Panamanians fight United States
colonial rule over Canal Zone

By JUAN LOPEZ

PANAMA — It was warm in
Panama City Sept. 17, 1975 but
nerves in the equatorial city were
taut. For 45 chilling minutes traf-
fic came to a dead stop at roads
leading in and out of the Canal
Zone.

While bus and taxi drivers
blocked entrances and exits to the
Canal Zone with the vehicles, and
fellow Panamanians from all
walks of life loudly protested out-
side the U.S. Embassy in Panama
City, U.S. aircraft carriers and
destroyers cruised off Panama’s
coast in an arrogant display of
military might.

Despite the economic and mili-
tary power of U.S. imperialism, it
has become increasingly clear to
U.S. ruling circles that in the bat-
tle over control of the Canal Zone
the Panamanian people and their
government enjoy the over-

whelming support of the peoples
of the world, in much the same
way the Palestinian people do.

~- World Support For Panama

A display of that world support
was made in 1973 when _ the
United Nations Security Council
meeting in Panama supported that
country’s claim to the Canal in the
near unanimous vote. The U.S.
representative to the council cast
the only dissenting vote.

Latin American countries simi-
larly supported Panama’s claim to
the Canal, as evidenced in the re-
cent action of these countries’
foreign ministers proclaiming
1976 ‘‘Panama Year.”’

_The options for the U.S. gov-
ermment are narrowing. As one
senior Army Dept negotiator
said, ‘‘For those of us who really
care about the Army, My Lai was
an awful blow. We know what
that’s done to our reputation. The

last thing in the world we want
now is to be ordered to start
shooting a crowd of Pana-
manians.”’

Confrontation Possible

The Sept. 17 protests came
about in immediate response to
the inflammatory remarks of U.S.
Secretary of State Henry Kis-
singer the previous day at the
Southern Governors Conference
in Orlando, Florida.

But the deep-rooted cause,
smoldering in 11 years of on-
and-off, so far fruitless negotia-

tions and 72 years of colonial rule -

over the Canal Zone, is the con-
tinued refusal of the U.S. to nego-
tiate a treaty that, at least, begins
to turn the Canal’s control over
the Panama.

- While U.S. ruling circles would
rather avoid a military confronta-
tion over the Canal, the possibil-
ity has not altogether been ruled

USS. Supreme Court refuses
appeal by Wilmington Ten

NEW YORK (LNS) — The
United States Supreme Court re-
fused Jan. 19 to hear an appeal by
the Rev. Ben Chavis and nine
other Black civil rights activists
on arson and conspiracy convic-
tions. The defendants, known as
the Wilmington Ten, were con-
victed in October 1972 on framed
charges stemming from 1971
racial violence in Wilmington,
North Carolina.

Chavis, now head of the
Washington office of the United
‘Church of Christ’s Commission
for Racial Justice, faces a 29 to 34
year jail term. The other nine de-
fendants, eight of whom were
high school students at the time of
their arrest, face sentences rang-
ing from seven to 26 years.

By refusing to hear the appeal;
the U.S. Supreme Court left
standing a May 1975 decision
by the North Carolina Supreme
Court dismissing the appeal. The
Ten will be back in prison as soon
as the state court is.officially noti-
fied of the Jan. 19 decision. The
Ten had been free, pending the
Supreme Court hearing, on
$400,000 bond.

History Of Racism

The case of the Wilmington
Ten grew out of a series of events
based on North Carolina’s history
of state approved racism. Be-
ginning in September 1968, when
Wilmington city officials reluc-
tantly moved to integrate Black
students into the city’s two all-
white high schools, many Blacks
were attacked and beaten by
white students. Yet in nearly all
cases, the Blacks pe were
arrested.

Black students began to or-
ganize for their civil rights, often
with the aid of Rev. Chavis. In
January 1971, 70 Black students
staged a sit-in at one of the high
’ schools, demanding space to hold
a memorial service for Dr. Martin

Luther King, on the event of his
birthday. When the space was
denied and several of the students
involved expelled, 100 Balck stu-
dents gathered at Chavis’
Gregory Congregational Church
to begin a school boycott.

On Feb. 4, about 250 Black stu-
dents, led by Chavis, marched on
the Board of Education to protest
the Board’s failure to meet alist of
Black students’ demands. In the
next few days, students and other
Black activists were blamed by
police for two fires, and police
also claimed they had been shot at

- by snipers when they responded
to one of the fire. alarms.

Two Students Shot
In the next few weeks, two
Black students were killed, one
by a policeman who said he was
returning sniper fire. On Oct. 17,
1972, after a five-week trial,
Chavis and the other nine were

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEBRUARY 13, 1976—Page 6

convicted of arson and con-
spiracy in connection with the
fires and purported sniper
activity.

' During the trial, Chavis was
‘pictured as the ringleader of a
conspiracy plot. U.S. Prosecuting
Attorney James Stroud asked for
maximum sentences for each of
the defendants, blaming them for
‘‘an eight day reign of terror’’ that
he claimed “‘set race relations in
Wilmington back to Civil War
days.”’

