THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 1977. Growing debate on Canal Zone

Press, 29 August 1977, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 1977. Growing debate on Canal Zone

A new treaty on the Panama Canal Zone to replace the one-sided instrument of 1903 is now in the form of an agreed draft. It has yet to be ratified both in Panama and in the United States. General Omar Torrijos Herrera, the Marxist-inclined military dictator in Panama, will probably manage ratification in his own Legislative Assembly without much difficulty. He is planning a vote on October 11, the ninth anniversary of his seizure of power. President Carter’s task will be more taxing. He will have to win a two-thirds majority for ratification in the Senate, and approval also in the House of Representatives of those of its provisions that may cover the cession of United States property.

Speculation on the Senate reaction continues to be guarded. A White House '•fact sheet” urging acceptance of the treaty endorsed the view that the canal is at present “owned, operated and ruled by the United States ” One of President Carter’s two negotiators, Mr Sol Linowitz. is now attempting to put the record straight on the question of sovereignty. He has been telling Senators and Congressmen that the United States has never owned the canal. The 1903 treaty merely ceded certain rights to act in the Canal Zone “as if sovereign”—a very different matter.

Under the new treaty, there will be a gradual transfer of jurisdiction in the zone to Panama, culminating in the transfer of jurisdiction in the Canal Zone to Panama, culminating in the year 2000. when the present treaty will expire. Some payment to Panama will be made in the meantime by the United

States—S6o million a year is one estimate—for continued use of territory by American forces: but base rights will expire with the treaty, although defence of the canal against externa) attack will remain, in part, an American responsibility. The Panamanian Government undertakes to permit unrestricted use of the canal by the shipping of all nations. What such an assurance is worth is open to question, having in mind the almost chronic instability of Panamanian politics, and the fact that the country’s economy remains on the verge of collapse. A sharp debate is growing on whether the United States needs the canal at all, for military or economic reasons. The Navy’s largest ships cannot navigate its lock systems, and only about 8 per cent of foreign trade and east coast-west coast trade passes through it. There are two main possibilities if ratification is blocked in the Senate. There would be an angry reaction in the Latin American countries, which use the canal extensively and are solid backers of Panama’s claims. And in Panama itself. anti-American bitterness could well recur. Mr Carter will certainly hope to avoid both reactions. The second point is that any remaining hopes for a second canal, at sea level, would almost certainly be scotched. No Panamanian concession to build would be forthcoming. While the ratification battle is awaited, the Panamanian people will be hoping that the Administration in Washington will win the day, and give them a unified territory, wholly subject to their own laws and without the irritant of what they regard, justifiably, as an American occupation.