The "great debate" over Panama: An analysis of controversy over the Carter-Torrijos Treaties of 1977

This study examines domestic political debate over the Panama Canal from the turn of the century to the Senate's ratification of the Carter-Torrijos treaties in 1978. By analyzing the heritage of controversy over Panama and the campaigns for and against new treaties, the study reveals the intellectual and emotional bases of public opinion on the treaties and the factors behind the Senate's decision. The origins of widespread public hostility toward "giving away" the Panama Canal are revealed in the rhetoric of Theodore Roosevelt and his allies and in a massive, national celebration of the canal-building project. The Panama Canal came to symbolize the nation's rise to international greatness and its power, ingenuity, and perseverance. Criticism of U. S. policy in Panama also had roots in the past--in decades of Panamanian complaints about the legality and morality of the 1903 treaty. But attempts by the architects of American foreign policy to appease Panamanians with revisions of U. S. policy during the Cold War met with vociferous domestic opposition. The Carter administration's campaign to sell the treaties of 1977 lacked the persuasiveness needed to build a significant constituency for relinquishing the canal. Furthermore, New Right opponents of the pacts campaigned vigorously to solidify the canal's historical symbolism and to portray the waterway as vital to America's economic and military future. Eventually, public debate focused on America's rights of defense and transit under the Neutrality treaty--the pact governing the canal after the Panamanians assumed control in the year 2000. The administration failed to respond convincingly to charges that these rights were ambiguous. Senate debate also focused on the Neutrality treaty's military provisions. In an effort to clarify these provisions and to gain public support for ratification, the Senate added the "leadership amendments" to the treaties. These amendments were a turning point in the Senate debate. In the end, previously uncommitted Senators voted in favor of ratification because they believed the amendments would protect American interests in Panama and had produced a shift in public opinion in favor of ratification. In retrospect, however, it is clear that the amendments did little to clarify American military rights in Panama or to assuage public hostility toward the treaties.