OAKLAND UNIVERSITY

United States Handover the

Panama Canal to Panamanian
AUTHOR: NAYLEEN QUINTERO C.
Professor: Kristine Murray
5/11/2011

Research Paper, ESL Writing Class 720N

 Quintero 2

United States Handover the Panama Canal to Panamanian

The Panama Canal remains today one of the most important human creations in
the world; in fact, the existence of the Panama Canal plays a strategic role in the
economy and the commerce of many countries worldwide because it has become a vital
link for the entire world. Such a project was an extraordinary endeavor especially for the
geographical features of the isthmus. The idea of joining two oceans represented an
admirable work, mainly due to the incredible challenge that the builders faced with the
conditions of the land and the sickness at that time. As the story is told, the Panama
Canal, one of the greatest engineering marvels of the modern world, was constructed
by the United States of America and officially controlled by them until 1999. The
construction successfully overcomes the challenges of representing a change in the
structure of the Panama land, dividing the Americas into two continents. At the same
time, it is comparable to extraordinary works such as the pyramids of Egypt and the
Great Wall of China. After 1999, the desire for the Republic of Panama to gain control of
the Panama Canal and the surrounding area was achieved as a total victory, which
brought, as a result, great patriotism for Panamanian. On the other hand, for the USA,
giving away the Panama Canal was a questionable decision that is still remembered
and thought about by many American citizens. Without a doubt, for both countries this
historical episode brought certain effects in their societies and marked a change in the
course of the way the story is going to be told to the children in these nations. Moreover,
to understand the complex effects requires an explanation of the perspectives of both
countries, and the prior issues that gave way to the handover of the Panama Canal from
the United Stated to Panamanian.

What gave way to the effects of handover the Canal to Panamanian was the
intention of the ex-president of the United Stated Jimmy Carter to make a treaty with the
ex-leader of Panama Omar Torrijos. This intention ended in the signing of the treaty
Torrijos - Carter, and in the beginning of a series of events between Panama and the
USA. By 1978, the United Stated senate ratified a neutrality treaty that, by 1979,
handled giving piecemeal a partial of the duties to the "New Panama Canal
Commission," and, by 1999, total control and duties of the Panama Canal to the
 Quintero 3

Panamanian government (Maurer, p.264). This treaty would be through the history a
symbol of happiness for the Panamanian, who truly benefited by taking an extraordinary
creation.

The America approach by the supporters of Carter saw the handover as a way to
demonstrate "a new face of American policy (Clymer 44)", as well as to show respect
for the rights of humans in small nations, and "moral principle (Clymer 44)". Moreover,
the Carter administration expected to win public support managing the treaty as a
political instrument of the campaign. However, the Corporation of Princeton, New
Jersey conveyed that just eight percent of the public supported the turning over of the
Canal to Panama (Clymer, p.44, 49, 51). In spite of the opposition of the population and
some republicans, Carter conducted the treaty. In the American Government there were
strong oppositions against the signing of the treaty such a congressman Bill Armstrong
and McGovern, both deny it by saying that with the signing of the treaty by the United
States "we are giving away a piece of American Folklore." They also mentioned that
America is losing "an important national asset (Clymer, p.123,124)". Whether Carter
was using the Panama Canal as a political strategy or using it as a sense of friendship
with Panama, by his presidential term the treaty was done. Even though there were
strong opposition by the Americans and by the senate, Carter stood firm and conducted
a decision that later could regret. Moreover, the history records the event of giving up
the Panama Canal as a dispute between Democrats and Republicans and the task that
Carter took personally by making a hundred calls to all of the senators saying that the
treaty was "imminent (Clymer, p.48, 49)." What it mean that he had to ratify an imminent
decision in order to persuade the senate, making it look as a dominated situations
where the against of many was obvious.

