Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    RE. .0 > Is Panama our next Vietnam?
    
      No, but it could be our next Grenada.
    

    Mary,
    
    I have been fairly busy and have not had a chance to look too deeply
    into the current state of affairs between the U.S. and Panama. I
    have been catching little bits and pieces here and there on radio
    and TV news.
    
    Whatever the sins of Noriega, the U.S. stance is somewhat hypocritical.
    The U.S. has supported the most brutal of regimes and still does
    so. It has nothing to do with whether there are elections or whether
    they have been rigged or even if the majority does not even have the
    right to vote as in S. Africa. And the U.S. has had its own electoral
    scandals. Just look at Cook County during the 1960 presidential
    election.
    
    The drug indictment and the latest election results is just a smoke
    screen. The U.S. is not happy over the regimes recent refusal to
    cooperate in the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government.
    
    George Bush himself has been repeatedly linked with drug smuggling
    operations. His and the CIA's prior connection with Noriega attests
    to this. The Iran/contra investigation brought out a major connection
    between the covert activities of the Unites States and the drug
    smugglers, including to finance U.S. sponsored operations.
    
    We should demand that the U.S. not interfere with the affairs of
    other countries.
    
    Les

    
    
    RE:.2
      
      Les, how do you feel about Cuba not letting anybody vote. Also,
    are you in favor of government mandated sanctions against S.Africa?
    

    . . . wasn't there a canal or something down there that might be
    considered vital to our interests?

    Les does not subscribe to the Monroe Doctrine.
    
    Mary-
    
     The reason troops have been sent is because there are 50,000 Americans
    down there and violence has been rising with tensions. In order to
    place the US at a strategic place to be prepared for action if
    necessary, we have sent troops into the area. Since many American lives
    are at stake, and the press and the American people would go wild if
    there were some sort of calamity, the president has taken steps to
    ensure that the security of the Americans in Panama is taken care of in
    the best means available.
    
    The Doctah

    re .3
    
>   Les, how do you feel about Cuba not letting anybody vote.
    
    People do vote in Cuba.
    
>   Also are you in favor of government mandated sanctions against
>   S.Africa?
    
    I am in favor of the whole of international civility carrying out
    effective sanctions against S. Africa. The major organizations that
    represent the majority of the people in S. Africa support sanctions.
    
    The U.S. in its so called sanctions against S Africa named the ANC
    as terrorists. This is an attack on and not a support to the population
    of S Africa. The U.S. says that sanctions hurt the Blacks in S Africa.
    The Blacks in S Africa know that and they still support the sanctions.
    The U.S. attacks the supporters of the sanctions.
    
    I do not support the U.S. going in and removing Botha and his gang
    of thugs. I do not trust the motivations of the U.S. government.
    
    I also do not trust the motivations of the U.S. government in Panama
    or even in the U.S.
    
    Les

Note 593.4
ROLL::BEFUMO 
    
   > . . . wasn't there a canal or something down there that might be
   > considered vital to our interests?

    The news report last night said that most shipping is now being
    done by trucks, that the new ships are too big to fit through
    the canal and that it really isn't necessary to our shipping 
    interests anymore.  
    
    
    Note 593.5  
    WAHOO::LEVESQUE 
    
    
    > The reason troops have been sent is because there are 50,000 Americans
    >down there and violence has been rising with tensions. In order to
    >place the US at a strategic place to be prepared for action if
    >necessary, we have sent troops into the area. Since many American lives
    >are at stake, and the press and the American people would go wild if
    >there were some sort of calamity, the president has taken steps to
    >ensure that the security of the Americans in Panama is taken care of in
    >the best means available.
    
    Then why don't they just order all Americans home, like they did
    in Iran and close up the embassy?
    

    Mary    

        

    Les,
    
    Do they have a choice of people to vote for or is it the rubber
    stamp type of thing that until recently occured in Russia?
    
    Bonnie

    re .8 (Bonnie)
    
    They have lots of choices. But the big debates are over issues and
    performance. They have a representative democracy.
    
    Everybody asks why Fidel Castro does not run for re-election or just
    step down or whatever. Fidel's major role in Cuban society is that
    he is a leader and a leader with a lot of experience. but he is
    not a dictator. I do not believe that Fidel has very much official
    power. He has been overruled by the party many times, including
    on very important fundamental issues.
    
    His power is in understanding the situations, his power of persuasion,
    and his great energy and industry. He is also very patient.
    
    But Fidel is not the only leader in Cuba. There are many that
    contribute and lead.
    
    Also the roles of the party and that of the government are different.
    The government's is essentially an administrative function. The party's
    is essentially a leadership and political motivation function.
    
    Fidel also holds a, pretty much, ceremonial position in the government.
    
    The big difference between Cuba and the Soviet Union is that the
    party in Cuba encourages the people to get politically involved
    and to become leaders. In the party the recruitment and promotion
    is based on reflecting society. They want the party to be mostly
    workers, to be 50% women, youthful, and be representative of the ethnic
    composition of society.
    
    In the Soviet Union, there is very little or no separation of the
    party and the government and both are a place for the privileged.
    
    Les

>    Then why don't they just order all Americans home, like they did
>    in Iran and close up the embassy?

That would seem to be massive overkill, given the number of Americans in
Panama (far more than were in Iran at the end) and the degree of direct 
animosity towards Americans in Panama (from what I've heard, relatively few
incidents so far). I don't have any figures for the number of Americans
there, but U.S. troops in the Canal Zone outnumber the entire Panamanian
army (so I heard). Pulling them out would be (1) an extremely expensive
undertaking, (2) terrible publicity, and (3) in violation of the treaty
with Panama in regards to the Canal (I'm guessing on #3).

