Reclaim Our Canal!

President Trump says he’ll take back the Panama Canal, but the Establishment media present the transfer to Panama as a done deal. Their fallacies can be fought with facts. …

By William F. Jasper

Editor’s note: With the inauguration of Donald Trump to his second term as president of the United States, the Panama Canal is once again at the forefront of Americans’ geopolitical discussions. Trump believes giving up the canal was a bad idea for America, and wants to take it back. But is this possible, and is it even a good idea?

The following article, which has been cut for space, was originally published in the January 31, 2000 issue of The New American. In its pages, TNA Senior Editor William F. Jasper lays out a series of facts to disprove the many fallacies often used as arguments as to why the Panama Canal could not and should not be reclaimed by the United States. We believe these facts are just as relevant now as they were 25 years ago. As the late Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho) said at the time, the issue of ownership of the canal “is far from over.”

Fallacy #1: We can’t break the treaties; we can’t go back on our word.

Honoring treaty obligations is a serious matter, which is precisely why the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Treaties must be repudiated. They are not legal, valid treaties. In his almost monomaniacal obsession with giving away the Canal, President Jimmy Carter engaged in massive deceptions that provided more than sufficient grounds for his impeachment. He, for instance, intentionally did not inform the Senate that the treaties it had ratified were entirely at odds with the final versions adopted by Panamanian Marxist dictator Omar Torrijos. In order for the treaties to be legal, it was necessary for President Carter to resubmit them to Congress to accept or reject Panama’s changes. He did not do this. Instead, he hid from Congress the fact that changes had been made. Thus, the treaties were then, and are now, null and void on the most fundamental point of treaty law, namely, that both parties to a treaty must agree to the exact same document.

As treaty expert Dr. Charles H. Breecher pointed out in his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony in 1983,

“The Panama Canal treaties have not, I repeat, been ratified in international law, and they therefore did not go into effect on the 1st of October 1979, and are not in effect now.

The reason is very simple. In their respective instruments of ratification, the United States and Panama did not agree to the same text of treaties.*

The Carter-Torrijos Treaties being null and void, we revert back to the still-valid 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, under which we purchased the land and built the Canal, and were granted sovereignty over it in perpetuity — that is, forever!

President Carter admitted that the treaties could not have been ratified by the U.S. Senate without the DeConcini Reservation, which provided that the U.S. would have the permanent right, at its own discretion, to intervene militarily at any time that the Panama Canal may be endangered. Panama’s Torrijos Reservation cancels DeConcini, asserting that any military intervention “will be effected in a manner consistent with the principles of mutual respect and cooperation.” Meaning that U.S. intervention could only be carried out with Panama’s permission. And if the Panamanian politicians, through corruption or coercion (or both), are in the pockets of China and/or the Colombian drug lords, how likely are we to receive their -permission?

There are additional legal and constitutional grounds for challenging the treaties. It is a universally accepted principle of treaty law, for example, that a party to a treaty may terminate its treaty participation and obligations if it determines that circumstances have changed substantially since the time when the agreement went into effect. The United States, like virtually every other country, has terminated treaties on this basis. As will be evident from information provided below, circumstances have changed substantially since 1978, when the Senate ratified the Carter-Torrijos Treaties. Even if those treaties had been legal and valid at one time, there could be no justification for continuing to adhere to them now.

Fallacy #2: It’s too late now; we’ve already exited the Canal. It’s a “done deal.”

On December 31, 1999, President [Bill] Clinton went through with the illegal transfer of the Canal to Panama. It is true that by failing to deal with this issue and rectify matters before that date and before our troops were removed, Congress has allowed the situation to become much more politically sticky and complex. But it is not irreversible. Control and defense of the Panama Canal by the United States is not only an issue of legal right, but of national necessity. Red China — an aggressive, totalitarian, Communist power which considers the United States its “Number one enemy” — is accelerating its buildup in Panama. We only compound the danger to our security by denying this reality. Will we be in a better position to act if we wait until China has exercised its options on the U.S.-built, U.S.-owned military bases in the Canal Zone and can then operate from fortified positions? In November 1999, Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-ID) introduced House Joint Resolution 77, the Panama and America Security Act, which would declare the Carter-Torrijos Treaties null and void. Before Congress recessed for Christmas in November, Rep. Chenoweth-Hage had gathered 26 co-sponsors for the resolution. During the holiday break a number of additional House members indicated they too will sign on to the bill. This is not merely a “sense of Congress” resolution without authority, as are most resolutions. The joint resolution process is the common method by which treaties are terminated, as members of Congress can easily confirm by consulting their copies of Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives (pp. 300-301). The joint resolution is a legislative act with legal force. …

Fallacy #4: The defense requirements of the Panama Canal are fully provided for under the Carter-Torrijos Treaties.

