Canal Transfer Stirring Controversy in Panama : Critics Say U.S. Slow to Provide Needed Training for Waterway’s Operation

The final transfer in 1999 of the Panama Canal from U.S. control is as much a controversy today among Panamanians as it was among Americans nine years ago when the transfer treaties were signed.

At issue among the Panamanians is whether they will be prepared to run the U.S.-built waterway, handle its defense and take over the economic responsibility.

Some argue that, with full control only about 13 years away, time is running out to iron out problems. Others take a strong nationalistic view, blaming the U.S. government and Americans opposed to the transfer for foot-dragging on instruction.

The transfer and its implications frequently are raised during emotional and fiery debates in Panama’s National Assembly.

Buildings Turned Over

Scores of the wood or cinder-block homes in what once was called the Canal Zone already have been turned over to Panama, as have a few military installations, a U.S. post office branch and the white-columned district courthouse.

On Dec. 31, 1999, everything goes--the American workers and the U.S. troops, about 10,000 of them.

Built and staffed by Americans since the beginning of the century, many of the U.S. residents in 1977 felt a strong sense of anger at losing their enclave.

But similar and perhaps stronger feelings were expressed by the Panamanians.

Anti-American Feelings

A strong sense of nationalism and increasing anti-American sentiments led to the 1977 treaties, signed by then-President Jimmy Carter and Panama’s Gen. Omar Torrijos, the strongman who later died in an air crash.

The treaties give Panama authority over the 50-mile canal, which opened in 1914, and the area that had been treated as sovereign U.S. territory since that time.

The treaties now are cited by supporters of Panama’s current strongman, Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, as the reason that reports are circulating in the United States about his alleged involvement in drug trafficking, money laundering and other illicit activities.

Noriega’s supporters contend that U.S. opponents of the canal treaties are looking for an excuse not to turn it over to Panama.

Concern for Details

Here in the old Canal Zone, there is more concern about the details of preparing for the turnover.

“Things are still uncertain. There’s no real plan on the Panamanian side,” said Henry Twohy, president of the Pacific Residents Advisory Committee and a lifelong resident of the Canal Zone. “What Panama needs to do is set up a bona fide civil service-type of system to assure (that) they have the people and that they have a future.”

Fernando Manfredo, the Panamanian deputy administrator for the Panama Canal Commission, urges his government to establish such mechanisms as job security, salary protections and incentives.

The commission is a U.S. agency set up to maintain the canal and help with the transfer. In 1990 the American administrator steps down in favor of a Panamanian.

No Defining Laws

“Up to the present time there has been no Panamanian legislation defining the duties and responsibilities of the deputy administrator or those of the Panamanian administrator who will follow,” Manfredo told the National Assembly recently. “Operation and maintenance of the canal have already begun to create uncertainty among the present work force of the Panama Canal Commission. They want to know now what will happen to their jobs and what will their future be.”

One of the major concerns centers on ship pilots, the carefully trained seamen who guide the ships through the canal’s three narrow locks.

“This is our principal concern,” Ronald Seeley, personnel director of the Canal Commission, said. Of the 7,600 commission employees, only 1,281 are Americans. But of the 230 pilots, only 31 are Panamanians. There were only four when the treaties started going into effect in 1979.

‘Very Technical Job’

“It’s a very technical job, but we’re quite optimistic,” Seeley said. “We think that by 1997 we will have a pilot force of 90% to 95% Panamanian.”

Panamanian workers are paid U.S. salaries. The average pilot earns $70,000 a year, with retirement and leave benefits.

“The Panama Canal will make a profit for Panama,” Richard Wainio, the commission’s chief economist, said. “But it won’t make so much money that it can be a panacea for the economic problems.”

Among Panama’s economic problems is a $3.6-billion foreign debt.

$253 Million Spent

The commission figures that it put $253 million into the Panamanian economy last year in goods, services and salaries. The U.S. Southern Command, the military based in Panama, said it spent $203 million in the country during 1985.

Wainio said that in the last six years the commission collected canal revenues of $2.4 billion and spent an equal amount in salaries and waterway improvements.

“We should be the example for a government agency,” Wainio added. “We cover our costs and don’t use taxpayer money.”

Ruben Carles, member of the opposition National Republican Liberal Movement, said the Panamanian government will not be able to pick up the loss of revenues for Panamanian employees, especially the 5,500 who work at military installations.

‘Nationalist Reasons’

“For nationalist reasons we want control,” Carles said. “We can’t accept that we can’t run it efficiently and can’t afford it. We will be in a position to receive fewer revenues.”

Luis Gomez, a federal legislator for the government’s Democratic Revolutionary Party, says the United States has been slow to provide training.

“They are impeding the presence of Panamanians in key positions,” he said. “If we don’t resolve these problems, we will have problems taking the canal over.”

Carlos Arellano Lennox, a National Assembly member from the opposition Christian Democratic Party, maintains that neither the United States nor his government is working very hard to prepare for the transfer.

“We should have pushed for more,” he said. “But with the obstacles, we won’t be ready by the year 2000.”

But he welcomes the departure of U.S. troops from Panama.

“We will be more secure without the United States,” Arellano Lennox said. “They are a superpower and they have bases here. That serves as a provocation. The example is Europe. There, people are being attacked because the United States bombed Libya.

“Besides, with today’s weapons, no one can defend the canal.”