Obviously, the stated purpose (protecting American interests) is not the
whole story. This kind of troop movement is also commonly used as visible
muscle-flexing, and is clearly intended to rally support among the anti-
Noriega groups both in Panama and in neighboring countries.

There's some pretty fancy footwork going on.

    "...order all Americans home..."
    
    Kind of a drastic step, wouldn't you say?  I'm not and have only
    very seldom been a US citizen abroad, but I don't think I'd necessarily
    react real well to being told to shut down my place of business
    and abandon my assets, or my schooling, or my art, or whatever-I-
    as-a-private-citizen-happened-to-be-doing overseas, just because
    some politicians let things get out of hand.  (Notice I haven't
    said which politicians I think are responsible for the mess, nor
    do I intend to.)
    
    Secondly, abandoning the canal would be a dangerous step.  One of
    the things that we get by controlling the canal is rights-of-passage
    for our navy.  People are real concerned over Lehman's attempt to
    build a 600-ship navy, but the fact is that if we couldn't count
    on the canal as a shortcut, we'd need an even BIGGER navy...to meet
    our current commitments to our allies.  This isn't the place to
    discuss those commitments or whether we should do with our navy
    what we do...as long as we're on the hook to do with that navy all
    the things we are, we'd better not cut and run from the best shortcut
    on the globe.  Not without at least THINKING about what it would
    mean to the rest of the globe if someone shut down that shortcut.
    
    Thoughtful responses welcomed.  I don't have time for flames anymore.
    
    DougO

Bush has been considered a whimp by the media.  To prove he's not, he
sent 2000 troops to Panama where they will "insist on their treaty
rights" by driving around the countryside.

With a little luck, some kid will throw a stone at a truck.

We will then have a genuine (maybe even filmed for tv) Gulf Of Tonkin
incident.

Bush can then send more troops.  That way, nobody will think he's a weenie.

-----

What I like about Central American politics right now is that the only
country cooperating with our Drug Enforcement people is Nicaragua.
I'm sure this pleases the State Department no end.  

Martin.

from the Militant, May 19, 1989

Protest needed as U.S. gov't prepares Panama invasion

Panama gov't warns of U.S. threat

BY CINDY JAQUITH

	PANAMA CITY, Panama, May 11 - The Electoral Tribunal here has
nullified the May 7 presidential elections.

	A tribunal statement released late last night said, "The normal
electoral process was altered by the obstructionist action of many foreigners
brought here by national or international political forces without being
invited by the Electoral Tribunal. Their obvious goal was to promote the
idea that there was electoral fraud, which had been proclaimed internationally
by the U.S. authorities way in advance of the actual elections."

	The tribunal also said that "the removal of ballots from voting places,
vote-buying by political parties, and especially the lack of accurate vote
tally reports made it impossible to declare which candidate had won."

	Also on May 10, a small demonstration by the U.S.-supported Democratic
Alliance for Civil Opposition (ADOC) candidates resulted in violence.

	Panama's Defense Forces reported five soldiers or police wounded by
gunshots or otherwise injured.

	ADOC reported that its presidential candidate, Guillermo Endara,
received an injury to the head requiring stitches and that an ADOC bodyguard
was killed.

	The Defense Forces said that the march was designed in advance to
result in deaths, as part of an international media campaign to isolate the
Panamanian government.

	At a May 8 news conference Panamanian Foreign Minister Jorge Ritter
had warned that the U.S. government is trying to "create a climate favorable
to military intervention" against Panama.

	Ritter's warning came shortly after a group of U.S. congresspeople
sent here by President George Bush denounced Panama's May 7 presidential
elections as "fraudulent."

	Sen. Robert Graham (D.-Fla.) told reporters, "The United States should
consider the use of force" to remove Panama's legitimate government. Sen.
Connie Mack (R.-Fla.) said he would introduce legislation "calling for the
abrogation of the Panama Canal treaty," which requires Washington to move
its 13 military bases off Panamanian soil by the year 2000 and turn over
to Panamanian control.

	Former U.S. president James Carter, also observing the elections,
called for "a worldwide outcry against the dictator who has stolen this
election."

	The charges of vote fraud by Washington began weeks before the elections
to choose a president, two vice-presidents, and legislators. These accusations
have intensified to demands for military intervention now that the voting
is over and a Gallup exit poll showed the Coalition for National Liberation
(COLINA) ticket winning 51 percent to 44 percent for ADOC.

`Uprooting remnant of colonial enclave'

	The COLINA platform calls for "uprooting the remnant of the colonial
enclave' in Panama, the U.S.-controlled canal zone, by carrying out the canal
treaty that "guarantees the civilian and military departure of the United
States from the Republic of Panama."

	The ADOC campaign, which received $19 million in U.S. government
funds, vows to "remove General [Manuel] Noriega from power." General Noriega,
head of this country's Defense Forces, has vowed to make sure the canal treaty
is carried out and Panama wins sovereignty over its territory in the canal
zone.

	Washington launched a drive to force him out of power in 1986 after
he rejected a proposal from John Poindexter of the U.S. National Security
Council to allow the training of contras attacking Nicaragua to take place
in Panama.

	Both COLINA presidential candidate Carlos Duque and ADOC candidate
Guillermo Endara claim they have won the election. As of this writing, only
partial vote tallies have been reported by Panama's electoral tribunal. They
show Duque leading in towns outside Panama City.