After the Supreme Court’s re-
fusal to hear the appeal, Robert
Moss, president of the: United
Church of Christ, said Church
attorneys will file a petition in

- Federal District Court ‘‘to start

the process to bring this case back
to the U.S. Supreme Court if
necessary.”

Cases the Supreme Court has

refused to hear can be brought be-
fore it a second time.

adier General Torrijos, Panamanian head of state, with Cuban
penis r Fidel Castro on a recent visit to Cuba. Castro pledged all out
support by his country for the Panamanian struggle for sovereignty.

out, especially since the Pentagon
is one of the key forces pushing
for maintaining the U.S. in abso-
lute control of the Canal.

Neither is the possibility that
the Central Intelligence Agency,
lurking in the background, may be
hatching. a plot to depose
Panama’s current nationalist gov-
emment through a combined
anti-government thrust from the
right and ultra-left, as in Chile and
Portugal.

Issue In U.S. Elections

And to top off the combustible
material in the situation comes the
1976 U.S. Presidential elections
— especially the Republican
primary contest.

The Republican rightists, led
by former California Governor
Ronald Reagan, have made it
clear they intend to use the issue
to split off supporters from the
camp of President Ford and pro-
vide a foreign policy line separat-
ing the two candidates. This, in
turn, is pushing Ford to stave off
any serious negotiations over the
Canal at least until the primaries
and perhaps the general election.

But, putting the Canal decision
off may not work and could, in the
view of many observers, make
matters worse. The danger of
military confrontation over

Panama was underscored by

Venezuelan President Carlos An-
dres Perez more than a month
after the September Panama City
protest. At the time he charged
the U.S. government with moving
crack troops into the Canal Zone
and ‘‘training them for war
against the Panamanians.”’

Perez made the revelations in
an exclusive interview with Carl
T. Rowan of the New York Post
after having emerged from ‘‘a
hush-hush meeting’’ with General
Omar ___ Torrijos Herrera,
Panama’s head of state, in the
coastal town of Macuto.

Sulzberger In Panama
Perez said the U.S. govern-
ment was replacing these special
units every three months to insure

’ they will not become friendly with
the Panamanians, hence more

willing to fight to maintain U.S.
control over the Canal Zone.
Rowan’s report appeared in the
Post Oct. 31. Five days later,
Nov. 5, the New York Times ran a
piece datelined Panama City and
bylined by columnist C.L. Sulz-
berger, a member of the Times
publishing family.
' Strangely, the article dealt with
the development of the Soviet

Bunker ‘received a note frof

Union as a first rate naval military, |
power. Inserted was one senten
implicitly warning the reader of

. supposed effect losing the Cana) _
to Panama might have on U.S:

military interests: ‘‘And here if) —
Panama U.S. strategists wort)
about our naval link between t }
oceans,’’ Sulzberger wrote.
Sulzberger’s presence if
Panama, the Post’s article and thé
Venezuelan president’s remarks
were all indicators a crisis was if
the making in September, posst
bly a violent confrontation.

Pentagon Role

The Pentagon forms a key |
component of a Washingto? |
lobby opposing the Declaration®) |
Principles signed by Secretary % |
State Henry Kissinger an® |
Panama’s Foreign Minister, Juall
Antonio Tack, in February 1974
In it the U.S. renounces the print
ciple of ‘‘perpetual’’ ownership 0
the Canal as recorded in the 1
Treaty and pledges to recogniZ@_
Panama’s sovereignty over bot! J
the’Canal and the Zone. |

In June’ the Pentagom

supported anti-treaty Congres)
sional block managed to get Com)
gress to cut off funds for thé
Panama talks. In July and Augus} |
the U.S. National Security Cou™
cil, of which both State Depaf) ;
ment and: Pentagon represent# (
(

Pt ag gm ge OE Beg a ee ee” ee ae

tives are members, discussed thé
issue in an effort to break thé
deadlock.

Panama’s foreign ministry de’
scribed the talks as having pf) s
duced ‘‘very little progress: | I
Discussions were resumed at thé)
end of November. For the firs!
time in the 11 years of negoti®) |
tions Ellesworth Bunker, a tof x
Pentagon representative accom)
panied the U.S. delegation to th*
talks. a

Shortly before returning ho

General Torrijos bluntly tellinh
him that ‘unless you intend ®
continue the talks with apropos
position in these negotiations, 4
not bother to come back.””
What remains in effect today! =
as Thomas M. Franck and FE
ward Weisband writing in ¢
latest issue of Foreign Policy P!
it, ‘A 1903 treaty negotiated #
Panama’s behalf by a dubiodg
accredited Frenchman with a)
million personal stake in its ov it ES
come, the meaning of which b® |
been bitterly contested sini e
1904.” s
That treaty makes.the Pana is
Canal Zone virtually ‘‘a 59
square mile colony,’’ ‘
General Torrijos. 4