The Press MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1964. Panama Canal Zone Riots

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30337, 13 January 1964, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1964. Panama Canal Zone Riots

It is as absurd for a United States spokesman to plead ignorance of the “ basic “facts” leading to the Canal Zone riots as it is for the Panamanian Government to describe the riots as “ an unprovoked attack ” on its people. The background is simply that 60 years ago the United States made a particularly favourable bargain with the newly - independent and struggling republic of Panama, and over the years has only slightly modified the terms. The United States still holds in perpetuity, at an annual rental only recently raised to £700,000 a year, the right to “ the use, “occupation, and control of “ the Canal Zone ”. Americans in the Canal Zone still have a privileged position, though improvements have been made from time to time in the conditions of employment of Panamanians and though the theoretical sovereignty of the Panamian Government has been recognised in such matters as the flying of flags. The canal has, of course, brought the people of Panama considerable economic benefits, but they have always been irked by the extra-territorial advantages enjoyed by Americans in the Canal Zone, by the unlimited term of the American lease, and by the comparatively low rental. Incidentally, users Of the canal, including New Zealand, have gained substantially from the conservative American operating policy, because dues have not been

increased since the canal was opened in 1914. Fortunately the sensible intervention of President Johnson, with the help of the Organisation of American States, seems to have reduced the bloodshed and wanton damage in the Canal Zone. It now remains for the President to seek a more enduring settlement. In its attempt to mobilise Latin American support for a campaign of economic self-help, the United States cannot afford to seem ungenerous to a small, poor country. Successive Panamanian Governments have been ready to acknowledge the special and legitimate interests of the United States, but they have also asked for recognition of their own interests. They resent the attitude of some Americans in the Canal Zone and they would like greater access to commercial opportunities there. The opinion is growing in the United States that reasonable Panamanian aspirations could be satisfied without prejudicing American interests. An expiry date could be fixed for the lease, say 50 years hence, and Panamanians could be given more nearly equal treatment in the zone. While the United States is legally responsible for the “control” of the Canal Zone it must assert its authority, not only because of its own strategic needs but because of the commercial rights of shippers. Its actions in resisting the rioters do not appear to have been excessive, but how much better it would be if the local population were more friendly.