,000 ships per year. Through the decades, however, many experts in the United States began arguing that the canal, also expensive to maintain, had become a much less important waterway in America's strategic interests. Others, in contrast, maintained the canal was an American possession and vital to national security. Plus, they added, the two countries originally negotiated a "perpetual" sovereignty agreement after the United States bought the holdings in 1902. But in 1977, under mounting pressure by the Panamanians, President Jimmy Carter negotiated a formal hand-over of the canal to Panama's government under an agreement called the Carter-Torrijos Treaties. The treaties established a twenty-two year framework to systematically grant full control of the canal to Panama, set to end at noon on December 31, 1999. The agreement was ratified in the Senate by a single vote and was approved by Panamanian voters in a nationwide plebiscite. Therefore, after noon December 31, the U.S. will give control to Panama, which has already negotiated a contract with Panama Ports, a subsidiary of Hong Kong corporation Hutchinson Whampoa, to manage the canal. In times of military need, United States warships, according to Carter-Torrijos, have right-of-way on the canal. But opponents to the treaties are afraid the canal could still become a choke-point, instead of a passage, when the United States needs it most. One of the most outspoken Congressmen in opposition of the hand-over has been Bob Barr of Georgia. He says Hutchinson Whampoa, though from Hong Kong, is closely aligned with the communist Chinese People's Liberation Army. "It's a classic example of how [the Chinese] operate. They move in fairly slowly, pass a lot of money around and bring their people in and get them into positions of influence … I think we've made a tremendous blunder here. And that will come back to haunt us in years ahead as we see diminished U.S. influence in that part of the world and increased communist Chinese influence in that part of the world," Barr said in an interview with The NewsHour. Supporters, including President Clinton, claim the fears are unwarranted. So what do you think? Is it right to turn the canal over to Panama? Will it threaten U.S. national security? Or does it improve relations with a region still angry over decades of U.S. intervention? William Ratliff of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and John J. Tierney of The Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., answer your questions.