	Seeking to maximize pressure on the Panamanian government and Defense
Forces, the U.S. military nerve center here in the canal zone, known as the
Southern Command, has placed all GIs on alert. U.S. Air Force jets have been
violating Panamanian air space over the city of Chorrera.

	Bush's congressional delegation to observe the elections entered the
country illegally through Howard Air Force Base in the canal zone, without
Panamanian visas.   

Southern Command Network

	Through the Southern Command Network, which broadcasts on radio and
TV throughout the country, reports are aired 24 hours a day charging vote
fraud in the elections and predicting "trouble in the streets."

	On May 9 Souther Command Network announce that a "big protest" by
Panamanian opposition forces was taking place in the downtown area here.
A visit to the intersection where the demonstration was supposed to be
happening revealed no protest at all.

	Southern Command Network is also broadcasting "Community News Updates"
to GIs and their families aimed at heightening tensions between U.S. citizens
and the Panamanian people. A typical broadcast says, "Reduce visibility.
Civil disturbance is possible. Stay near your home." The station is also
airing ads explaining how GIs should behave if captured as prisoners of war.

	On the eve of the elections, both the officer corps of the Defense
Forces and Panamanian President Manual Solis Palma addressed the nation over
television.
	
	Solis urged Panamanians to "use good sense and don't incite violence
or confrontation." The Defense Forces' statement said, "we must avoid internal
fights between brothers and not fall to provocations." It pledged to continue
the struggle for "the recovery of full sovereignty over all our territory."

	The Panamanian government has mobilized the Dignity Battalions, the
popular militias set up in 1988 as U.S. threats of military action escalated.

Solidarity with Panama

	In neighboring Nicaragua, the government has issued a statement of
solidarity with Panama and placed the Sandanista People's Army on maximum
alert in the event of U.S. military intervention here.

	The Foreign Ministry of Cuba released a statement condemning
Washington's open interference in the electoral process of another nation
and urging of international denunciation of the U.S. role.

	Opposition by Panamanians to the U.S. presence on their territory
and intervention in their political affairs dates back decades. In 1968 a
group led by Gen. Omar Torrijos overthrew the pro-U.S. government of Arnulfo
Arias.

	Workers and peasants won a series of social and economic reforms and
successfully forced signing of the canal treaty. From 1968 to 1986, the
number of public schools in Panama increased from 1,851 to 3,187. The infant
mortality rate dropped from 40 to 19.4 percent. The number of people receiving
Social Security rose from 221,000 to 1.37 million, in a country of 2.2
million.

	The Torrijos government established friendly relations with Cuba and
aided the Sandanista National Liberation Front in its battles to overthrow
the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua. Torrijos died in a mysterious
airplane crash in 1981, as the U.S.-financed contra war against Nicaragua
was beginning. The Panamanian government since has favored a negotiated
political settlement to the contra war and opposed U.S. military intervention
in Nicaragua.

	As the contras began losing the war and Noriega refused to involve
Panama in their training, Washington sought to overthrow the Panamanian
government, first by branding Noriega an international drug dealer, then
by imposing stiff economic sanctions.

	Washington froze $56 million in Panamanian funds in U.S. banks. It
eliminated Panama's quota for sugar imports to the United States and U.S.
aid to the Panamanian government. U.S. companies in Panama were ordered not
to pay taxes, and Washington stopped paying fees to Panama for the use of the
canal.

	According to a study by Panama's Ministry of Planning and Economic
Policy, the sanctions have had a severe effect on the livelihood of working
people here:

    *	U.S. companies have stopped paying Social Security for their Panamanian
employees.

     *	The country's Gross National Product was 19.3 percent lower in 1988
than 1987.

     *	Food imports, on which the country is dependent, dropped 30 percent
in 1988.

     *	Official unemployment rates went from 11.8 percent to 16 percent
nationally and 20 percent in Panama City.

     *	The percent of the population living at or below the official poverty
level went from 33 percent to 40 percent in 1988, with one-third of the
impoverished living in Panama City.

	It was in this context of a deteriorating economic and Washington's
military threats that Panamanians went to the polls May 7.

	Eight political parties here backed the COLINA ticket of Carlos
Duque: the Revolutionary Democratic Party, Panamanian Nationalist Revolutionary
Party, Labor Party, Liberal Party, Democratic Workers Party, and the National
Action Party.

	Three parties that trace their roots to the Arias regime overthrown
in 1968 backed the ADOC ticket: the Liberal Authentic party, Christian
Democratic Party, and Liberal Republican Nationalist Movement. A third
presidential ticket, also pro-Arias, was fielded by the Authentic Panamanian
Nationalist Party.

	At five polling places visited in Panama City, the majority of those
interviewed favored Panamanian control of the canal even though a substantial
number said they were voting for the ADOC ticket.

	An industrial mechanic backing ADOC said, "We have a foreign debt
that's too big, and the people aren't making any gains." He predicted that
"the canal is going to be Panamanian" and said he apposed U.S. government
funding of the opposition.

	A woman who sells shellfish for a living complained, "I can't sell
a third of what I used to" and said she was going to vote for ADOC because
"we need a change." An unemployed man backing the ADOC said he thought "There
are Panamanians capable of administering the canal."

	"I'm Panamanian and I want my canal!" said a cashier was voting for
COLINA. A pro-Colina waitress criticized the U.S. government for stopping
payment of canal fees to Panama. A business manager planning to vote for
COLINA said, "I don't agree with U.S. interference in our affairs."

