[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 135 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12230-S12232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE PANAMA CANAL

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. A few days ago, on October 4, I indicated 
that there were 88 days until the Panama Canal would be turned over to 
the Chinese--to the Panamanians and ultimately into the hands of the 
Chinese Communists. That was October 4.
  Today is the 7th, so we have 87, 86, 85--we are down to 85 days 
before the canal is closed, will be turned over to the Chinese. I have 
a chart here on which I will put some stickers to cross those days off. 
The days go fast. I point out that we are going to see this canal in 
the hands of a nation that does not have positive feelings toward the 
United States--to put it as nicely as I can. So this is the flag of 
Communist China. So now 3 more days have gone by.
  I recently addressed this issue of Panama and the impending turnover 
on October 4, a few days ago. Again, 3 more days have passed. The 
countdown continues. On December 31, this canal leaves the control of 
the United States and will come into the hands of the Chinese 
Communists.
  In his book, ``The Path Between the Seas,'' David McCullough's 
history of the canal reminds us of its historic importance:

       The creation of the Panama Canal was far more than a vast, 
     unprecedented feat of engineering. It was a profoundly 
     important historic event and a sweeping human drama not 
     unlike that of war. . . .
       Great reputations were made and destroyed. For numbers of 
     men and women, it was the venture of a lifetime. . . . 
     Because of it, one nation, France, was rocked to its 
     foundations. Another, Colombia, lost its most prized 
     possession, the Isthmus of Panama. . . .The Republic of 
     Panama was born. The United States was embarked on a role of 
     global involvement.

  So while the United States has no assurances it may remain in Panama 
after December 31, despite overwhelming public opinion in Panama in 
support of a continued U.S. presence-- we are going to be leaving--the 
Chinese firm of Hutchison Whampoa will be there in the ports of 
Cristobal and Balboa on both sides of the canal, having won, through 
what was widely regarded as a corrupt bidding practice, the right to 
lease the ports for 25 years and beyond. Both sides of the canal will 
now be in the control of the Chinese.

  After the United States withdraws from Panama, December 31, there is 
no doubt that a security vacuum will be

[[Page S12231]]

created. Who is going to fill it? We have less than 3 months, 85 days, 
a very short window of time to try to work out a solution that is 
mutually acceptable to us and to the Panamanians.
  Let us look at the status of the transition. What bothers me is that 
this administration is doing nothing to try to renegotiate those leases 
or to somehow talk with the Panamanians to try to get us to remain 
there. To date, we have transferred to the Government of Panama 57,000 
acres--remember, we spent $32 billion building that canal--57,000 acres 
and 3,000 buildings controlled by our military, including schools, 
hospitals, houses, airports, seaports, roads, and bridges. It 
represents about 62 percent of the total property.
  As of July 1 of this year, U.S. troop strength was down from 10,000 
in February 1994 to a little over 1,200, so we are just about finished. 
All U.S. presence on the Atlantic side was terminated on 30 June with 
the transfer of Fort Sherman and Pina Range. The remaining 36,000 acres 
and 1,900 facilities will be transferred to the Government of Panama as 
follows: On the 28th of July, the Empire Range for the Army and the 
Balboa West Range for the Air Force will go. On the 13th of August, the 
U.S. Army mortuary--these are what has already happened--on the 17th of 
August, the Curundu Middle School; on the 1st of November, Fort Kobbe, 
Howard Air Force base, Farfan housing and radio site will go; Curundu 
Laundry; Fort Clayton, West and East Corozal; Building 1501, Balboa, 
and Ancon Hill communications site; and on December 31, the grand 
enchilada, the big prize, the Panama Canal itself, gone, without a 
whimper.
  It troubles me this issue has not even entered the Presidential 
debate in this country. There is no one at the State Department or in 
the Defense Department or in the White House talking to the Panamanians 
about reopening the bidding process or renegotiating leases to try to 
get in there ahead of the Chinese company. As if to rub it in, to rub 
salt in the wound even more, the actual turnover is going to take place 
on December 10. Perhaps they advanced the date so it wouldn't interfere 
with our Christmas or New Year's Eve parties or maybe they were afraid 
of Y2K. Maybe they were afraid we would get stuck there.
  The bottom line is, on December 10 we will turn it over, which is 
about 21 days earlier than we should. So I want to elaborate, again, on 
the significance of the canal to seapower, to our Navy, and to the 
importance of preserving both the spirit and the letter of the 
neutrality treaty.
  I will now discuss the background of a controversial law in Panama 
known as Law 5.
  President Teddy Roosevelt was a reader and admirer of Alfred Thayer 
Mahan, a gentleman regarded by many as the father of the modern 
American Navy. Mahan's book, ``The Influence of Sea Power,'' had a 
profound impact on Theodore Roosevelt. Mahan traced the rise and 
decline of past maritime powers and concluded that supremacy at sea 
translated into national greatness and commercial success. We are 
essentially an island or, more specifically, a peninsula nation. The 
Navy is very important to us.
  Roosevelt, whose first published work was ``The Naval War of 1812,'' 
had read Mahan's book and understood its importance. It prompted him to 
be a strong advocate of constructing the canal, to be sure the United 
States would have easy access through the isthmus of Panama and into 
the Pacific from the Atlantic and vice versa.
  In World War II, damage to the canal could have and would have 
delayed the buildup of our war efforts in the Pacific big time. I can't 
imagine what it would be like to not have been able to use the canal. 
It would have delayed the flow of supplies to Great Britain, the Soviet 
Union, the dispatch of essential war materials from South America to 
the United States, and on and on.
  I am concerned that some officials in Panama might be somewhat naive 
about the canal's security and about world history. In June, the then 
Panamanian Foreign Minister disagreed sharply with General Wilhelm, 
head of SOUTHCOM, who had testified before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee that Panamanian security forces were undermanned and ill 
equipped to deal with growing threats from Colombian guerrilla 
incursions and drug traffickers. Panama's Foreign Minister at that 
time, Jorge Ritter, said the general's statements were inadmissible and 
argued that ``never have the U.S. military forces been here to guard 
our borders, and they have even less to do with the security of Panama, 
nor do they have anything to do with the security of the canal.''
  Even more surprisingly, the Foreign Minister alleged that the growth 
of drugs in Panama did not begin with withdrawal of U.S. troops but, 
instead, grew while there were military bases in Panama.

