BREAKING:

 

30.June.2004 “Suspected al-Qaeda Member Planned to Blow Up Panama Canal (According to Agence-France Presse sources)… Developing…”

– Drudge Report

 

– WorldNet Daily

 

– News.com.au

 

– The Australian

 

 

The Panama Canal, American Sovereignty and Self-Defense, Part III of III

 

Also see

Part 1

Part 2

 

 

Panama: Tomorrow’s Cuba?

 

At the dawn of the new millennium began a new and even more controversial era for the Canal. Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd., a Chinese company took over control of the Panama Canal after a lucrative deal with the Panamanian government, which went directly against the direct national interest of the United States and the will of the people of Panama. As some might know by now, the Chinese government swore that war with the US would transpire by 2008 at the latest*, but the Clinton administration in another act of “Benedicting” chose to look the other way. And who could blame him, he owed the Communist Regime in China for funding his election efforts and stroking his ego- something a bit bigger perhaps than that which Monica became acquainted a few years earlier and to which Mr. Clinton would very recently quip quite revealingly that the latter was initiated simply “just because [he] could”. Character as we have learned, does matter. The details of course relating to Chinagate and the rest of it were outlined everywhere but in the mainstream press which found it contrary to their political interests to expose the real scandal and treachery in the Oval Office. The facts, though under-reported point to Clinton’s game of footsie with the Communist Chinese who have sworn enmity with us and for that matter might well cost us—and them an incomprehensible number of lives at the end of the day. And if anyone were ever to doubt this, they simply need to see what his neglect of the Al Qaeda problem has cost us thus far. Regardless if war comes from China in the near future or not, the prospect of war from limitless other sources most certainly is more likely in the aftermath of an era in which we had become perceived as naïve and weak; something of which Osama Bin Laden was quite aware.

 

 

According to an ABC poll reported by the BBC back in April of 2001 immediately following the capture of the American EP-3E Aries II reconnaissance plane and crew by the Chinese government, only 20% of the American public knew enough to consider China an enemy. Many are still shocked to discover the degree of saber rattling and war preparations which have been underway in East Asia for a great number of years. Indeed, hostilities have run on and off since the beginning of the Korean War in the 1950’s where the US squared off directly with Chinese troops pouring over the boarder to take part in the conflict. American troops were shocked by the sheer numbers who, by virtue of this alone literally over-ran positions with their “human waves.” What many do not see is a long term plan set about by the Chinese leadership for military superiority and confrontation set in gear decades ago with their “Five Year Plan” strategy, a method of quantifying their progress over a period of time. China is currently nearing the end of that strategy where it relates to us, embarking on one of their final Five-Year terms during this decade.

 

Despite warnings from US intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1998**, along with senior members of Congress and the Pentagon, the Clinton administration chose not to act when it was warned of the threats posed by a stated enemy controlling a strategic American Naval waterway. A waterway no doubt of necessity if we came to blows with the Asian power. And certainly Beijing was aware of its significance. China was willing to not only dole out 22.5$US million a year to Panama, but also according to some Panamanian sources, passed along “Bucket-loads of money” in the familiar under-the-table way that worked so well in funding Clinton’s re-election a year or so prior. Still, the go-ahead with the US pullout was completed in 1999, replaced shortly thereafter by the Chinese PLA front company, Hutchison Whampoa despite overwhelming support for a continued US presence in Panama among Panamanians polled at the time.

 

 

Law No. 5 with side of Egg Roll or Wan Tan Soup

 

And so China, originally fourth among original bidders, won the 50 year lease. Law Number 5 was passed in Panama on 16 January 1997. The law, in direct violation of the Panama Canal Treaty (articles V and VI) which Panama signed with the US twenty years earlier in 1977, was hardly noticed by President Clinton or the vast American press.  The articles of the treaty in violation pertain to the rights of American warships to be granted “expedited” and “head of line” passage through the Canal. 