The effect of the handover included the return not only of the Panama Canal, but
also of everything that belonged to the United States in the Panamanian territory.
Specifically, the agreement of the treaty included the return of: 1,284 buildings including
1,003 housing units, 27,655 acres of land by 1979 and over 6,000 additional acres by
1997; and then 2,000 acres by 1997. All of this included Fort Amador, Empire Range,
Albrook and Arraijan Tank Farm (G.D Future of U.S. p.41). The negotiations after the
 Quintero 4

signing of the treaty mainly looked at the Panama Canal commitment after 1999 with
two handover conditions: one is that the Panama Canal could never be used as a
resource of "Political" ends and the second was that the new administration of the
Panama Canal must overcome the prior administration under the American economical
and management administration (Maurer, p.327). I would like to point out how big this
was for the United States returning the Panama Canal and also properties that were
patrimony of their nation. The investment that the U.S.A had made into the Canal Zone
and the Canal per se was going to belong to the territory where it is, Panama.

Recently, in 2006 ex-President Carter did an interview where he said that he

wanted to be fair with Panama, that he was certain that there was an unfair treatment
with Panama. However, the reality was that he initially did not see the displeasure and
concern around the country in regards to the treaty and saying to culminate "I
underestimated the opposition" (Clymer, Adam p.45). In fact, with these declarations the
regrets were showing up. As a result the effect of giving away the Panama Canal for the
United States going back in history had several implications since its construction and
over the economic, political and military approach. The USA was the owner of the
Panama Canal that represented that they paid for it and they enjoyed of the advantages
of controlling two oceans at the same time.

The implications or effects by giving back the Panama Canal for the United
States not only was the returning of the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone per se, but
also goes further with important issues such as the cost of the investment, the military
presence and the American nationalism.

In the first place, the cost of the Panama Canal in 1914 is still impressive
nowadays, mostly for how expensive it was. Between 1915 and 1917 the investment
reached the cost of 326 million American dollars, and by World War I the construction
was taking a lot of effort. This led to the spending of $53 million more, surpassing the
cost of: "the Massachusetts Turnpike, the Hoover Dam, the Erie Canal, the Bay area
rapid transport system and the Washington Metro (Maurer, p.97 )." In addition, America
had to confront the situation concerning the French excavation. The Panama Canal had
been dug incorrectly, as though the two oceans were at the same elevation level.
 Quintero 5

Therefore, the condition of the canal required a new system which would more than
double the budget allotted by the United States. Despite the cost and budget goal, the
United States decided to build the Canal because the extraordinary, immense project
will represent "the greatest bits of work that the twentieth century" said by the words of
Theodore Roosevelt (Maurer, p.98).The great construction was also developed and
supported by the West Indian Island of Barbados principally in the "labor to built the
Panama Canal". This important economic investment meant two benefits for
Panamanian: one was the Canal itself and the other was the elimination of malaria and
yellow fever (Maurer, p.97, 98). What I support as an important effect for the United
States is this higher investment. The Panama Canal became an incredible asset for
their nation expecting or supposing contribution in the future-- a great return on
investment. However, despite the cost, the Panama Canal fate will be lodged in the
Panamanians hands.

Other effect for the United States handing over the Panama Canal was the
military presence after the treaty. According to the United States Senate 75 % of
Panamanians would want the military bases and the United States presence stay after
December 31, 1999; however, former Panamanian president Balladares and his
administration said that that must be a decision taken by the Panamanian Assembly
and through Panamanian referendum. The United States intentions to stay in Panama
were stronger mainly because they have wasted in military installations million of dollars
to prevent drugs operations, military training, strategic upholder, and "human
operations". However, according to the treaty, after signing both countries might discuss
to reach an agreement regarding to maintain whether the military presence stay in
Panama or not (Government Document p.5-6, 17). Later, Panama under the present
General Manuel Antonio Noriega abolished the United States military presence by
asking by 1993 for the transfer of all the bases and properties belonging to the
Americans. Indeed, according with the Canal Treaties begging to transfer “health,
safety, and free of hazard” the areas. The big consequence was that they needed to
spend $5.6 Billion of dollar in order to clean up more than 17,000 contaminated places
all around the bases (Lindsay, p.142, 143). The effects for United States to have military
presence in Panama provided them with extraordinary facilities. Controlling the Panama
 Quintero 6