How so? Panama has no army, navy, or air force. It can not defend itself against even the terrorist armies of the drug cartels, let alone Red China. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (Ret.) testified back in 1978 that the departure of U.S. forces from Panama would create a power vacuum that would be filled by another power. That is already happening, as Red China, by way of corporate surrogates, has moved into Panama. To the south, the FARC terrorists of Colombia are a major threat to Canal security. Unless the U.S. reasserts its rightful control over this strategic asset, Lieutenant General Gordon Sumner (Ret.) told The New American recently, “I think it is highly likely that we will see the Canal shut down before the year 2000 has ended.”

General Sumner is a leading defense authority in this area whose warnings should not be ignored. As a former chairman of the Inter-American Defense Board, he held responsibility for overseeing the defense posture of all of the armed forces of the Western Hemisphere under the Rio Treaty, and over the past 20 years has closely monitored developments in Panama and Latin America.

The Carter-Torrijos Treaty advocates continue to assure us that the U.S. may send in military forces if the Canal is threatened. There are many problems with this argument, including: 1) We have no reason for confidence that Mr. Clinton and his political and media allies would admit to a “threat” to the Canal even if China should overtly move to take it over; 2) once the Canal has been sabotaged or destroyed, our military re-occupation will be of decidedly less value than if we had been on site to prevent such acts of sabotage and destruction; and 3) the sacrifice of American lives in trying to retake the Canal with the enemy bunkered in (U.S.-built) fortified positions will be very costly.

And, as we have already pointed out, the Panamanian government has rejected our asserted treaty right to militarily enter the Canal Zone without its permission. We can be sure that if the U.S. sends in forces against the wishes of the Panamanian politicians, we will see an eruption of condemnations from the Organization of American States, the United Nations, the European Union, and the U.S. and world press. Is it likely that U.S. politicians will go against this orchestrated opposition at a crucial point in the future if they will not take a stand now when the costs would be much lower?

In addition to the above, it should be noted that under Panama Law No. 5, passed in 1997, Panama gave concessions on our military bases in the Canal Zone to a Red Chinese front company known as Hutchison Whampoa. This is a blatant violation of the Carter-Torrijos Treaties, which provide that only Panama may operate defensive sites in the Canal Zone. Thus, in addition to being null and void from the outset, the fraudulent 1977 treaties have now been abrogated by Panama in this important matter.

Fallacy #5: What do you advocate: Sending troops into Panama; starting a war? That is not only immoral but will really set off anti-American riots, demonstrations, and denunciations around the world.

Where were these “moralists” when President Clinton was sending thousands of troops to war in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other far-flung reaches of the globe? They did not complain that thousands of refugees were killed and hundreds of thousands made homeless by our bombing campaigns.

Unlike these areas of U.S.-UN/U.S.-NATO military operations, the Panama Canal is clearly a national security interest of the United States. Also, unlike Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., we would not be “starting a war,” since, as already mentioned, Panama does not have any armed forces, and a significant percentage of Panamanians would welcome the return of U.S. troops. In fact, some Panamanians are proposing that Panama petition the U.S. for “commonwealth” status similar to that of Puerto Rico.

Fallacy #6: It is long past time that we get rid of this last vestige of American colonialism.

The Panama Canal is no more a U.S. “colony” than is Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. We paid for it — four times: We paid the government of Panama, the private property owners within the Canal Zone, and the French Canal company; and then we paid the extraordinary cost of building the Canal. We were not “renting” the Canal, as former President Jimmy Carter falsely claimed; we own it outright, as the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed. We paid for it, we built it, we need it, it’s ours, let’s keep it.

Fallacy #7: There is no evidence that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has any interests or presence in Panama.

