Politics And Panama Canal
During the Spanish-American War the warship Oregon was summoned from the
West
Coast. The trip took two months to travel 14,000 miles around Cape
Horn to the
Atlantic. (The American Journey 741) How was the United
States supposed to
defend it shores if it took ships that long to get between
them? The United
State had to build a canal through Central America;
national security depended
on it. The Politics of the Panama Canal are
confusing. This confusion includes
the building, the economics and the
operation of this facility. The canal, began
in 1881 and finished in
1914(Dolan 55), has caused one country to fail, another
to triumph, and
another to gain its independence. There was a need for a canal
through the
isthmus of Central America. The big question was who would step up
and build
it. France had just lost the Franco-Prussian War against Germany. The
country
felt that it had lost some prestige in eyes of other nations. There
seemed
only one certain way to restore its glory, undertake and complete the
most
challenging engineering feat in history. Build a canal through
Central
America and link the world’s two greatest oceans. (Dolan 53) The
French chose
Panama to build its canal because it was far narrower than
Nicaragua, it’s
closet competitor. They obtained permission from Columbia to
lay the waterway.
(Dolan 53) A private company was founded in 1879 to raise
the needed capital to
undertake the construction. Appointed president of the
company was Ferdind de
Lesseps, who had guided the construction of the
Suez Canal. (Panama) The French
abandoned the project in 1889, due to a lack
of funding. (Dolan 59) Now it was
time for the American’s to get involved.
But there was one problem; they had
signed a treaty with Great Britain that
said, if one or the other decided to
build a canal then the two countries
would work together. This treaty was called
the Clayton Bulwer Treaty. In
1901 the treaty was replaced with the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty. It called for
Great Britain to give the United States the right to act
independently in the
development of an Atlantic Pacific waterway. Why did the
British agree to
the treaty? They were tied up in the Boer War in South Africa
and didn’t want
to split the bill on a canal? (Dolan 63) Now congress had to
decide on where
to dig the canal. The two main choices were Panama and
Nicaragua. Just
days before the vote on the canal site, Philipee Benau-Varilla
obtained
ninety Nicaragua stamps that pictured a railroad dock with an active
volcano
in the background, and sent them to all of the senators with a
message:
"An official witness of the volcanic activity in Nicaragua.
(Mcneese 78) Did
it work? Panama got the go ahead. The United States now to
get permission from
Columbia to dig in Panama. In 1902, John Hay, the
U.S. Secretary of State began
negotiate with the Colombian government. An
agreement was finally reached in
January 1903 in the signing of the
Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty, which granted the
United States a strip of land
6 miles wide along the general route laid out by
de Lesspes. The U.S. had the
right to administer and police this zone. In return
they would pay the
Colombian government $10 million, and after nine years of
operation Columbia
would get an annual fee of $250,000. (Dolan 63) The treaty
had to be ratified
in both the U.S. and Columbia before it could take affect.
The U.S. gave
its approval in March 1903, but the Colombian Congress said there
was not
enough money for the right to dig in Panama. They wanted an additional
$5
million from the Americans. They also objected to many of the points on
the
administration of what was now known as the Canal Zone. (Dolan 64) When
the
Columbian Government refused to ratify the treaty, Panama revolted
because they
feared the United States would build through Nicaragua. After
they declared
their independence from Columbia, President Theodore Roosevelt
ensured the
success of the revolt when he ordered a U.S. warship to prevent
Colombian troops
from entering the isthmus. (Panama) Now Panama had its
independence and the U.S.
had the right to build the canal. The Canal Zone
was ten miles wide and 50 miles
long; it embraced an area of 553 square
miles- an area that, totaling 5 percent
of the nation's landmass speared its
way directly through the heart of Panama.
The Panamanians complained that
it chopped their already small country into
smaller pieces. The split made it
difficult, if not impossible for Panama to
grow as a single united nation and
with the Canal lying in their path, the
people would have trouble moving from
one side of the country to the other.
Families and friends would be
separated. Business would be difficult to conduct
across the waterway.
Political views might grow too different on each side. In
the end, Panama
could end up being two countries. (Dolan 101) But these concerns
would have
to wait the treaty had already been signed, in fact the Canal was
already
nearing completion. When the canal was finished in 1914(McCullogh 609)
it was
approximately 51 miles long. Passage through it by a ship sailing
from
New York to San Francisco saved 7, 872 miles and it the same plans
of operation
that the canal has today. It was also very costly. The canal had
cost the
American’s $352 million. When added you that to the French
expenditures the
total peaks out approximately at $639 million. In 1914 this
made the Panama
Canal the greatest single construction project in
American History. In, lives
the canal cost the Americans 5,609; workers,
added to the French, the total
swells to nearly 25,000. (McNeese 85) Another
cost to the United States was an
indemnity to Columbia of $25 million during
the Wilson administration.
Apparently this was to smooth out tensions
between the two countries. As can be
expected Columbia was infuriated by the
aid Panama received from the United
States. Now Columbia was evolving
into one of the most important countries in
South America, really only
second to Brazil. It was a neighbor to the United
State's canal and it
had power. The payment was to insure America’s
investment. However this still
angered former President Theodore Roosevelt. In a
letter he wrote to
Banau-Varilla, he said "Is that they are eager to take
advantage of the deeds
of the man of action when action is necessary and then
eager to discredit him
when the action is once over."(McCullough 617) The
Panama Canal had
substantial effect on the Panamanian Economy. In addition to
the $10 million
payment to Panama, the U.S paid $250,000 after the canal had
been in
operation for nine years. That annuity has increased since, in 1999 it
was
well over $100 million. The canal also prompted many American Companies
to
invest in Panama. They bought land from the nation’s rich land
owning
families. This money seldom filtered down to the ordinary citizens.