Canal the United States was developing military mission so much that by World War II
the operation depended heavily on the Canal; at this level, was clear that the isthmus
was the “Hub” of defense for “potential combat and control”. for example during 1945
through 1999 Panama served as one of the most important training school, graduating
approx 76,535 students in Army, Air Force, and Technical and Jungle Warfare (Lindsay,
p.195, 196). In fact, it has become clear that military operation in the territory of Panama
was a great advantage since the developing of several project took place there.

Furthermore, the effects for the United States by not controlling the Panama
Canal go farther than just military presence. In fact, the United States owner since they
build and run it, they also had the control of two oceans and the third world’s economic
geography. Moreover according with Maurer, p.6,7, there were New York investors with
very profitable earning and transcontinental power for the industrial, politics, touristic,
and economy from the Panama Canal.

Additionally, what was a sensible point in Americans was the fact that the
Panama Canal was representing for many people a feeling of ownership. The Panama
Canal had become “a symbol of American nationalism” said in the word of Harry
Truman who later in 1953 tried to negotiate a new Panama Canal treaty (Maurer p.228).
A recently published book explains that the history of the Panama Canal is considered
as a "discreditable" as well as "forgotten" fact for the United States. The book
recognizes that the Panama Canal is one of the engineering wonders of the world that
makes the country of Panama prosperous. Also, Americans could not understand how
ex-President Jimmy Carter could make the decision of giving the Panama Canal back to
Panamanian, especially after the great effort of Theodore Roosevelt to create such a
grandiose work. Moreover, according to the book, "the story of the Panama Canal
raises more questions than answers" because the feeling is that the United States gave
one of the most important "engineering triumphs" with nothing in return and always with
the doubt of whether Panamanian could manage successfully the Canal more efficiently
than the United States (Maurer, p.1). For American President Theodore Roosevelt and
his administration, to "take, build and run the Panama Canal" is an imperialistic way to
have principal control for economic reasons, considering the rent generated by
 Quintero 7

Panama's geography and military purposes. It is a wonder that this history has always
held in question of who must be the owner of such important and strategic human
engineering? Must it be who built it or must it be the people who occupied the land?
There are no answers, but for Americans, it was obvious that the Canal represents a
wealth in the economic approach and in the world's position. The reason why United
States decided to leave the Panama Canal in 1977 is clear now; apparently the
economic value and the strategic position of the Panama Canal fell after World War II,
which resulted in the decline of domestics cargoes, the falling cost of railroads, and the
beginning of industrialization on the west coast, using its own production creating less
shipment through the Canal. In addition, the American agricultural exporter to Asia
declined; in brief the effect that motivated transfer the Panama Canal to Panamanian
was the inefficient administrations and the problem of not having a profitable business.
However, still in America the Panama Canal generates different point of view lead by
the economic impact after the handover and the fact to be the legitimate owners of its
infrastructure. In spite of the polemical difference that the story of Panama Canal has, in
1999 and after then the relationship between United States and Panama has been
leading by a pacific mutual relation; indeed under the focus that the "new Panama
Canal Administration ran the Canal much more efficiently and commercially well that the
United States ever did" (Maurer, p.6-10). After all, there was a controversy between the
national ownership feelings vs. an unprofitable business from the economic point of
view. Either the Panama Canal was working well or not, the decision of handing it over
caused a revolution by the people who were for or against.