Concerning the very real threat posed to the U.S. and the entire Western Hemisphere by Red China in Panama, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer wrote this, in an article for The New American (“Save Our Canal!” August 2, 1999):

“The Chinese penetration of Panama has been affected primarily through an entity known as the Panama Ports Company, a front corporation for Hutchison-Whampoa Limited, a Communist Chinese-controlled company owned by Hong Kong billionaire Dr. Li Ka-shing. Dr. Li’s business empire has long been intertwined with enterprises that front for the Communist military and intelligence arms of the People’s Republic of China. Ten percent of his Panama Ports Company is owned by China Resources, the commercial arm of China’s Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation.

Two years ago, on July 16, 1997, Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) was quoted in the South China Morning Post as stating that China Resources was “an agent of espionage — economic, military, and political — for China.” Shen Jueren, the Communist official who heads China Resources, and Li Ka-shing are both partners in the Riady family’s Hong Kong Chinese Bank. Dr. Li is also a principal in the PRC’s huge China Telecom, and the China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC), a ministry-level conglomerate with global assets of $21 billion run by Chinese “princeling” Wang Jun. As chairman of Poly Group, Wang Jun also serves as the PRC’s main arms dealer to Communist regimes, terrorists, and rogue states. Nevertheless, Shen Jueren and Wang Jun, like many other notorious Red Chinese agents bearing campaign gifts, were welcome guests at the Clinton-Gore White House.

President Clinton himself unintentionally confirmed the central point of Moorer’s contention at a November 30, 1999 Oval Office press briefing. When asked by a reporter, “You’re not worried about the Chinese controlling the Canal?” Mr. Clinton 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.”

Los Angeles Times staff writer Norman Kempster reported the following day, December 1st, that “Clinton administration officials were aghast at the president’s use of the phrase ‘running the canal,’ which picked up the rhetoric of Moorer and his allies.” On December 9th, Mr. Clinton stated that his reference the previous week to China “running the canal” was a “misstatement.”

Fallacy #8: Hutchison Whampoa is merely a Hong Kong-based, private company, with no significant, or sinister, relation to the PRC.

As sinologist Nicholas Eftimiades thoroughly demonstrated in his authoritative 1994 study, Chinese Intelligence Operations (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press), accepting Chinese “business” at face value is unforgivably naive. All companies in the PRC are subservient adjuncts of the Communist Party and the Ministry of State Security (MSS), the Chinese equivalent of the KGB. This does not mean that all PRC companies are fronts for espionage and intelligence, but all can be pressed into such service. Eftimiades, a top China analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, notes:

It appears that the most effective use of stealing foreign technology involves the use of recruited agents in Hong Kong. Examination of several public cases of attempted (and successful) thefts of high technology reveals a unique pattern of operation. The recruited agent establishes a front company in Hong Kong. The company may in fact carry on legitimate trading activities in addition to illegally purchasing and shipping technology…. The persistent use of Hong Kong as a transfer point is significant because it reveals a pattern of operation.

According to Eftimiades, Hutchison Whampoa partner China Resources is a prime example of the way MSS case officers “make extensive use of commercial covers.” “For example,” he notes, “a vice president of the China Resources Holding Company … in Hong Kong is traditionally a military case officer from Guangzhou. This officer coordinates the collection activities of other intelligence personnel operating under [China Resources] cover. The division maintains several other cover companies in Hong Kong and Macao as well.”

The 1999 report of the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military Commercial Concerns With the People’s Republic of China (known as the Cox Report) noted that Hutchison partner CITIC, the China International Trust and Investment Corporation, has been involved in many illegal activities in the past involving U.S. national security. The Cox Report states:

“In 1996, Hong Kong Customs officials intercepted air-to-air missile parts being shipped by CATIC [China National Aero-Technology Import-Export Corporation], aboard a commercial air carrier, Dragonair. Dragonair is owned by China International Trade and Investment Company (CITIC), the most powerful and visible PRC-controlled conglomerate, and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC).

The Cox Report also noted another CITIC-CATIC joint operation to acquire U.S. aircraft manufacturing technology and access to other aerospace firms through purchase of an interest in MAMCO Manufacturing, an aircraft parts manufacturer in Seattle.