	Regardless of their party, most voters interviewed held to the view
pro-ADOC housewife: "We don't want any blood to be shed here." Unusual was
the opinion of a taxi driver supporting the ADOC who said, "What the U.S.
government is doing is just and necessary."

	While some ADOC supporters expressed fears of vote fraud or resentment
of the Panamanian military, only a tiny minority turned out May 8 for a
demonstration called by ADOC to claim election fraud and demand the ouster
of General Noriega.

	Publicized for several days, including extensively by the Southern
Command Network, the march had 5,000 people at its peak. Most appeared to be
middle class or wealthy Panamanians, with very few workers visible.

	"Now you'll see the repression we suffer," a march organizer told
reporters as the demonstration assembled. But there were no members of the
Defense Forces, or violent incidents, along the march rout, even though some
demonstrators had brought sticks, iron bars, or baseball bats.

	The marchers proceeded to the Atlapa Convention Center, headquarters
of the country's Electoral Tribunal.

	Outside the center, they were told by the Defense Forces they could
not enter the area. Some ADOC demonstrators tried to provoke Defense Forces
troops by chanting insults against Noriega or burning the flag of the
Revolutionary Democratic Party. The marchers, most of whom were light-skinned,
also screamed "Illiterates!" at the soldiers, the majority of whom were Black
or dark-skinned.

	The troops remained disciplined, however, and did not respond to the
taunting. One incident did occur when unidentified persons fired about a
dozen shots, wounding a cameraman for a local Panamanian TV station.

	After about two hours most of the marchers dispersed.

	Reporters from other countries covering the march encountered no
harassment from the Defense Forces and freely interviewed ADOC supporters.
Journalists were encouraged by the government to go to the march and see
how the demonstrators behaved.

	In similar fashion, the international media has had free access to
offices of the opposition and voting places.

	The government has closed down several newspapers or radio and TV
stations owned by the opposition for failure to comply with press laws
concerning the airing of government announcements or the use of the media
to threaten public order. During the windup of the election campaign, however,
newspapers and television gave equal time to statements and advertisements
by all three presidential tickets.

	"The image the international press is presenting of Panama does not
coincide with the reality," noted Panamanian President Solis. "The
disinformation campaign organized by the U.S. State Department appears daily
on television screens and in the newspapers in the United States. It is
designed to prepare world public opinion to accept a possible direct
intervention against the Republic of Panama."

	Interesting that this article gives strong support for an
	aledged drug dealer. Also interesting is no mentian of the
	beating of opposition leaders by the so-called militia.
	Interesting that eyewitness accounts of Panamanian solders
	voting early and often (being trucked from poll to poll) are
	ignored. Interesting thta oposition exit polls showing overwelming
	support of the oposition are ignored. No mention of the fact
	that the government changed it's mind about getting tamper-proof
	voting machines just after several polls showed them as being
	far far behind. INteresting that the US who built the canal that
	is not given any credit for "Panama's canal".

	I wish the anti-capitalists would make up their mind about Noreaga.
	Is he a drug dealing bad person who should be removed or a hero
	of the people? If a drug dealing bad person than you should support
	the will of the people of Panama (or at least the best interests
	of the people) and support efforts to get rid of him. If he is a
	hero of the people than why bash Bush for past associations (if any)
	with the man? You can't have it both ways.

	The canal can not be used for the Navy's largest ships. That is why
	we have a two ocean navy. On the other hand a lot of navy ships
	can fit through. Also there is still a lot of cargo ships that
	use it. I suspect that a lot of cargo with non-US destinations
	still goes through and I always thought that helping other countries
	by keeping the canal open was a good thing. Perhaps I'm wrong?

	BTW, Panama does not own the canal yet. It is still a US asset.
	There are also a lot of US citizens who live and work their. Given
	the Panamanian governments documented bad treatment of it's own
	people I for one am not surprised that the US government doesn't
	trust them to protect our people.

			Alfred

    I'm seeing the Panama issue from a slightly different point of view.
    
    Many of the 50,000 or so Americans in Panama are the families of
    the soldiers who are stationed there, with their pets, cars, household
    goods, etc, plus the civilians who provide support services (teachers,
    health-care personnel).  While it is possible to move all of these
    people out quickly, it would be difficult.  It would mean each person
    takes *one suitcase* - everything else is abandoned, including loved
    pets.  Can you imagine explaining to a four-year old why his animals
    are being left to live or die on their own!  They will protect the
    people there as long as possible, in hopes that it will get better,
    if only long enough to move them back to the States in an orderly
    fashion.  
    
    The primary reason I am watching all this *very* closely, and have
    many details available, is that my pregnant daughter, and her four-year
    old are among those "military dependents" in Panama.  And let me
    tell you *I* am *scared*.
    
    I am glad I didn't see this note on Friday, as I had been unable
    to contact her in Panama all week, and the tears were *real* close.
    But I did get thru on Fri nite (well, Sat at 1 am).  She said that
    things are actually real quiet there, but that tensions are running
    high, and people are apt to over-react to anything.  There is also
    a great deal of crowding on the post that she is on, as all of the
    people who lived off-post have been brought on.  There is another
    family now living with them, staying in her son's room.  Naturally
    these people are worried, as they don't know if their household
    will be untouched when they get back to it, but at least they are
    close, and will have a *chance* to get their stuff!
    