Rather than the nightmare that the United States had with the Panama Canal,
the country of Panama, after 1999, will be enjoying of one of the most important
symbols of patriotism. Moreover, it turns the Canal into a principal pillar for the
Panamanian economy. Through the years of the Panamanian Canal administration, it
has demonstrated the successes in several aspects of management. Consequently, the
effects of returning the Canal back to Panama brought more positive issues than bad
ones to the Panamanian.
 Quintero 8

All around the Panamanian territory were preamble ceremonies and events to
celebrate that the Canal will become Panamanian. The official transfer of the Panama
Canal was at noon on December 31, 1999. At this time, the Republic of Panama
assumed the total responsibility for the administration, operation, and maintenance by a
government entity called Panama Canal Authority (ACP). The formal Canal transfer
took place on the steps of the Administration Building and in the Miraflores Locks.
According with Clymer p.207, during the ceremony the United States former President
Jimmy Carter spoke about the ratifying of the treaties and the meaning of the Panama
Canal as a symbol for both countries. He knows in his country there were no happy
people, but after the treaty ratification in 1978, the transfer has been “harmonious” with
“mutual respect”, and he is confident that the Canal is secure and well administrated by
the Panamanians. The happiness in Panamanians’ sentiment was showing up by a
multitude of people in the Administration Building. An enormous TV screen showed the
time left and at noon began to rain and thousands of balloons were released into the
sky, while people with banners in their hands, screamed “The Canal now belongs to
Panama”. I wonder whether this celebration means the same thing to the United States
as well as Panama? Deep down the Panama Canal was an important symbol of
ownership for the United States, working as a strategic asset since their construction. I
see a specific metaphor that I would like to show; for Panama received the Panama
Canal without giving anything in exchange, it was like buying an expensive and
luxurious house without any payment.

The uppermost positive effect of the official transfer in 1999 was the Canal itself.
Panamanians were excited with the idea to be the only owners of such an important
piece of work in the world. Panama was under the pressure of accomplishing the deal
that the treaty had established, especially with the point of overcoming the past
American administration in the profitable aspect. According with Maurer p.305, 261
when the Government of Panama took over in 1979 the Panama Canal administration,
the Canal was poorly making money on the operations. Also, between1977 and 1980,
the United States Panama Canal transfer reflected negative figures making labor
harder. For instance, the new administration had to make decisions in order to make the
Canal profitable enough and meet the agreement with the treaty. With this purpose in
 Quintero 9

mind, the new Panama Canal commission implemented important changes such as:
raising the price of the boat tolls, also saving $40 million by job reductions (31% of the
American employees decided to do voluntary retirements and another 34% by
downsizing), and finally in order to maximize its revenues the new Panama Canal
Commission divided the boat traffic into seven categories making each one pay different
charges, plus a separate charge for using the locomotives that lead the ship through the
Panama Canal. As a result, those cuts help to achieve the $10 million payment
stipulation to pay to the United States in the treaty, also to increase the profit margin
from 5% by late 1970 to 20% during the 80s. Above all, it was clear that the interest and
the strong motivation that Panama had demonstrated since they took partial control, by
the 80s, and then total control, by 1999, of the Canal. According to Maurer p. 312, by
2000 the Panama Canal contribution to the Panama National Treasury was $167 million
and by 2008 had risen considerably to $701 million of American dollars. By these
figures the Panama Canal became a profitable business for their shareholders and the
people of Panama. In addition, it is important to point out that without all these
strategical changes it would not be possible for Panama to run the Panama Canal
correctly. However, Panamanian demonstrated the ability of managing the Canal
successfully, overcoming the fears in some Americans that do not believe or trust in the
Panama Canal administration. Panama annually put millions of dollars in training
programs, to coach workers in order to offer an optimum maintenance and operation of
the Canal 24/7.

Before going through my final conclusion, for Panama the effects after receiving
the Panama Canal have been growing in many positive aspects. However, one of the
most important projects under the Panama Canal Administration will be the building of a
third set of lock. In 2006, Panamanian populations were to referendum and vote in pro
for the construction of three new set of locks. Since 2007, the new expansion project
has been developing a new Canal, in order to allow Post Panama Boats that do not fit in
the actual locks (Maurer, 329). Today Panama has an optimistic point of view of the
world’s economy. Despite the economy depression of some countries in the world, the
Canal Administration is taking advantage, for example of the Chinese economy, that is
actually growing and exporting a great number of inputs through the Canal, among
 Quintero 10

others (Maurer, 331); hence the actual President Ricardo Martinelli is taking the Canal
as an important resource to improve the economy in his country.