However,
there were advantages for these citizens. (Dolan 98) The canal and
the zone,
until recently, were ran by two organization, the zone government
(to supervise
such bodies as the police, postal, and court systems) and the
Panama Canal
Company, which held responsibility for operating and
maintaining the waterway.
These two organizations were the major employer
on the isthmus. Between 1914 and
1940 they consistently employed between
10,00 and 13,000 civilian workers. When
the work force stood at 13,000 in
1977, 3,500 employees were Americans and 9,600
were non-U.S. citizens. The
non U.S. citizens were mainly Panamanians. (Dolan
99) Many other
Panamanians also profited from the waterway. Though not directly
employed by
the canal, they sold goods and services to the zone and its workers,
the
passing ships, and the 10,000 U.S. military troops (and their
families)
stationed in the zone to protect the canal. It has been estimated
that the canal
accounted for over 20 percent of Panama’s employment. (Dolan
99) The canal
tolls per ton were not raised for 59 years. In 1915 tolls were
about $14
million. By 1970 they exceeded $100 million. In 1973 the Panama
Canal Company
recorded its first loss, this was the reason for the change
from 90 cents per
cargo ton to $1.08. Revenues in 1975 exceeded $ 140
million. (McNeese 215) Was
the Hay-Banan-Varilla Treaty fair? In the words of
former President Jimmy Carter
"No Panamanians had ever seen the terms of
the treaty of which were highly
favorable to the U.S.". Among the terms that
Panama resented was the U.S.
control over the zone. The question of
sovereignty over the canal aroused deep
passions, which came to boil in 1964
with massive rioting by Panamanians, a
response to U.S. troops, bloodshed on
both sides. In the aftermath, President
Lydon Johnson agreed to
renegotiate the treaty related to the Panama Canal.
(Conaway) In 1977 United
States and Panama agreed on a new treaty. The most
significant agreement was
the transferring of ownership of the canal to Panama
to take the place on
December 31, 1999. Also they agreed to cooperate in the
defense of the canal.
The annual payment was upped to $ 10 million and was to be
paid from the
canals revenue, plus a payment of 30 cents for each ton of
shipping. And when
Panama took control of the canal it was free to employ
Americans. (Dolan
128) Also included in the treaty was a neutrality clause. The
canal is to
remain open to merchant vessels of all nations indefinitely,
without
discriminations as to conditions or tolls. The clause does not allow
the U.S. to
intervene in the internal affairs of Panama. It does however give
the United
States and Panama the responsibility to insure that the canal
remains open.
(Crane 81) Though it was rich with symbolic significance the
signing ceremony on
September 7, 1977, hardly ended the controversy over
the treaties. The
ratification battle in the U.S. Senate still lay ahead, and
it called for the
use of every political tool available to President Carter’s
team. It was a
battle won vote by vote, through personal appeals, political
accommodations, and
occasionally silly details. Carter recall one senator, a
former college
professor, was proud of a book he had written on semantics.
Before meeting with
him to try to persuade him to vote for the treaties,
Carter read the entire book
– "which was really boring" – and proved that he
had by discussing some
of it’s point with him. He eventually got the
senator’s vote. (Second
Decade) In 1988 the canal became involved in a
struggle for power in Panama.
Manuel Noreiga had assumed military power
over Panama. In response President
Ronald Reagan decided to ban the
annual payments to Panama and freeze Panama’s
assets in U.S. banks. This cut
Noriega revenue by $180 million a year. (Dolan
140) Facing a rapidly
deteriorating situation, President Bush ordered U.S.
troops into Panama on
December 20 1989, to protect U.S. citizens, to meet treaty
responsibilities,
to defend the canal, and to assist in restoring democracy and
bring Noreiga
to Justice. The Panamanian democratic opposition formed a new
government led
by President Guillermd Endum. (Second Decade) Finally Panama was
under
democratic control and had something to look forward to. The turning over
of
the Panama Canal to Panama. No longer would their economic depend on
how
another country wanted to run things. They now will decide how they want
to run
the canal. And they will run it as the please because as of December
31, 1999,
the day the U.S. turned over the canal, they owned the canal.
Finally after
decades of frustration they were truly free. Politics will
undoubtedly have an
influence in the maintaining, the economics, and the
operation of the Panama
Canal in the years to come. They will help the
canal expand in the lives of more
Panamanians and maybe someday even
building of another canal over the Isthmus
of
Panama.
Bibliography
Crane, Phillip F: Surrender in
Panama, the Case Against the Treaties. New
York: Dale Books, 1978
Conaway, Janell. America’s. Jan 1999, 16. NewsBank,
Online 1999 Dolan,
Edward F.: Panama and the United States, Their Canal, and
Their Stormy
Years. New York: Moffy Press Inc., 1990 McCullough, David: The
Path
Between the Seas. New York: Simon a Schuster, 1977 McNeese, Tim. The
Panama
Canal. San Diego: Lucent Books. Inc, 1997 "Panama". The Volume
Library.
South Western Company, 1994 The Second Decade: Panama at the
Canal Treaties.
U.S. Department of Dispatch, 1990