 

 

Law Number Five didn’t stop there. It also gave the company operated by the Chinese government which has sworn inevitable war with us the right to operate the piloting services, tugs, workboats, piers, access roads particularly at strategic points of entrance and so forth. Additionally, Hutchison Whampoa was given permission to transfer the rights of control to any third party it so wished.  Hutchison was also granted first rights to the US Rodman Naval Station, on the Pacific entrance to the Canal- a base capable of holding any modern deep-water warship. And many argue that this could lead to a standoff not altogether dissimilar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. China could easily conceal short range missiles at the Panama port until they felt the time was right. Or China could simply impede our passage in a different crisis, forcing us to look at the prospect of direct confrontation with China in order to use the Canal. They could also use the port to illegally smuggle in other technology, including weapons for drug traffickers, insurgents and American crime gangs, as they have done at least once before when 100,000 AK-47’s were seized at a Los Angeles port en route to local gang members care of the Chinese government a few years ago. This as China is also beginning to cozy-up to various Latin-American countries. According to China’s own news sources, military ties are being developed and strengthened with a number of Latin American interests, many of whom are already openly politically opposed to the United States (some have been looking into developing a nuclear weapons program), which could be the stepping stone for establishing a fortified foothold at our very doorstep. 

 

 

Lastly, in a future where trends continue and there is a much weaker America plagued with infighting and apathy, a much stronger China or another country could use Panama as an invasion force staging ground. Travel back down the roadway of history and you will see a lot of such roadkill- nothing is impossible, rather everything is likely. Any of these scenarios naturally be they immediate or seemingly far-fetched at present could easily cost many precious American lives.

 

 

 

 

But the legality of the Hutchison contract isn’t only in question with regard to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977. The contract with China also is said to violate the Panamanian constitution as well as the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine prohibits foreign powers from setting up shop in the Americas or the Caribbean. Where in the world do we have a vested national interest deserving of a real strategic investment? The answer must be avoided no further.

 

 

 

 

Congress hears noise in the night, goes back to sleep

 

Not altogether lost in the late 90’s by Elected US officials, Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and other members of Congress called on the US to intervene in her own interest and dubbed the known Chinese front company given control of the Canal, Panama Ports Company (under Hutchison Whampoa, LTD.) “an agent of espionage — economic, military, and political — for China.”  Not altogether out of character for the Communist regime which in the late 90’s acquired the Pacific island of Tarawa, located between the Continental United States and China and sits just 1,500 miles off of Hawaii, according to an article from that period. The island is able to monitor American communications,  satellite and missile tests and other exercises in the area. In addition to testimony and statements by members of Congress regarding Chinese control of the Panama Canal zone, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June of 1998 Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and one of the United States’ most acclaimed Navy Admirals as well as a World War II hero and Pearl Harbor survivor voiced ominously, “we are on what I consider to be a collision course with disaster in the very near future…I truly can’t remember a time when I have been more concerned about the security of the country.” Since then however, little has been discussed publicly in the halls of Congress or within the Bush administration to deal with this foreboding catastrophe.

 

What can be done to stave off this dire threat to our national security? A list of what are arguably some very common-sense suggestions are made in a well put together article of the time in the Eagle Forum:

 

“1) Renounce or renegotiate the Panama Canal Treaties in light of new evidence that the United States and Panama did not ratify the same text. The DeConcini Reservation, which was added to get the treaty through the Senate, gave us the unilateral right to intervene in Panama if we believe the Canal is threatened.

 

Carter hid from the American people the fact that Panama ratified the treaty without our reservation. Panama‘s version contains a three-paragraph counter-reservation, never submitted to the U.S. Senate, that requires Panama‘s “cooperation” before we try to defend the Canal. Another reason to renounce the treaty is that Panama‘s Law No. 5 violates the Panama Canal treaties over and over again.

 

2) Demand that Panama nullify the lease agreements granted to the Chinese and initiate a new bidding process that is open and fair. No one should be bound by the current agreements because the process was corrupt and discriminatory against a U.S. company.

 

3) Exercise our rights under the 1978 Panama treaties to protect and defend the Canal beyond the year 2000. Halt any more transfers of U.S. military installations, including Howard Air Force Base, the most important U.S. base south of the Rio Grande; Rodman Naval Station, a deep-draft port capable of logistic support for any warship; and Fort Sherman, our only base specializing in jungle warfare and survivor training.

