PANAMA History: The importance of Dec.12th

History

The controversy began in the year 1946. Once the first anniversary of the end of World War II was fulfilled, Panama asked the Government of the United States to vacate the 130 military bases that it maintained throughout the national territory. When the United States joined the hostilities, in 1942 Panama ceded 130 sites to that country so that it could install military bases for the defense of the Canal.

December 12 marked the 55th anniversary of that civic day that culminated in the rejection of the Filos-Hines agreement. American expansionism suffered a severe blow on that date. The 1940s generation lived through the drama of the world and their homeland, and in their struggles they identified with the post-war demands. What happened in 1947 should be known to the new generations, today entertained with the frivolities that abound and that unfortunately divorce them from civic tasks.

The controversy began in the year 1946. Once the first anniversary of the end of World War II was fulfilled, Panama asked the Government of the United States to vacate the 130 military bases that it maintained throughout the national territory. When the United States joined the hostilities, in 1942 Panama ceded 130 sites to that country so that it could install military bases for the defense of the Canal. It was agreed that the bases would be returned to Panama one year after the end of the conflict. The war ended on August 15, 1945 with the unconditional surrender of Japan. In the month of September 1946, Panama requested compliance with the agreement to which the great power did not agree, alleging that the war would only be terminated when peace protocols were signed with the defeated countries, event that to date had not occurred. Within the National Assembly of Panama, doctors Ricardo J. Alfaro and Octavio Fábrega supported with irrefutable arguments the legal validity of the Panamanian claim. The Executive Branch began a difficult diplomatic negotiation and, given the stubbornness of the US government, it was agreed to replace the 1942 agreement, already expired, with a new one that essentially prolonged the occupation of certain bases, primarily that of Río Hato, for a few years.

The Federation of Students, the Patriotic Front and other political and civic organizations opposed the new pact for multiple reasons, and mainly because in the year 1947, the date of the new agreement, the contractual conditions provided for in the general treaty of 1936 did not exist. , then in force, to negotiate and grant facilities for the defense of the Canal. Indeed, clause X of the general treaty of 1936 conditioned any transfer of bases to the real existence of a universal conflagration or a danger of war, and both conditions did not exist. The opponents of the new agreement clung to the legal argument presented.

The fight was tenacious and patriotic. On December 22, 1947, the National Assembly unanimously rejected the bases agreement submitted for its consideration. That same night, President Truman of the United States ordered the evacuation of all military bases located outside the limits of the so-called Canal Zone.

Unfortunately, the lack of consistency and great complacency led some political sectors to ignore, very soon, the deed of December 12 when the National Assembly approved the treaty negotiated during the government of José Remón in 1955. In one of its clauses, the Río Hato military base was leased to the United States for a term of 15 years, extendable, for the defense of the Canal.

This kind of ambiguity in Panamanian diplomacy abounds in excess. Above all, because the governments of the United States have known how to bend the hand in conducting Panamanian foreign policy, on every occasion when their interests should prevail. The 1936 treaty, for example, took an effective step in the field of sovereignty by establishing that the cession of new lands for the defense and maintenance of the Canal should be the subject of an agreement; that is, it had to have the prior consent of Panama. However, through an exchange of notes on February 1, 1939, Panama accepted that, in the event of a sudden emergency, the United States will face the emergency and unilaterally take the necessary measures to face the difficulty. Who qualifies the emergency as sudden? What were the evaluation criteria?

I imagine that the Panamanian diplomats of 1939 did not see any danger in what was agreed upon in the interventionist exchange and if it caused any concern, they were there for them, like perpetual valium, the old declarations of President Teodoro Roosevelt who offered Panama security, peace, progress, justice and a respectful treatment of a republic and not a colony.

In the same direction, when the United States approved the Neutrality treaty, amendments were agreed that placed the entire country, in perpetuity, under the umbrella of the Pentagon. It is obvious that, within the spirit of December 12, 1947, it is a pending issue for the Panamanian nation to eliminate any commitment that harms sovereignty and especially if such commitment did not undergo the procedures, for its approval, established in the Panamanian Constitution. Point 7 of the Joint Announcement issued on February 7, 1974 by those in charge of foreign policy of Panama and the United States deserved the same appreciation, when subjecting us, the referred point 7, to the risk of recognizing the legality of the warmongering enclave that had been operating in the Canal Zone without the consent of Panama. The risk materialized under the lure of joint defense and from 1977 to the year 2000 US military bases were legalized. In the cited point 7 one could also find the origin of the amendments described by some negotiators as drinkable, and by others not drinkable, agreed in perpetuity.

In truth, time continues its march and those of us who acted in 1947 see that 55 years have passed since those days as patriotic as they were full of love for the country. The essential thing is to accept that, due to the existence of some residual agreements, typical of the old Panama cedes, the fight for the improvement of homeland sovereignty still continues. Engaging in that fight is a tribute to the historical significance of December 12, 1947. It is hardly honorable to acknowledge it.

The original article was published on December 14, 2002.

The strong spirit of December 12
The strong spirit of December 12
FILE
A winner in the field of the ideals of freedom:
Full name: Carlos Iván Zúñiga Guardia
Birth: January 1, 1926 Penonomé, Coclé
Death: November 14, 2008, Panama City
Occupation: Lawyer, journalist, teacher and politician
Religious beliefs : Catholic Widow: Sydia Candanedo de Zúñiga
Summary of his career: In 1947 he began his political life as a student leader who rejected the Filós-Hines grassroots agreement. He held the positions of minister, deputy, president of the Popular Action Party in 1981, and leader of the National Civilian Crusade. He was recognized for his multiple criminal defenses and for his excellent oratory. From 1991 to 1994 he was rector of the University of Panama. He has received the Manuel Amador Guerrero Order, the Justo Arosemena and the Order of the Sun from Peru.
No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

History
TOURISM OUTLOOK: 2025 Panama on the Upswing.

https://www.cntraveler.com/story/panama-city-hotels-restaurants-nature-reserves   Like its namesake canal, Panama has historically served as a gateway to other ports of call throughout the Caribbean and South America. But in the last few years, the country’s capital city has emerged onto the global stage: Magnificent hotels are preserving the architecture of Casco Viejo, the colonial center. Restaurant openings are showcasing Panama’s …

Canal
Historical Retrospective on the CANAL: As it defines the PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE of PANAMA.

https://www.laestrella.com.pa/panama/publicando-historia/pasado-presente-y-futuro-poniendo-en-perspectiva-al-canal-de-panama-FE7547711 This engineering work has a great connection with the Panamanian idiosyncrasy as well as the history of the isthmus, in which it continues to be a relevant element. The return of the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone to the Panamanian administration is one of the most important events …

Bocas del Toro
Some Bocas del Toro History: Once destined for takeover by Mexico

The Mexican government wants to reconstruct the bizarre story of Catarino Garza https://www-laestrella-com-pa.translate.goog/panama/nacional/el-general-mexicano-que-quiso-tomarse-bocas-del-toro-XB6157145?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc Hidden in a corner of Bocas del Toro, Panama, is a part of the history of the Mexican revolution. One that the journalist and general, Catarino Erasmo Garza Rodríguez, wrote with his actions. A rebel who took …