Canal Treaty Foes Say Enemies Have Gained a Beachhead

U.S. and Panamanian officials insist that all the fuss is about a simple business deal to run two ports. Nevertheless, a small group of conservative lawmakers and former military leaders is warning that China has begun a silent invasion of the Americas.

Foreseeing disasters that range from a Chinese takeover of the world’s most important shortcut to an occupation of Panama by neighboring Colombia, the lawmakers are demanding that the U.S. abrogate the 1977 Panama Canal treaty. Under that pact, the U.S. will cede control of the waterway to Panama on Dec. 31.

“I call the 31st of December ‘doomsday,’ ” retired Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told a news conference called at the Washington offices of the John Birch Society. “And so I say, ‘Wake up, America, and put a stop to this.’ ”

Critics such as Moorer are outraged that the White House has dismissed their concerns as “silly.” The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held four hours of hearings concerning the subject in October but took no further action.

In those hearings, Marine Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm, whose command oversees U.S. security interests in Latin America, said the biggest threat to the canal is that poor environmental management might limit the availability of fresh water needed to operate its locks.

“There is no basis for concern,” said Juan B. Sosa, former Panamanian ambassador to the U.S. “The canal is an emotional subject in Panama as well as in the U.S. They are using every weapon at their disposal to muddy the waters.”

Opponents’ worries were heightened last week when guerrillas attacked a Colombian military base near the border with Panama, although a nearly impassable jungle separates that line from the canal. In addition, John Birch Society President John F. McManus insisted that “there are people in Colombia who want to retake Panama.” Officials here in Colombia, which granted Panama independence in 1903 under U.S. pressure, seemed mystified when asked this week about that statement.

The controversy centers on two Panamanian-owned ports--Colon at the northern end of the canal and Balboa at the southern end--that are operated by Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., a publicly traded conglomerate with 80,000 employees in 24 countries. Hutchison Whampoa won 25-year concessions to run the ports more than two years ago, when Hong Kong was still a British colony. Stevedoring Services of America, a U.S. company, and Evergreen, a Taiwanese firm, operate two other Panamanian ports near the Caribbean entrance to the canal under similar concessions.

Because Hutchison operates two ports, Moorer said, “the Chinese are in a position today to secrete . . . missiles into Panama and use Panama as a launching point for missiles to attack the United States.”

Treaty critics allege that the company has close ties to the Chinese military--which apparently consist of participation in a venture that leases telecommunications equipment to a company owned by the People’s Liberation Army.

And, the Hutchison chairman, Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, is an honorary board member of the China International Trust & Investment Corp., an investment arm of China’s State Council. But then, so is former Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

Treaty supporters dismiss the fear that Chinese missiles will end up in Panama.

Critics and proponents also appear to disagree about Hutchison’s role in Panama. “U.S. naval ships will be at the mercy of Chinese-controlled [ship] pilots and could even be denied passage through the Panama Canal,” Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) warned in a letter to Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.

However, the treaty states that U.S. military ships will continue to move to the head of the line when using the canal. Nothing in the agreement with Hutchison gives the company authority over canal pilots, the experts who guide ships through the canal, Sosa said.

Moorer is not reassured: “We are blindly going along with completing the terms of this treaty and, in effect, surrender[ing] the most important seagoing gateway in the world.”