Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, August 25, 1995 TAG: 9508250063
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOHN J. TIERNEY JR.
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Earlier this year, the president announced plans to transfer America's military headquarters in Latin America, the Southern Command, from Panama to Miami. Eventually, all U.S. troops will be withdrawn.
Yet, the agreements reached with Panama in 1977 do not require this. The commander in chief of the Southern Command, Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, opposes the move, maintaining that at least 5,000 of the 7,400 currently deployed troops are needed to guarantee U.S. security. This has sparked top-level debate at the Pentagon. President Clinton, meanwhile, is expected to raise the issue in a Sept. 7 meeting with Panamanian President Perez Balladares.
Under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty, the United States must evacuate its troops from Panama by Dec. 31, 1999. But under the companion Treaty of Permanent Neutrality, which becomes effective when the canal treaty expires, America retains the right to protect and defend the canal after that. In other words, when the treaty was signed, all parties recognized and signed onto the idea that the United States, though relinquishing ownership and control of the canal, had the right and responsibility to maintain a military presence for defending it.
Now, the Clinton administration may be about to relinquish this option. This would be a terrible mistake.
If all U.S. troops are pulled out of Panama, the United States in the future would be forced to defend the canal from a command post in Miami, rather than from local bases, where they might be able to contain a crisis before it spins out of control and poses a threat to the canal's security.
No doubt, the president and his advisers think that with the Cold War over and the threat of foreign naval attack on the canal having virtually disappeared, there is no longer any need for the U.S. military to station troops in Panama.
That is true in the ideal world - the world in which we don't live. Gen. McCaffrey reportedly is worried that the United States won't be able to get forces in place quickly enough to defend the canal if the current balance of power in the world comes unglued.
America's counter-narcotics mission, as well as the broader mission of defending the right of passage through the canal, all demand that a minimum U.S. military presence be maintained. Gen. McCaffrey is reportedly fighting for this behind the scenes, opposed by the top Army brass, but supported by the heads of the other services.
And no wonder. The end of the Cold War has seen an increase in political instability around the world, and state-sponsored terrorism remains a major threat.
A sense-of-the-Congress resolution urging the president to negotiate a new base-rights agreement with Panama has been introduced in the Senate by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, R-N.C. Recent polls suggest that more than 80 percent of Panamanians would like the United States to keep a military presence in Panama.
The decision to move Southern Command's headquarters to Miami is irrevocable, but the decision on whether to relinquish all U.S. military facilities in Panama isn't.
The end of the Cold War doesn't mean America should abandon the prudent measures necessary to maintain its security. The White House should reconsider its current plans and protect the Panama Canal.
John J. Tierney Jr. is a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
- Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service
by CNB