In his “Save Our Canal” article in The New American, Admiral Moorer pointed out another highly unsavory association between Hutchison Whampoa and one of China’s most dangerous assets. Moorer wrote:

“… Hutchison-Whampoa is a partner with the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), the merchant marine arm of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Hutchison-Whampoa also controls countless ports around the world. Because of its relationship to the PRC and the potential impact this implies for our global maritime interests, this should be of major concern to the United States. But my specific concern is that Beijing, operating through this company, has virtually achieved, without a single shot being fired, a stronghold on the Panama Canal, something which took our country so many years and such tremendous effort to accomplish.

“Although presented as a commercial entity,” the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare has reported, “COSCO is actually an arm of the Chinese military establishment.” Hutchison Whampoa and COSCO work hand-in-glove throughout the world establishing a global network of ports and shipping lines that serve the military, intelligence, and commercial interests of the PRC.

Li Ka-shing, chairman of Hutchison Whampoa, sits on the board of the PRC-controlled CITIC, as well as other official, Red Chinese, state-run enterprises. …

Red-handed: Some Americans argued that former Hutchison Whampoa Chairman Li Ka-shing was merely a wealthy capitalist, and therefore allowing Hutchison Whampoa to run the Panama Canal’s container terminals was no threat. However, Li has always had close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. (AP Images)

Fallacy #10: Hutchison Whampoa will not be “running the Canal”; it merely has port facilities in the Canal Zone.

In a December 9, 1999 press statement, President Clinton said: “The Hong Kong company which got the concession to operate the ports will be responsible for loading and unloading ships. They also do this in three or four ports in Britain. It’s one of the biggest companies in the world. The manager is British. Most of the employees will be Panamanian.” “I feel comfortable that our commercial and security interests can be protected under this arrangement,” Mr. Clinton said. Apparently sharing his comfort, most of the media editorialists and commentators dutifully and uncritically regurgitated this pabulum.

As Admiral Moorer has repeatedly pointed out, Panama Law No. 5, passed by the Panamanian legislature on January 16, 1997, did far more than grant Hutchison Whampoa port concessions. This law, he noted, gives Hutchison Whampoa — and, therefore, China — exclusive concessions, including, among other things: “Control of the port of Balboa on the Pacific end of the canal and the port of Cristobal on the Atlantic end. In addition to these critical anchorages, Hutchison was granted a monopoly on the Pacific side with its takeover of Rodman Naval Base, a U.S.-built, deep-draft port facility capable of handling, supplying, refueling, and repairing just about any warship.” …

Attorney Bruce Fein, testifying on behalf of the National Security Center before the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing of October 22, 1999, noted the glaring conflict between Panama Law No. 5 and the Carter-Torrijos Treaties. Fein testified:

“Consider the plain and extraordinarily unambiguous words of Article V of the Neutrality Treaty: “After the termination of the Panama Canal Treaty, only the Republic of Panama shall operate the Canal and maintain military forces, defense sites, and military installations within its national territory.” Article V thus forbids Panama from delegating or contracting the operation of the Canal to a third party. It further forbids a third party from maintaining “defense sites.”

But Panama Law No. 5 apparently does precisely what Article V prohibits. As noted previously, Article 2.1 of the law grants a 25-year renewable operating concession to the Panama Ports Company. By no stretch of the imagination, however, can the Ports Company be said to be the alter ego of the Republic of Panama. Indeed, the Company is controlled by Hong Kong based Hutchison-Whampoa….

Thus, Panama Law No. 5 in effect transfers authority over the operation of the Canal substantially to the PRC, although the Treaty says “only the Republic of Panama shall operate the Canal.” And on that count an additional worry is raised by Articles 2.10c and 2.12i of Law No. 5 which authorize the Ports Company to operate its own pilotage service. The former endows the Company with the “right to have and to operate, under separate concession by the National Port Authority, tug boats and work boats, vessel repair service and piloting service.” Under the latter, the clients of the Ports Company may contract directly for pilots if dissatisfied with pilots designated by the National Port Authority or the successor to the Panama Canal Commission. Moreover, Article 2.12a of the law grants the Ports Company “the right to use on a priority basis all the piers” in the existing ports of Balboa and Cristobal.

Fallacy #11: The Panama Canal Commission insists that it, not Hutchison Whampoa, will maintain control over scheduling of ships and piloting.

