Now for the Hard Part

Signing the Panama Canal pact was easy; selling it won't be

Not since John Kennedy's funeral in 1963 had so many heads of state descended on Washington at once. Nineteen national leaders, along with top officials of eight other Western Hemisphere nations--from Canada's Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to Argentina's President Jorge Rafael Videla--were in town with full, glittering retinues. The occasion: the signing of a Panama Canal treaty that was initialed last month after 13 years of on-and-off efforts through the Administrations of four U.S. Presidents.

The event was surrounded by all the relish and trimmings that Jimmy Carter could concoct. In the pillared, chandeliered, flag-draped Hall of the Americas in the Pan American Union building, Carter and Panamanian Strongman General Omar Torrijos Herrera signed two treaties (TIME cover, Aug. 22). The first gradually cedes control of the canal to Panama by the year 2000. The second guarantees permanent U.S. protection of the canal. "This opens a new chapter in our relationship with all the nations of this hemisphere," Carter told an audience of 1,500. He made a point of adding that if a new, sea-level canal is built, it will be done in Panama with the cooperation of the U.S. Said Torrijos: "Being strong carries with it the commitment to be fair, and you have turned imperial force into moral force." With that, he grasped Carter's hand and enfolded him in a hearty Latin American embrace.

The abrazo, of course, does not clinch the treaty, which faces a months-long scrap in the U.S. Senate and a plebiscite in Panama as well. But as last week's events sharply dramatized, Carter is going to use all his presidential resources to win approval of the treaty. He needs it to vindicate his foreign policy, which has run into snags in the Middle East, in the Far East and in the SALT talks. He also wants to emphasize that he is not solely preoccupied with East-West problems, but gives considerable weight to the crucial relationship between developed North and the underdeveloped southern portion of the globe. The Panama Canal treaty, he feels, is the key to establishing better relations with the South. As Costa Rican President Daniel Oduber told TIME Correspondent Jerry Hannifin, "Carter has raised much hope. He has rediscovered what has been there all along: we like you norteamericanos. He is giving us a chance to prove that."

All week long, Carter tried to prove that the feeling was mutual. At receptions and state dinners, Scotch and champagne flowed freely, and there were enough petit fours and napoleons to pave the Inter-American Highway. Hamilton Jordan, the Carter troubleshooter charged with getting the treaty through the Senate, testified to the importance of the occasion by showing up in a jacket and tie at a reception following the treaty signing. U.S. Protocol Chief Evan Dobelle, who had to arrange more than a score of identical red-carpet receptions, was described by one sympathetic observer as "busier than a centipede on a treadmill."

To guard the Latin American leaders, most of the military strongmen, thousands of security agents and local police were mobilized. Helicopters and sharpshooters positioned on rooftops kept constant watch. There were raucous right-wing demonstrations against the treaty and left-wing protests against the Latin American leaders, but they were kept under control. Bomb threats emptied the Washington Monument and several downtown buildings, however, and two bombs went off, one at the Soviet Aeroflot offices and another 100 yds from the White House. Anti-Castro Cubans claimed responsibility, though Fidel was not in town (Cuba was excluded from the Organization of American States in 1962, and he was not invited). No one was hurt in the explosions.

Carter met individually with each head of state to talk over hemisphere matters: borders, armaments, trade, fishing disputes, balance of payments and human rights. By lavishing attention of leaders who are not all noted for their devotion to individual liberties, Carter stirred complaints that he was sacrificing his human rights campaign to get the treaty accepted. Mexican President Jose Lopez Portillo refused to attend the ceremonies, in fact, at least partly because he objected to being seen with some of the Latino "gorillas" who were on hand. But Carter, if smiling, dealt quite sternly with some of the autocratic leaders whom he flatly accused of violating human rights. "Magnifico hombre, de veras," murmured Chilean President Augusto Pinochet as he emerged from the presidential lecture, even though Carter had urged him to speed up trials and release more prisoners.

