U.S. Tries to Keep Most Valuable Properties, 1996

U.S. Tries to Keep Most Valuable Properties

By Roberto Méndez, economist and university professor

An article published by La Prensa on May 13 cited acting Foreign Minister and Panamanian ambassador in Washington, Ricardo Alberto Arias, to the effect that the United States has shown an "informal" interest in keeping its military presence after the year 2000, in Howard Air Base, Rodman Naval Station. Fort Sherman and Galeta Island.

Arias, who said he is "evaluating" the issue, must have been aware that such a proposal is totally unacceptable for Panama from a political as well as economic and legal point of view.

We have said before that the military bases in the country represent a triple threat for Panama, by converting it into a military objective. because the bases are a source of anti-popular political intervention, and because the activities carried out there are by their nature highly dangerous to surrounding communities and the environment.

Moreover, the "Evaluation of the withdrawal of the military bases," a recent study by eonomists José Galán and Marco Fernádez and commissioned by the government itself, establishes that these bases are among the most valuable to Panama.

The study says that Howard has a commercial value of $1,573 million, and Fort Sherman a value of $226.6 million. That is, a total of more than $2 billion, representing 44% (almost half) the entire value of all the lands and buildings that will transfer by the year 200,. estimated at $4,612,000,000. And listen closely: they want to stay there for free.

We also denounce the fact that President Pérez Balladares has said (and Ambassador Arias has repeated it) that if an agreement is reached with the United States about the bases staying, there will be no referendum. Instead, the agreement would submitted to a "national consultation" (which, according to Ambassador Arias means consulting "various political parties and other interested entities.")

I remind the president, the ambassador and others who deny the necessity of holding a referendum, that Article 3 of the Panamanian Constitution clearly states that "national territory will never be ceded, trespassed or dispossessed, neither temporarily nor partially, to another State," so that any agreement on the bases would imply reforming the Constitution. And this can only be done through a referendum or a legislative act in two successive legislative assemblies.

[Title XIV of the Constitution states: "The treaties or international agreements signed by the Executive regarding the canal, its adjacent zone and the protection of said canal, as well as the construction of a sea-level canal or a third set of locks, must be approved by the legislature and after approval will be submitted to a national referendum." Italics added.]

The source of the government's fear of a referendum seems clear: on one hand, its economic plan is a failure, and on the other a public opinion poll published by La Prensa three weeks ago [April 23] revealed that only 49% of those surveyed favor keeping some bases after the year 2000. And when the people become fully aware of their interests, the vast majority will vote "no" to the military bases.

Source: La Prensa, 5/16/96, 4/20/96.