 

 

Depending on Panama to defend the Canal against China‘s aggressive acts, or against the Colombian drug cartel, is a bad joke. Panama has no army, navy or air force, and the country’s police are completely unable to defend the canal against sabotage or terrorism by narcotics-funded forces coming in from Colombia.”

 

As one of my previous “Philosophical Notes” (#16) has stated before, “Moral matters can often be very complicated… for the ambivalent”. Let’s not hope that our politicians and those who were elected to represent our best interests in Washington have any ambivalence as to which national interest they should serve. The world is fast approaching the moment for that decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Footnotes

 

 

*Cited as a possible deadline for war by Several Chinese officials and very much a hot topic all over Chinese and Asian news outlets and message boards today, particularly in light of a possible Taiwan bid for independence during the 2008 Olympics which are to be held in Beijing (anyone remember Berlin?. Indeed the Chinese military have long admired the former NAZI regime’s own military.) All of this while scandal has broken out due to diverted funds meant for construction at the Olympic event sites in China

 

Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian publicly said: ‘War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war. … We must be prepared to fight for one year, two years, or even longer.”

 

**A report from the Defense Intelligence Agency with the title “Panama: China Awaits U.S. Departure”, said that “Li Ka-shing, the owner of Hutchison Whampoa Lt. (HW) and Cheung Kong International holdings Ltd. (CK) is planning to take control of Panama Canal operations when the U.S. transfers it to Panama in December 99.”  “Li is directly connected to Beijing and is willing to use his business influence to further the aims of Chinese government,” the report states. An army intelligence analyst is quoted in the report as noting that “Li’s interest in the canal is not only strategic, but also a means for outside financial opportunities for the Chinese government.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional Resources

 

 

If you can read Chinese, an interesting essay might be of interest to you. It is titled, “Why China Needs a War”.

 

Report says Hutchison Whampoa is seeking commercial control of vital ports on US mainland was the plan of some Democrats in the Senate in 2002. HW controls about 70% of the worlds shipping container needs, but a plan in the works was to allow them in on a port-security plan meant to keep out bombs and other no-no’s in order to secure the Homeland. The Defense Intelligence Agency had some misgivings, naturally. Compared by opponents to something akin to letting the foxes guard the hen-house, the idea ran afoul with many, to say the least.

 

Hutchison Whampoa also has holdings in the Bahamas

 

Hutchison Whampoa moving into the high-tech communications market

 

Hutchison Whampoa top player in China

 

76 Million USD strong and growing

 

Hutchison Partners

 

Video of Human Rights Abuses in China 

 

China Facts

 

 

Related Blogbat articles:

 

Making War with Lilliputians (and other giants)

 

Lilliputian follow up article in which claims that Libya would be found passing nuke secrets were exposed in the world community and lamented by IAEA director

 

Notes from the Garden Journal spotlight: Human Rights in China

 

More on Chinese war plans and the Human Rights scene in the country which spans more than 9,596,960 square kilometers

 

-Blogbat

 

 

 

 

We will always miss President Reagan, but we must never forget what he taught us about ourselves.

 

Remember Ronald Reagan

 

 

Born 1911, with us eternal

 

 

Big News, Relevant Thoughts

 

Before I start, let me say that as far as his personal reputation is concerned, CIA director George Tenet is said to be a likeable man. There is no question to our knowledge that he is true, loyal and capable, among those who know him. And there is a reason why so many people around him genuinely like him. However, there are likely also some timely benefits to arise from his departure. That being the case, it is my hope the U.S. finds it a catalyst for change within the CIA, where folks begin to realize the fat days of the 90′s are over and it is time to get to work and decide who your team is.

 

Below are a few timely excerpts from my personal journal, as entered two days ago on the 1st of June. I share them now because I think they bring some very valid points to the table; points which no doubt will be expressed (and have, even as of today) all across the print and broadcast media by others who have come to similar or dissimilar conclusions as the fallout continues. While naturally, I do not feel we need to fire everyone in that agency, it has been frustrating for me, as indeed it most certainly has been for most Americans as they see one fumble after another in a very important football game.