Privately, some Latin Americans have expressed uneasiness that Panama will be gaining control of the canal; much of their trade depends on the waterway which they do not want to see shut down because of political instability or mismanagement. Despite the Latin leaders' public messages of unwavering, unambiguous support of the canal pacts, one visiting foreign minister fretted: "I hope that Jeemy Carter has not gotten himself to far out on a limb on our behalf."

Carter is indeed out on a limb. The fact is the canal has a constituency and the treaty has no constituency," says Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, who along with Sol Linowitz negotiated the accord. By one nose count, only 35 Senators now favor the treaty, 22 are opposed and 43 are undecided--far short of the two-thirds vote needed for approval. But the undecided count may be deceptive. A vote on the treaty is not likely to occur until early next year and, as one Republican Senator asks, "Why shouldI make my position known now? I'd just be subjecting myself to six months of hate mail."

A Gallup poll released last week indicates that 46%of Americans disapprove of the treaty, while 39% favor it, and 15% are undecided. Not many of those polled may be familiar with the treaty provisions. Even so, the figures represent an increase in support over the earlier surveys.

Fanning the opposition, Richard Viguerie, a direct-mail expert for conservative causes, is sending out millions of letters condemning the new pact. Republican Senator Strom Thurmond issued a familiar, oversimplified blast at the "give-away." Said he: "We paid for , we built it, and it's ours." Mississippi Democrat John Stennis announced his opposition to the treaty, and, in a severe blow to the Administration, Barry Goldwater said he would not be supporting the pact after all. Now that he has read the text of the agreements, said Goldwater, "I would have to oppose [their] passage."

The most effective opponent of all, Ronald Reagan, went to Washington to denounce the accord. "We should be generous with the nations of the world," he said, "but not obsequious. What, pray tell, will be gained by giving one of the world's greatest waterways to a dictator who seized power at the point of a gun and who obviously finds himself much more at home with totalitarians of the left? Is there any reason to believe that the canal is safer from terrorists when the canal is protected by the Panamanian National Guard than by American Marines? Indeed, what guarantee do we have that Panama will even honor that treaty?"

The best guarantee, treaty proponents might reply, is the treaty itself. It provides that if the canal is threatened in any way, the U.S. can intervene militarily. The White House was lining up an impressive roster of supporters. At the state dinner for teh visiting dignitaries, Carter pointed out former President Gerald Ford ("one of the best friends I have") and Lady Bird Johnson. Said General George S. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "As soon as Americans understand the treaty details, they will know why we are able to support it in the Pentagon. We would not support these treaties if they weren't in the national interest. And they are in the national interest." Warned Henry Kissinger: "If [the treaties] are not approved, it will be a disaster for us all."

Torrijos, with his control over Panama's press and military, was less concerned over getting the pacts approved. But, as he noted during the signing ceremony, the treaty "places us under the Pentagon's defense umbrella"--and that put him on the spot with Panama's radical groups. In Panama City, some 700 students protested the treaty in front of the Foreign Ministry. Most Panamanians, however, seemed to support their general, who had thoughtfully airlifted television sets to remote villages so that the people could watch live coverage of the ceremony. "This has been a long quest for equality," said Torrijos. "There was no Panamanian consulted or on hand to sign the first treaty 74 years ago. Tonight, a Panamanian is signing for Panama."

Far more than the canal is at stake in the treaty. The future relationship between the U.S. and South America may hang in the balance. To Latin Americans, cession of the waterway means the removal of a colonial stigma, and may herald a more balanced partnership with the colossus to the north. Ruefully, they say about U.S. policy: "Hay mucha musica, pero poca opera" (A lot of music, but precious little opera--meaning action). Now they feel that they may get some action from Jimmy Carter. "The U.S. has been blind to changing Latin American goals," says OAS Secretary-General Alejandro Orfila, "but what President Carter is doing could launch a whole new era."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.