(5 of 7)
Why Give It Up? Opponents of the pact have tradition on their side. The U.S. has always run the canal, they maintain, so why should it not continue to do so? Hubert Humphrey admits that the biggest problem of advocates like himself is that they will be arguing abstractions against real estate. The 1903 treaty, signed by Secretary of State John Hay and French Entrepreneur Philippe Bunau-Varilla, gives the U.S. "in perpetuity" all powers over the canal that it would possess "if it were the sovereign of the territory ... to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights."
Thus Reagan's campaign slogan had a basic appeal: "We bought it, we paid for it, we built it. And we are going to keep it." To cede the canal, he declared, would be tantamount to retreat, particularly following the U.S. withdrawal from Viet Nam. If the U.S. is going to give up the canal, argue other opponents, then why not the territories acquired in the Louisiana and Gadsden purchases? These territories, however, are now an integral part of the American nation, not an isolated enclave splitting a foreign country in two. The U.S., further, does not even own the property but has full rights over it. The canal, in fact, is an arrangement without a parallel in the world today. The U.S., moreover, has never had a very clear conscience about it. Even John Hay acknowledged that the treaty was "vastly advantageous to the United States, and, we must confess, not so advantageous to Panama."
Will U.S. Security Be Endangered? Treaty opponents also feel that U.S. security may be jeopardized. Says Reagan: "Security is based on the openness of sea travel and on preventing bottlenecks at critical points around the globe. The Soviet buildup reveals that they now have an offensive naval force capable of shutting off bottlenecks and destroying world commerce." Some conservatives, pointing to the growing power of the separatists in Quebec, even fear that leftist regimes may some day try to choke off both the canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Treaty proponents counter that the rise of a two-ocean Navy has markedly reduced reliance on the canal. Thirteen U.S. aircraft carriers cannot navigate the waterway at all. Still, even though the biggest flattops and supertankers cannot squeeze through the canal, 96% of the world's 63,000 or so ocean-going vessels are capable of doing so. Coast-to-coast U.S. trade that relies on the canal totals only about 4% today (v. 9% in 1964), but that still amounts to roughly $5 billion worth. During Viet Nam, an impressive 70% of the cargo destined for the combat zone moved through the canal. And now oil from the Alaskan North Slope is beginning to be shipped through the waterway.
Could It Be Defended? The Joint Chiefs support the new treaty. "Otherwise, there'll be trouble," says George Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has visited the canal several times. "You'd be fighting men you can't identify at a time and place of their choosing. That's not the way, in my judgment, to assure continued operation of the canal."