To recap, the Carter – Torrijos treaty brought a serial of effects for both countries,
for the United States, it is my opinion that they have much to regrets for giving away the
Panama Canal. Also, by Carter's decision a lot of Americans remain doubtful about
what the real reason behind the United Stated letting go the Canal. During a recently
interview with CNN, real estate tycoon Donald Trump was quoted as saying, "it was a
good deal for Panama, but Jimmy Carter was still an idiot and it was a bad deal for the
US" (http://www.panama guide.com). Evidently, for Panamanians this comment raised
different opinions, and indeed, was an American's regretful feeling about the handing
over of such an important and strategic business in the world. Moreover, absence of
American military in Panama is actually displayed to a great extent by the numerous
abandoned building in the Canal Zone. As well as an inversion not only in the Panama
Canal itself, but also in assets into the Canal Zone properties, were the higher cost that
the United Stated had to leave off in territory Panamanian. Since the inception of the
treaty, Panama decisively took action and today, is responsible for the complete
management of the Canal. Much of the Panamanian labor force perished during the
construction, and although their efforts have gone through history without recognition or
merit, our nation is grateful with who developed. Indeed, Panamanian thankfulness is
and will be showing by the assurance of Panama Canal efficiency and services
worldwide. Indeed, Panama is still grateful to be operating such a landmark piece of
heritage.
 Quintero 11

La Prensa/Archivo, Panama local news Paper

Andrew Tonlett cried, in a girl friend accompany, at the steps of the
Administration Building, while the United Stated flag was lowered for the
last time in Panama.

http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2000/01/08/sabado/trasfondo.html

La Prensa/Archivo, Panama local news Paper

The mutual signing between the U.S.A. and Panama. The
President of the United Stated in 1977, Jimmy Carter (Left); the
OEA General Secretary, Alejandro Orfila (center). And the
Panama Lieder Omar Torrijos Herrera, during the treaty act of
hand over the Panama Canal.
http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2000/01/05/miercoles/trasfondo.html

Photo Panama Canal Authority. (files).

President Jimmy Carter giving the speech during the act of
Panama Canal Transition on December 4, 1999
http://www.pancanal.com/esp/ctransition/eventos/photos-
14dic.html

Photo Panama Canal Authority. (files).

Panamanian President in 1999 Mireya Moscoso and American
former President Jimmy Carter in the formal act for the Panama
Canal transition.
http://www.pancanal.com/esp/ctransition/eventos/mireya-
carter4.jpg
 Quintero 12

Photos Panama Canal Authority. (files).

Picture of the Panamanian celebration with the official transfer on December 31, 1999.
http://www.pancanal.com/esp/ctransition/eventos/photos-31dic.html
 Quintero 13

Works Cited

Clymer, Adam. Drawing the Line at the Big Ditch: The Panama Canal Treaties
and the Rise of the Right. Kansas: University of Kansas, 2008. Print.

Government Document. Future of U.S. Military Presence in Panama.

Washington: US. Government Printing Office, 1997. Print.

Lindsay – Poland, John. Emperors in the Jungle: The Hidden History of the U.S.
in Panama. United State of America: Duke University Press, 2033. Print.

Maurer, Noel and Yu Carlos. The Big Ditch: How America Took, Built, Ran and
Ultimately Gave Away the Panama Canal. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press,
2011. Print

Winner, Don. “Donald Trump: I was not criticizing Panama”. Panama Guide.
Wednesday, March 16 2011 11:15 AM ED. http://www.panama
guide.com/article.php/20110316111541195