    Diana (my daughter) also said that the soldiers who were sent down
    are heavily patrolling the jungle between the post and the nearest 
    civilian areas.  Unless things get much worse, they do not anticipate
    sending everyone home, but *they have gotten ready to do so*.  The
    stores are still open, but the schools are not.  They want the children
    at home to facilitate a quick evacuation.  Of course the kids are
    thrilled - school closed just before finals were to start!
    
    Anyway, please keep these families in your thoughts (and prayers!),
    and hope for the best - a calm resolution and restoration of peace.
    And remember, it isn't just soldiers there, but innocent children
    also who will get caught in the cross-fire!
    
    Linda

Note 593.10                
STAR::BECK 

>That would seem to be massive overkill, given the number of Americans in
>Panama (far more than were in Iran at the end) and the degree of direct 
>animosity towards Americans in Panama (from what I've heard, relatively few
>incidents so far). I don't have any figures for the number of Americans
>there, but U.S. troops in the Canal Zone outnumber the entire Panamanian
>army (so I heard). Pulling them out would be (1) an extremely expensive
>undertaking, (2) terrible publicity, and (3) in violation of the treaty
>with Panama in regards to the Canal (I'm guessing on #3).

(1)The Republicans have to realize that some things are more important than 
   money.

(2)Some things are more important than publicity.

(3) Nothing in our treaty says that we are allowed to interfere in their
    elections (the CIA did pour 10 million into Panama to influence the 
    election), and the CIA did use Noriega to rig the equally fraudulent
    1984 elections in favor of Barletta (with Washington's approval).


>Obviously, the stated purpose (protecting American interests) is not the
>whole story. This kind of troop movement is also commonly used as visible
>muscle-flexing, and is clearly intended to rally support among the anti-
>Noriega groups both in Panama and in neighboring countries.
>There's some pretty fancy footwork going on.

Agreed.  

The Independent newspaper in London noted in an editorial the other day,

"Americans were happy enough to make use of Gen. Noriega until his involvement
in drug trafficking - long suspected - came into the open in 1987.

He was recruited by the CIA in 1966; supplied the agency with intelligence 
on Cuba and the Sandinista government in Nicaragua; and, with Washington's
approval, rigged the equally fraudulent 1984 elections in favor of Nicolar
Ardito Barletta.  Only when legal investigations in the United States yielded
further evidence of the general's involvement in drug-trafficking and the
laundering of illicit funds did President Reagan's administration decide he had
become a liability."


Note 593.11                
SKYLRK::OLSON 

    
>    Kind of a drastic step, wouldn't you say?  I'm not and have only
>    very seldom been a US citizen abroad, but I don't think I'd necessarily
>    react real well to being told to shut down my place of business
>    and abandon my assets, or my schooling, or my art, or whatever-I-
>    as-a-private-citizen-happened-to-be-doing overseas, just because
>    some politicians let things get out of hand.  (Notice I haven't
>    said which politicians I think are responsible for the mess, nor
>    do I intend to.)

No, I wouldn't.  The Republicans are going to get us into another war and
no one seems to know why.  

I am old enough to remember the horror of Vietnam and I will not allow my 
sons to die to protect "a place of business, assets, or 
whatever-you-as-a-private-citizen-happen-to-be-doing overseas".   The
present and past administrations have had a long and dubious association
with Noriega.  Our kids are not going to pay for their disrespect for
the law, lack of integrity, and CIA political manipulation.

I'll tell you this... if Bush turns this into a war, it will not be just
college kids out in the streets this time.  There will be (at least one)
middle aged woman out there who remembers Vietnam and what it did to
my cousin and friends.    


>    Secondly, abandoning the canal would be a dangerous step.  One of
>    the things that we get by controlling the canal is rights-of-passage
>    for our navy.  People are real concerned over Lehman's attempt to
>    build a 600-ship navy, but the fact is that if we couldn't count
>    on the canal as a shortcut, we'd need an even BIGGER navy...to meet
>    our current commitments to our allies.  

We are not the world's policemen.  The canal isn't big enough for today's
ships anyway.  And its used far more by the Japanese than by us.  

>   This isn't the place to discuss those commitments or whether we should 
>    do with our navy what we do...as long as we're on the hook to do with 
>    that navy all the things we are, we'd better not cut and run from the best shortcut
>    on the globe.  Not without at least THINKING about what it would
>    mean to the rest of the globe if someone shut down that shortcut.
    
This is the place to discuss anything we want to discuss.  We are not on
the hook with anything.  Politicians only keep the commitments they want
to keep anyway.  We don't use the canal much anymore and if the rest of
the Globe wants it let them send their kids down there to get it back.


Note 593.16
CASV05::LUST
    
Linda, my heart goes out to you.  Certainly we should do whatever we
must to protect our own people.  I would hate to think that the current
administration would deliberately put our own military personnel in
danger in order to justify the invasion of another country.  
We should bring your daughter and the other Americans home now, where
they belong, where they are truly safe.                            
                                      
    
    
    Mary

    
    RE: .17 >the Republicans are going to get us into another war.
    
      If history is any guide, I'd be more worried if a Demorcratic
    administration was in charge. After all, EVERY war the U.S. has
    been in during this century has been entered into during a
    Demorcratic administration. IMHO, the only one that was truely
    justified was WWII.
    
      Also, the steps President Bush has taken have received broad
    bi-partisan support in Congress. For example, I saw the Senate
    Majority leader on TV Sunday. (Dem. from Maine, I forget his 
    name) and he said the Demorcratic leadership supports President
    Bush. He thought Bush was being prudent and reasonable with
    his current policy. 
      So please, if you're going to do some bashing, bash both parties.

    re .18
    
    Yes, we should hold both parties responsible for the wars.
    