That is a far from convincing assurance. The Commission members, like many of the other members of government appointed by former Panamanian President [Ernesto Pérez] Balladares, have been convincingly accused of rampant bribery and corruption. The PRC and Hutchison Whampoa reportedly won passage of Panama Law No. 5 with bucket loads of bribe money, and they are not likely to let up on that practice. The fact is that the Commission has already backed down many times when push came to shove with Li’s company. The Panama Canal Commission even caved in when Hutchison Whampoa refused to allow the Commission’s Customs inspectors to inspect Hutchison’s sealed containers.

One who knows well the tricky business of piloting ships through the Panama Canal’s complex currents and tight quarters is Captain Kenneth P. Puckett, who, during his 15-year tenure on the Panama Canal, served as Senior Ship Pilot, Pilot Training Officer, and Canal Port Captain. In 1991, he received the Panama Canal Commission Outstanding Employee Award. In his December 8, 1999 testimony before a subcommittee of the House Banking Committee, Captain Puckett stated:

“Under Panama Law Number 5, the control of shipping, berthing and pilot assignments in the Ports of Panama will be granted to a private contractor. This contractor is the Hutchison Port Company, a Hong Kong based Chinese conglomerate. Consider for a moment this statement taken from an interview with President Dong of the Chinese shipping company COSCO as reported in the Journal of Commerce in August of 1998. In Mr. Dong’s own words, “In order to satisfy our customers’ needs, remain competitive, and preserve market share, COSCO must offer confidential contracts.” If the Hutchison Port Company controls vessel scheduling and pilot assignments in the Ports of Panama, it stands to reason that they will give preferential service and insure priority transit scheduling to their customers. Remember that time is money, and there are a limited number of vessels that the Canal can accommodate on a daily basis. Any preferred scheduling practice will foster a bidding war among shipping agents, shipping companies, vessel owners and even countries, for that matter. Under such circumstances, how long will it be before the maritime industry worldwide loses confidence in the operations at the Panama Canal? What effect will all of this have on the strategic requirements of the U. S. military? Will our warships continue to be given priority transit scheduling or will they be required to wait in line just like any commercial vessel?

Fallacy #12: Concerning the potential for Hutchison Whampoa pilots to block the Canal or secretly to assemble caches of weapons at Hutchison’s port properties, or to otherwise threaten the waterway, the Wall Street Journal asserted: “U.S. intelligence and military officials scoff at such fears.”

Officials and “experts” also scoffed at warnings of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. There were also scoffers aplenty in the late 1950s and early 1960s when anti-Communists warned that Fidel Castro would turn Cuba into a Soviet base. No, the scoffers said, Castro is just a benevolent reformer. Then came the “Missile Crisis.” Admiral Moorer and other authorities warn that in the same way Panama could be turned into a missile base by China. Common sense and precedent both repudiate the scoffers.

Fallacy #13: The Red China threat has been grossly exaggerated. After all, Panama is more pro-Taiwan than we are; it has official relations with Taipei, not Beijing. And Taiwan has a larger port facility there than Hutchison Whampoa’s.

Unfortunately, Panama’s situation vis-à-vis Taiwan and the PRC is almost certain to flip-flop, if we do nothing. The Bahamas also recognized Taiwan — until Hutchison Whampoa moved in and established a port facility. Then the Bahamas dumped Taiwan and embraced Red China.

In testimony before a subcommittee of the House Banking Committee on December 7, 1999, Professor Tomas A. Cabal of Panamanian University stated:

“The arrival in Panama of powerful Chinese companies has added a complex ingredient to the transfer of the Panama Canal…. Whatever the outcome from the presence of Hutchison Whampoa, the truth of the matter is that the People’s Republic of China is rapidly filling the vacuum created by the departure of American military forces from the isthmus. Other Chinese companies such as The Great Wall of China, mentioned in the Cox Report, and COSCO are investing in Panama. Their presence adds to the danger of using the Colon Free Zone to purchase restricted technology with dual civilian military use. As reported by the Miami Herald, the Chinese are now operating two electronic eavesdropping stations in Cuba that allow their military forces to monitor U.S. communications. Chinese companies are investing in the modernization of the Panama Railroad and are actively seeking a contract to operate Howard Air Force Base. …

* To read Dr. Breecher’s full testimony, and to learn what you can do to reclaim our canal, go to
https://jbs.org/canal/.

Published with permission of thenewamerican.com