 

“…Sometimes I wonder if we just need to fire everyone at the CIA, bulldoze their buildings and start completely over. It is historically obvious that more than a few of these guys are complete morons who can’t (or won’t) tell good intel from bad when it has to do with so much as determining the differences between their butts and a hole in the ground. As such, they interfere with the work of others and tarnish the reputations of others.

 

A few glaring examples?

 

-The amount and location of WMD’s in Iraq*

 

-Global Terrorism since far before 9.11 including the first World Trade Center attacks, the Attacks in Africa and the middle east including the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole**

 

-Ignoring the emergence of 5th generation fighter aircraft coming out of China and Russia which according to many, far out-class our old F15. Also for denying we have needed a replacement such as the F/A-22 for the past 7 or more years and that by doing so have managed to sacrifice an important tactical advantage in the Taiwan Straits and elsewhere.

 

-Failing to guard tactical and technological (including nuclear) secrets particularly throughout the 90′s

 

For too long they (the CIA) have had quite a fair share of politicos (placed there by administration policy wonks and ideologues in times past) who make it their aim to help the administration they favor look good, while helping the others look bad, all the while working alongside folks who are trying to perform just the opposite. This has arguably amounted to nothing more than a policy (or perhaps, ideology) wave-machine, where attitudes and policies work their way to the bottom at about the same time contradicting ones are introduced by a new Administration at the top and begin the long journey to the bottom again. Not unlike many other federal agencies, but a big reason why politicization needs to be kept to a bare minimum.

 

It is clear today that President Bush, Secretary Powell and others have been forced to work within the limitations of an occasionally dysfunctional executive system (including the State Department, the Pentagon and so forth) that has caused logistical, as well as huge P.R. nightmares for the people who count on correct data to support their credibility in foreign policy and elsewhere. And of course, habitual high-profile failures = executive turnover. 

 

Summery: aspects of the CIA are overrun with bureaucracy and ineffectiveness at their worst, (which is more often than it should be) despite recent improvements. Red tape, inept bungling and conflicts of interest have at times prevented the agency from fulfilling its mandate in a timely and effective manner. While there are many within the organization who obviously earn their keep, a portion of the group-think is arguably one of a similar fashion as that widely known to be found in the departments of education, HUD and countless other “civil servant” branches whose jobs now more resemble the glorified welfare of job-entitlements and immunity than Jack Kennedy’s ‘Ask-not’ vision.”

 

Naturally, venting this in my journal the other day was expectedly therapeutic. I just had no idea I was out in front of the train again. I do want to say how proud I am of the officers who are doing a good job, working with our officials and ultimately our troops and law enforcement to provide for, as they say, ”the common defense.” If it weren’t for these guys we would have been getting “Spained” on a regular basis. I think of Mike Spann as an example of just such a hero. I also realize that security is a team matter and requires the cooperation of all governmental agencies, which has lacked in the years leading up to the attacks of 9-11. We know the FBI and the INS still have a LONG way to go, for example. But these guys do need to work together better, there is no doubt, and that I think needs to happen in short order for the benefit of everybody.

 

I would bet it’s not an unpopular thing to state that what is needed is a massive house-cleaning at the agency and in this vein, I think a new director is a good start- even though I know there were many reasons to like Tenet. Such a change is something that without a doubt has been, and will be met with varying degrees of opposition by the old trolls whose bretheren exist on every government payroll.

 

Of course we will have to wait on the official Commission report about the shortcomings of the CIA in recent years, delayed for a few weeks so it doesn’t look as if it is tied to Tenet’s resignation, to see what the official take is. As well as how George Tenet is portrayed by the findings. However despite claims to the contrary, one wonders in the very least if Tenet’s personal matters (the reason for which he says he now resigns) could possibly have served as part of a real distraction from his duties as chief. Of course that at present is difficult to say. 

 

-Blogbat 

 

 

Additional Notes:

 

*It remains very likely that the information on the existence of WMD’s was not completely off, however we also know that were it not for confirmed Israeli sources on the ground, we would not know with any great certainty exactly what was buried by Saddam’s troops just across the border in the sands of Syria immediately before the allies began strikes.

 

**This was also touched on today in various media outlets