SUNS4505 Wednesday 8 September 1999

Colombia: US can't use Panama Base for intervention

Panama City, Sep 6 (IPS/Silvio Hernandez) - The Panama Canal neutrality pact, invoked by a high-level U.S. military official to justify possible armed intervention in Colombia, does not authorise Washington to station troops along the inter-ocean route, warned experts.

This treaty, one of the agreements signed in 1977 by then presidents Omar Torrijos of Panama and Jimmy Carter of the United States, does not permit Washington to protect the canal or to use the enclave as a base from which to take action in other countries.

The debate began in late June, when general Charles Wilhelm invoked the neutrality pact when he told a U.S. Congressional committee that the U.S. Southern Command, which he heads, has prepared a contingency plan to protect the canal from Colombia's internal conflict between its army, guerrillas and paramilitary groups.

The general said the United States does not have to consult Panama before militarily intervening in the region because of the stipulations in the "Torrijos-Carter" treaties signed in 1977.

Among these accords is the Panama Canal Treaty, which establishes the handover of the inter-ocean route and the U.S. military bases to this Latin American country on Dec 31, 1999.

The treaties also include a multilateral pact concerning the permanent neutrality of the Panama Canal, to which Wilhelm referred, which has been ratified by more than 45 nations.

The U.S. general underscored that the "De Concini Amendment," which was unilaterally introduced by the U.S. Congress when it ratified the treaties in March 1978, gives Washington the right to militarily intervene in Panama in order to protect the canal's integrity.

The amendment, which reinterprets Article IV of the neutrality pact, was presented by Republican senator Dennis de Concini with the explicit purpose of "protecting the vital interests of the United States."

"Under the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, Panama and the United States have the responsibility to assure that the Canal will remain open and secure to ships of all nations," states the amendment.

The U.S. law underscores that the correct interpretation of this principle is that either of the two countries, according to their legal principles, "shall have the right to act against any aggression or threat directed against the canal or against the peaceful transit of vessels through the Canal."

Article IV of the neutrality pact signed between Panama and the United States establishes that both "agree to maintain the regime of neutrality established in this Treaty, which shall be maintained so that the Canal shall remain permanently neutral."

This remains in effect "notwithstanding the termination of any other treaties entered into by the two Contracting Parties."

But Article V of this same treaty establishes that "after the termination of the Panama Canal Treaty, only the Republic of Panama shall operate the Canal and maintain military forces, defence sites and military installations within its national territory."

In addition to this precept, several treaty and Panama experts believe the amendment is not in force because it was protested by Panama and because it is contrary to international law.

Attorney Juan Cristobal Zuniga, professor of international law at the University of Panama, stated that the De Concini Amendment converted the neutrality pact into a "nullification of absolute null because it is contrary to the norms of international law."

Zuniga explained that if this treaty "has illicit objectives such as aggression (military intervention), Panama has no reason to comply with it in good faith," and he stated that the Panamanian government should recognise that the treaty is no longer in effect.

The attorney also warned that the amendment by the U.S. Congress converted the neutrality pact into an instrument "contrary to the United Nations Charter because all norms that appear" in the constitutive regulations of the international forum "prevail over any bilateral treaty."

Sociologist and university professor Olmedo Beluche said the Instrument of Ratification of the neutrality pact presented by Panama to the United States following the De Concini Amendment "nullified the interventionist content of the document."

The Instrument of Ratification indicates that "the political independence, the territorial integrity and free determination are guaranteed by the unyielding will of the Panamanian people," expressed in a plebiscite for the ratification of the treaties held Oct 23, 1977.
High-level government officials from neighbouring Colombia, including president Andres Patrana and foreign minister Guillermo Fernandez de Soto, have also questioned general Wilhelm's interventionist proposal, though without directly pointing to the United States.

After questioning alleged "intromissions" by Peru and Venezuela in the internal politics of his country, Fernandez de Soto stated recently in Bogota that his government "will not permit any type of action that brings Colombia's dignity into question on the international stage."

Meanwhile, Pastrana declared in a televised speech, "As president, I will never accept foreign pressure or intervention."

But there are apparently some contradictions between the military in the U.S. Defence Department and the civilians of the U.S. State Department regarding the Colombian crisis and a possible "military solution."

Following Wilhelm's statements, the acting assistant secretary of state of the bureau of western hemisphere affairs, Peter Romero, communicated to Eloy Alfaro, Panama's ambassador in Washington, that the U.S. government does not have plans to intervene in the Panama-Colombia border.

"The analysis of the United States government is that it does not consider the presence of Colombian guerrillas in the Darien area (on the border) a threat to the security of the canal," declared the U.S. official.

In mid-August, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, Thomas Pickering, ratified Romero's words when he said ollowing a visit to Venezuela and Colombia that his government "has never considered militarily invading Colombia," calling rumours to that effect "craziness."

But the Jornal do Brasil newspaper said this week that Brazil's federal police will initiate an operation to close the Amazon supply routes used by Colombian guerrillas. The daily said the mission is a response to a U.S. strategic operation to encircle the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.