>   Also, the steps President Bush has taken have received broad
>   bi-partisan support in Congress. For example, I saw the Senate
>   Majority leader on TV Sunday. (Dem. from Maine, I forget his 
>   name) and he said the Demorcratic leadership supports President
>   Bush. He thought Bush was being prudent and reasonable with
>   his current policy.
    
    Are these the same *two* parties that gave near-unanomous support
    to the Tonkin Gulf resolution?
    
    Les 
      

    
    RE: .19
    
      Yes, the same two parties that got us into that stinking war.
    Stupidity knows no political bounderies.

Note 593.15                
CVG::THOMPSON 


>	Interesting that this article gives strong support for an
>	aledged drug dealer. 

He was doing that for/with the CIA and Bush wasn't he?  His salary was 
200,000/year.  Bush was CIA Director during the time Noriega was on the
payroll.  For all we know, he still is on the CIA payroll.

>        Also interesting is no mentian of the
>	beating of opposition leaders by the so-called militia.
>	Interesting that eyewitness accounts of Panamanian solders
>	voting early and often (being trucked from poll to poll) are
>	ignored. Interesting thta oposition exit polls showing overwelming
>	support of the oposition are ignored. No mention of the fact
>	that the government changed it's mind about getting tamper-proof
>	voting machines just after several polls showed them as being
>	far far behind. 

Since the 1984 election was also rigged by Noriega with Washington's approval,
why do you expect outrage when the same thing happens again?  Since we are
consistantly deceived and lied to by our government, do you wonder that we 
question? 
    
>INteresting that the US who built the canal that is not given any credit for 
>"Panama's canal".

I don't understand.  What do you mean "not given any credit"?  
Do you want Panama's people to say "nice canal folks... now please get out of 
our country and leave us alone".

>	I wish the anti-capitalists would make up their mind about Noreaga.
>	Is he a drug dealing bad person who should be removed or a hero
>	of the people? 

I don't recall anyone calling him a hero.  What he was called was a former CIA
employee who worked for the CIA and for Bush and participated in the Iran/Contra
incident.

>        If a drug dealing bad person than you should support
>	the will of the people of Panama (or at least the best interests
>	of the people) and support efforts to get rid of him. If he is a
>	hero of the people than why bash Bush for past associations (if any)
>	with the man? You can't have it both ways.

We don't know what the will of the Panama people is.  We are lied to so often
by our own government that we can not take what we are told at face value.

    America is not in a position to decide what is in the "best interests of" 
Panama's people ... thats not how a democracy works.  In a democracy, the
people of Panama decide for themselves what is in their best interests.

No one has called Noriega a hero here except you.

>	The canal can not be used for the Navy's largest ships. That is why
>	we have a two ocean navy. On the other hand a lot of navy ships
>	can fit through. Also there is still a lot of cargo ships that
>	use it. I suspect that a lot of cargo with non-US destinations
>	still goes through and I always thought that helping other countries
>	by keeping the canal open was a good thing. Perhaps I'm wrong?

If the CIA created this situation to justify breaking our agreement with
Panama then yes.. you are wrong.

>	BTW, Panama does not own the canal yet. It is still a US asset.
>	There are also a lot of US citizens who live and work their. Given
>	the Panamanian governments documented bad treatment of it's own
>	people I for one am not surprised that the US government doesn't
>	trust them to protect our people.

Well Alfred, there were US citizens living and working in Iran too.  They
came home.  Our people should come home from Panama now too.

Mary
    

    
      According to today's Boston Globe, the Bush administration has
    made arrangements to transport any civilians who want to leave
    Panama, back to the U.S.

>>	Interesting that this article gives strong support for an
>>	aledged drug dealer. 
>
>He was doing that for/with the CIA and Bush wasn't he?  His salary was 
>200,000/year.  

    	So you say. I have my doubts about that.

>Since the 1984 election was also rigged by Noriega with Washington's approval,
>why do you expect outrage when the same thing happens again?

    	Please explain. Are you saying that since it happened once we
    	should let it happen again? I believe that election rigging is
    	wrong no matter who does it and should be protested *every* time.

>>INteresting that the US who built the canal that is not given any credit for 
>>"Panama's canal".
>
>I don't understand.  What do you mean "not given any credit"?  

    An occasional "thank you for building the business that accounts for
    2% of our GNP" would be nice. It would also be nice if people didn't
    act as if the canal were a naturally occurring thing that the US didn't
    spend a lot of lives building.

>I don't recall anyone calling him a hero.  What he was called was a former CIA

    	The article posted earlier seemed to be to be highly supportive
    	of the Noreaga government and of the man himself. It appeared to
    	me as treating him as a great person.

>No one has called Noriega a hero here except you.

    	I have not called him a hero. I request that you retract that
    	statement and apologize.

>>	still goes through and I always thought that helping other countries
>>	by keeping the canal open was a good thing. Perhaps I'm wrong?
>
>If the CIA created this situation to justify breaking our agreement with
>Panama then yes.. you are wrong.

    It is wrong to keep a canal open that something like 40% of the trade
    to pacific South America goes through? There is no reason to believe
    that the US is going to break the treaty. Even if it were to do so are
    you saying that starving people in South America and crippling their
    economy is better than an open canal under US ownership? Wow you're
    tough!

>Well Alfred, there were US citizens living and working in Iran too.  They
>came home.  Our people should come home from Panama now too.