  Perhaps this gentleman, with all due respect, has forgotten what 
happened in 1989. During questioning before the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, Adm. Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, was asked if the 1977 treaty had been more helpful or 
more harmful to U.S. interests. Moorer's immediate response was that 26 
soldiers had died in Operation Just Cause in 1989. Among the reasons 
for the military intervention--to thwart drug trafficking, to preserve 
democracy in Panama, and to defend the canal--26 Americans gave their 
lives. To have Mr. Ritter make those kinds of statements is outrageous.
  Part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing testimony 
includes some interesting commentary on the background of Mr. Ritter. 
He was the president of the Panama Canal Authority. He was also the 
chief Panamanian negotiator who reportedly torpedoed the base talks in 
Panama. He was tied by the Panamanian press and outside press to the 
highest levels of drug cartels and served as Panama's ambassador to 
Colombia during the time that Manuel Noriega was doing business with 
the drug cartels in Colombia. He was Noriega's point man, bottom line.
  It was also reported to the press that Ritter had issued a Panamanian 
ID card for Jorge Escobar, which was found on him when he died in 
Colombia in a shoot-out with law enforcement. I am not surprised that 
Mr. Ritter downplayed the importance of the canal and U.S. military 
base rights. It doesn't surprise me at all.
  Hopefully, with the recent inauguration of President Moscoso, that 
attitude, as expressed by the former Foreign Minister, has changed. I 
hope it has. I am told that the new Panamanian President was planning 
to visit but, for whatever reason, I am not sure, canceled her trip. I 
had hoped to have the opportunity to meet with her. Hopefully, we will 
be able to do that at some point in the future.
  I have been informed that, unlike her predecessor, President Moscoso 
would like to do business with the United States and would like to be 
above board with the negotiations. I wish her much success. I hope she 
realizes how important her actions are. It would be nice if some in the 
State Department and the administration would talk with her and 
encourage her in the next few weeks and months.
  I also hope that it is not too late for her to weigh in on the 
decision about the leases at Cristobal and Balboa. I realize that would 
take a lot of political courage for her, but I hope she will give a 
thorough review of the bidding process, its known irregularities, and 
its compliance with both the spirit and the letter of the canal and 
neutrality treaty.
  In conclusion, this Law 5 reportedly does the following: It gives 
responsibility for hiring new pilots for the canal who control the 
ships passing through the canal. It gives Hutchison Whampoa, the 
Chinese company, the right to possess Rodman Naval Station when it 
reverts to Panama this year. It gives the authority to control the 
order of ships utilizing the entrance to the canal and to deny ships 
access to the ports and entrances of the canal, if they are deemed to 
be interfering with Hutchinson's business operations. Contrast this 
with the explicit grant of expeditious passage in the 1977 treaty, 
which the Panama Canal treaty gave to the U.S. Navy.
  Now we are seeing the Chinese Communists--and there are thousands of 
Chinese now in Panama. People say: Well, it is private business. There 
is no private business in China. It is all controlled by the 
government, whatever they do. So this is government business in China. 
It is Chinese Communist government in Panama by the Chinese. Law 5 
gives the right to transfer unilaterally its rights to a third party to

[[Page S12232]]

any company or any country they select. This ought to be troublesome, 
and yet it is not even on the radar screen in the political debates 
around our country today.
  Certain public roads could become private in a hurry, which could 
impact canal access.
  This Hutchison Whampoa deal includes U.S. Naval Station Rodman, as 
mentioned previously; U.S. Air Station Albrook; Diablo; Balboa, a 
Pacific U.S.-built port; Cristobal, an Atlantic U.S.-built port; the 
island of Telfers, strategically located adjacent to Galeto Island, a 
critical communications center.
  Telfers Island is said to be the future home of a Chinese work in 
progress, an export zone, called the ``Great Wall of China'' project.
  I cannot understand how we can ignore this presence into the Western 
Hemisphere. Monroe would turn over in his grave. The Monroe Doctrine 
said that foreign European nations, and other nations around the world, 
should stay out of the Western Hemisphere. Yet, here they are.
  Law 5 is subservient to the 1977 treaty. But if we fail to notice the 
discrepancies and fail to act upon those discrepancies, or to point out 
there are potential compliance problems, then we lose the opportunity 
to respond.
  As I said before, I don't have the easel here now, but it's 84 more 
days. We will come back next week, and I will come back with the chart 
and it will be 79 days, or whatever it happens to be. But as each day 
ticks off, another day goes by--another day we haven't talked to 
President Moscoso and we haven't tried to reopen the negotiations, and 
we are another day closer to turning the Panama Canal not over to the 
Panamanians, but to the Chinese Communists--and not a whimper from 
anybody in the State Department, or the President, the Defense 
Department, Presidential campaigns, or anywhere. So the days are 
getting short. I think that I have an obligation to tell the American 
people, on a day-to-day basis--remind them--about what is going on.

                          ____________________