Email Interview Walter Mondale Former Vice President of the United States, 1977-1981
1) In your opinion, what were the long term impacts of the Canal Treaties?
We wanted to make sure that the Panama Canal would remain in operation, reliably and efficiently, far into the future. To do so, we had to cede control over the panama canal zone. As the commander of our forces there testified, "I can defend the canal zone against a foreign military force but I cannot defend from the people of Panama. " It was a tough issue to sell, never popular in the United States, but it has been very successful.
2) Did the treaties improve relations between the U.S. and Latin American nations beyond Panama? If so, how?
Absolutely. The arrangement we had in Panama, a nation that we may have artificially created, with a zone cut right through the middle of it, with an American military force housed in way worthy of a British colonial outpost, became a hated symbol of American colonial pretensions, correctly or not. Throughout Latin America, not just Panama, this belief became a heavy burden for us to bear, cutting across almost everything we did in Latin America.
The adoption of the treaties, greeted genuinely and enthusiastically throughout Latin America, have instead become a symbol of a thoughtful America. It has greatly helped Panama to build a better economy and much healthier political system. The smooth and effective way they have managed the canal has not only provided jobs but enhanced their own self confidence.
It is all about dignity.
3) Do you think that the U.S. failed diplomatically in Panama before the treaties? Was the U.S. imperialistic in Panama?
If you read great histories about this issue, as in The Path Between the Seas by David McCullough, perhaps the best history, you will see a long history of thoughtless acts directed at the people of Panama despite our best intentions. I worked with Carter to change this as was tried unsuccessfully by four previous Presidents of both political parties. We had to change.
4) Did the U.S. have any other choice but to negotiate and sign the Canal Treaties with Panama?
I sincerely don't believe so. We had no other choice. As I mentioned four previous presidents came to the same conclusion but couldn't make progress. For some reason there was a batch of right-wingers who latched onto this issue as an issue of American pride. Reagan was one of those. Even after we adopted those proposals, I believe a majority of Americans opposed our treaties.
The irony of this hot and even bitter national issue, is that it faded immediately as an issue in American politics after we adopted the treaties. The new structure, now in place over three decades, has been spectacularly successful.
Email Interview Peter Catapano Associate Professor, Department of History, New York City College of Technology
1) Prior to the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty ratification do you believe that the U.S. was imperialistic in Panama?
Yes. The US in the late 19th century looked to expand beyond its borders. Policy makers wanted an inter-ocean canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. A larger global vision of the US in terms of trade and political influence became a reality with acquisition of Hawaii and the former Spanish colonies of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico after the Spanish American War. US supported a Panamanian independence movement to ensure that a canal would be built under US auspices.
2) Why were the 1977 Panama Canal Treaties so hard for the American public to accept?
The 1970s was a time of declining American influence in the world. The Arab oil embargo 1973, fall of Saigon in 1975, and the general industrial decline created a feeling of helplessness to many Americans who came of age during World War II and the booming economy of the 1950s and 60s. Holding on to the canal was more a symbolic act to preserve a sense of agency and power in world affairs.
3) Was is the impact today of the Panama Canal Treaties?
The greatest impact of the Canal has to do with the new technologies of super-containerization. The dredging of the canal is allowing greater number of large ships with cheap goods from China to enter the East Coast of the US. Eastern seaboard cities are racing to modernize their aging ports for the new shipping. All the Cold War fears of the 1970s have become almost totally irrelevant. The Canal is now much more importantly an important part of a global commercial transportation system that will allow the US to compete in the world than as an important part of the military infrastructure.
Email Interview William Furlong Professor, Department of Political Science, Utah State University Author of The Dynamics of Foreign Policymaking: The President, the Congress, and the Panama Canal Treaties
1) In your opinion, what were the long term impacts of the Canal Treaties?
Some of the long-term impacts of the treaties are the following: first,
the treaties have strengthened U.S. security in the region. The purpose
of the canal is to allow ships through. Without the treaties, the many
violent crises that shook Central America during the 1980s would have
had a negative impact on the operation of the canal. In addition, Omar
Torrijos, claimed that he would close the Canal if the treaties were not
signed. Would he really have done so? Is the U.S. Congress currently
willing to shut down the U.S. economy and U.S. government? I do believe
that the Canal would have been shut down without the treaties. Second,
the Canal today is operating better than it did even before Dec. 1999.
In addition, a new set of locks are under construction, and widening
and deepening of the Canal is presently occurring. Third, the Canal is
no longer a U.S. target for terrorists which it would have been without
the treaties. There are of course many other lasting impacts, but that
would take a whole article to discuss them all.
2) Did the treaties improve relations between the U.S. and Latin American nations beyond Panama? If so, how?
Did the treaties improve U.S. relationships with other countries besides
Panama? The answer to that question is a simple yes. Relationships with
some Latin American countries improved. And relationships with
countries in Europe and Asia also improved. The British should have
learned a lesson that negotiations are cheaper than fighting. In 1982,
they fought the Argentines over the Falkland Islands. Hundreds of lives
were lost and billions of dollars spent. That could have been avoided
through compromise and negotiations before the war occurred.
3) Did the U.S. fail diplomatically in Panama before the treaties? Was the U.S. imperialistic in Panama?
Neither the Congress of
the United States nor the U.S. military were ready to concede to new
treaties before 1977. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all attempted
to negotiate new treaties but were unable to do so. There was a very
small window of opportunity for President Jimmy Carter to negotiate the
treaties and have them ratified. The US military changed their minds
about the security of the canal mostly due to experiences during the
Vietnam War. They discovered that they could not defend a 10 mile wide
and 50 miles long strip of land in the middle of a foreign country with a
hostile local population.
If by
Imperial you mean that U.S. laws, U.S. administration, and the U.S. flag
controlled the Panama Canal Zone for over 50 years, you might call that
section of land a U.S. colony, which would then make the U.S. an
Imperial power in the region.
4) Did the U.S. have any other choice but to negotiate and sign the Canal Treaties with Panama?
Countries always have choices. But choices also have in impacts and
consequences. The U.S. was wise to conclude the treaties when they
did. After the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua in July of 1979, it
would have been very difficult to obtain treaty ratification from the
U.S. Senate. With Ronald Reagan entering the presidency in January of
1981, it would have been impossible to negotiate the treaties. As I
have indicated with my other answers, I sincerely believe that signing
and ratification of the treaties was very good for the United States,
for the operation of the Canal, and for the image of the United States
worldwide. We proved that we were willing to compromise, negotiate, and
treat a very small country as a sovereign equal. That kind of behavior
is very unusual in international relations. I realize that I am
biased, but I believe history has shown that the ratification of the
Panama Canal treaties was a very good thing for Panama, for the United
States, and for the world.