    Some of those people spend 444 day in detention because there were
    no troops to protect them while they tried to leave. Also why should
    our people come home? Have they no right to live and work where they
    want to? Have they no right to take what is theirs with them rather
    than abandon it all? The US government has responsibilities *to Panama*
    under the existing treaty that demands that some of those people be
    there. You can't say they should leave *and* that the US should live
    up to it's treaty obligations as the two are mutually contradictory.

    		Alfred

    re .17, Mary-
    
>>  This isn't the place to discuss those commitments or whether we should 
>>  do with our navy what we do...as long as we're on the hook to do with 
>>  that navy all the things we are, we'd better not cut and run from the best
>>  shortcut on the globe.  Not without at least THINKING about what it would
>>  mean to the rest of the globe if someone shut down that shortcut.
>     
> This is the place to discuss anything we want to discuss.  We are not on
> the hook with anything.  Politicians only keep the commitments they want
> to keep anyway.  We don't use the canal much anymore and if the rest of
> the Globe wants it let them send their kids down there to get it back.
    
    Far be it from me to attempt to dissuade you from discussing anything
    you want to.  What I *meant* was that the Panama note didn't deserve
    a rathole on the current role of our navy and our treaty committments
    worldwide, though the fact that such committments exist deserved
    mention in a discussion of abandoning the canal.  The implication
    of my statement about "place" was that a thorough discussion of
    those naval and treaty subjects deserves a new topic.  Forgive my
    brevity.  Rathole away.
    
    DougO

from the Militant, May 19, 1989

U.S. gov't takes aim at canal treaties

BY JUDY WHITE

	PANAMA CITY, Panama - Breaking the 1977 canal treaties between the
United States and Panama is one of Washington's goals in accusing the
government here of electoral fraud.

	The Carter-Torrijos treaties call for the complete withdrawal of
the U.S. presence from this country by Dec. 31, 1999. This would mean
Washington turning over the canal to Panama and dismantling 13 military
bases it has on the 650 square miles that make up the canal zone.

	U.S. bases stretch from the Atlantic to the pacific coasts of
Panama. Among them is the headquarters of the Southern Command, Washington's
intelligence and operations center for all of Latin America. U.S. military
intervention in Central America and the invasions of the Dominican Republic
in 1965 and of Grenada in 1983 were directed from this center.

	Also located in the canal zone is the biggest U.S. air base south
of the Mexican border. Howard Air Force Base controls all of Washington's
aerial operations in Latin America. It is the departure point for spy missions
against Nicaragua.

	Control over multimillion-dollar annual canal revenues and the commerce
associated with the waterway also figure in Washington's reluctance to comply
with the 1977 treaties.

Struggle for sovereignty

	The current stage in the Panamanian peoples struggle for sovereignty
over these resources dates from the mass mobilization that led to the signing
of the treaties between then U.S. President James Carter and Panamanian
Gen. Omar Torrijos. Throughout the 1970s, repeated demonstrations took place
in Panama protesting the U.S. presence.

	The pacts that resulted registered significant advances in the
Panamanian people's struggle for self determination.

     *	Most importantly, they established a timetable for the termination
of U.S. control over the canal. All prior treaties had granted Washington's
rights "in perpetuity."

     *	For the first time, the laws of Panama became applicable within the
canal zone.

     *	Panama regained control over some territory within the enclave.

     *	The treaty reaffirmed the principle of no U.S. intervention in the
internal affairs of Panama.

     *	Provisions were agreed to for the joint participation by Panama and
United States in the defense and administration of the canal during the
period leading up to the year 2000.

     *	Direct payment to the Panamanian government of revenues from the
canal was instituted.

     *	Panamanians got the right to conduct commercial activities in the
area served by the canal.

     *	Special privileges granted to U.S. citizens and canal workers was
ended.

     *	Washington agreed to turn over to Panama educational and sporting
facilities, housing, the railroad, and other real estate in the canal zone.

Constant treaty violations

	However, violations of the 1977 accords by Washington have been
constant and have increased in the last two years as the date for U.S.
withdrawal approaches. They include:  

     *	Placing decision-making power over the canal affairs in the hands
of the U.S. president, State Department, and ambassador to Panama.
    
     *	Discriminating against Panamanians in Job opportunities, wages,
training, and working conditions on the canal.
    
     *	Excluding the Panamanian government from the audit of canal income
that determines the surplus to which Panama has a right.
    
     *	Transfer of canal assets to other U.S. agencies, thus decapitalizing
the waterway.
    
     *	Maintenance by the United States of a special police force in the
enclave, whose existence is designed to provoke violence.
    
     *	Denying Panamanian workers in the zone to celebrate their national
holidays.
    
     *	Periodically increasing the U.S. troop level within the zone without
the agreement of Panamanian authorities. More than 10,000 troops are there
at any given time.
    
     *	Nonpayment to Panama of millions of dollars in revenues owed from
the use of the canal.

re: .18:
      If history is any guide, I'd be more worried if a Demorcratic
    administration was in charge. After all, EVERY war the U.S. has
    been in during this century has been entered into during a
    Demorcratic administration.

Except, of course, Laos, Lebanon, Greneda, Panama, and Nicaragua.

Martin.

    
    
    re .22(?)  I thought that only the military family members were being
               offered `passage' back to the states. From what I heard
               on the news last night, the canal workers who are citizens
               of the U.S. feel like they have been left out of the
               arrangements being offered to the military families.
              
               Anyone else have any info about those Americans in Panama
               who are not military?
    
    ~robin
    

Note 593.23                
CVG::THOMPSON 


>He was doing that for/with the CIA and Bush wasn't he?  His salary was 
>200,000/year.  
>
>    	So you say. I have my doubts about that.

This information came out during Ollie North's trial and John Kerry's 
congressional study.  Its been widely reported in many newspapers.
You may choose not to believe it, we all must make those choices in
this age of televised social conditioning.

>    	Please explain. Are you saying that since it happened once we
>    	should let it happen again? I believe that election rigging is
>    	wrong no matter who does it and should be protested *every* time.

Protest away!  It is one thing to protest a rigged election and quite
another thing to invade another country to attempt to insure that a pro-
American leader gets elected.  

Make all the moral judgement on the situation that you want, but it is not 
our place to ensure that it does not happen again.  Panama is NOT the 
United States.  

>    An occasional "thank you for building the business that accounts for
>    2% of our GNP" would be nice. It would also be nice if people didn't
>    act as if the canal were a naturally occurring thing that the US didn't
>    spend a lot of lives building.

I guess building a canal is a little like being a mother.  One frequently
gets taken for granted._:-)  Such is the nature of reality.... we women are
used to it.

>No one has called Noriega a hero here except you.
>    	I have not called him a hero. I request that you retract that
>    	statement and apologize.

You are the only contributor to use the word "hero" in discussing Noriega
in this notesfile and you have done so several times.  
I will take your request under consideration.

>    It is wrong to keep a canal open that something like 40% of the trade
>    to pacific South America goes through? 

If the canal is so important to South America, then we should turn over
the remainder of our interests in the canal to them.  They don't have
the ties to Noriega that our administration does, they may be in a better
position to deal with him.  Besides, if they are the one's with the vested
interest in the canal, then they should assume responsibility for whatever 
involvement is required.

>    There is no reason to believe
>    that the US is going to break the treaty. Even if it were to do so are
>    you saying that starving people in South America and crippling their
>    economy is better than an open canal under US ownership? Wow you're
>    tough!

Alfred, we Americans are expected to take care of ourselves and the rest
of the world's people are going to have to do the same.  We have starving
people in America and a shaky economy of our own to worry about.  

We cannot be Bleeding Heart Soldiers of Fortune that roam the world solving 
other people's problems while we neglect our own.

>    Some of those people spend 444 day in detention because there were
>    no troops to protect them while they tried to leave. Also why should
>    our people come home? Have they no right to live and work where they
>    want to? 

There are troops there who can stay until our people are home.

The only rights an American citizen has, are those given to him by our
own Constitution.   If an American wants to live and work in another country 
then their rights are tempered by the laws and the reality of that country.

Does the black American think he has a right to live and work in South
Africa without having to deal with the political realities of South Africa?
Does a jewish American believe he can live and work in Palestian if he 
wants to without the ramifications of living under the jurisdiction of a 
different country and different legal system?  

Americans can live and work where they want to, but in making that decision
they must accept responsibility for the ramifications of their individual 
choice.

>    Have they no right to take what is theirs with them rather
>    than abandon it all? 

I'm sure it won't take very long for them to gather up their things.  

>    The US government has responsibilities *to Panama*
>    under the existing treaty that demands that some of those people be
>    there. You can't say they should leave *and* that the US should live
>    up to it's treaty obligations as the two are mutually contradictory.

The US certainly has no treaty obligations that require American citizens
to be endangered.

Listen Alfred... one need only pick up a newspaper to learn that this type
of police action doesn't work.  Look at Israel and Palestine, the United
Kingdom and Northern Ireland, the Soviet Union and Afghanistan.

This is the kind of war that cannot be won.  We cannot just drop one of
our nuclear bombs on an entire country of civilians.  If we get involved
in Panama, we will be creating another situation for ourselves like
Vietnam... it will tear the country apart.

If the CIA engineers global situations that create the Noriegas of the
world, they are responsible... not 18 and 19 year old American boys.
Our sons should not have to pay with their lives for the political, macho,
Rambo games that government agencies get involved in.  We don't have
the resources, the patience, or the desire to play these games anymore.

The American individual is expected to take care of him/her self.  Well
individual responsibility is something everyone has to learn sooner or
later, ... this is as good a time as any for the rest of the world to
learn the same lesson.

Mary

    
      RE: .26
    
    >Except, of course, Laos, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, and Nicaragua
    
      The point I was trying to make was that the Demorcrats like to
    portray themselves as the party of "peace" while claiming that
    the Republican party is full of "warmongers". History has shown
    this to be crock. Both parties have blood on their hands. And if
    you add up the casualties suffered this century, the Demorcrats
    win hands down.
    

    re: .29
    SAFETY::TOOHEY
    
    Point well taken.  I don't see much difference between the two parties
    these days anyway.  
    
    Mary

re .26

>	Except, of course, Laos, Lebanon, Greneda, Panama, and Nicaragua.

	Would it be reasonable for me to ask you to supply the dates
	that Congress passed the resolution declaring war on these 
	countries?

						Tom_K

    re .32 (Tom)
    
>>  Except, of course, Laos, Lebanon, Greneda, Panama, and Nicaragua.

>   Would it be reasonable for me to ask you to supply the dates
>   that Congress passed the resolution declaring war on these 
>   countries?
    
    Right Tom, and you can add Korea and Viet Nam. Since when does
    the U.S. feel the need to declare war to actually go to *war*
    with anyone.
         
    Les

	War is a legal term and this conference is real big on using legal
	terms *only* in the context of it's use as a legal term.

						Tom_K