76-19-A1

- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1977

<< Previous Broadcast

Next Broadcast >>

L.A. Times [Panama Canal]

Transcript One August 29, the Los Angeles TIMES in an editorial, wrote that I have "endeared myself to right wing Republicans" -- by saying I will "work for Senate rejection of the new Panama Canal treaties". That raises a question of arithmetic. We are told that only 18% of the electorate is registered Republican. What percentage of these are "right wing" the TIMES doesn't say, but news stories ln the TIMES as in other papers must have referred to the national polls which indicate 80% of all Americans are opposed to giving up the Canal. As a matter of fact, that same issue of the TIMES announced that the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars are officially opposed to the new treaties. But, in both the TIMES editorial and a column by Ernest Conine the same day, the principal argument given for ratifying the treaties was the possibility of riot and bloodshed in Panama and Latin America. Yet, the TIMES says we are not "running from the Canal with our tail between our legs." They then go on to say the treaty gives us the right to defend the Canal and keep it open even after it is no longer ours. This raises an interesting question. If we are so fearful of trouble (including actual sabotage of the Canal while it is still owned by us) would we send armed forces to Panama after we have agreed to give it away if they decided to hasten the takeover? There are other questions to be asked. Would the Panamanian people -- or even the present dictator of Panama -- want to sabotage the Canal when it represents 25% of their gross national product? For that matter, does the TIMES believe the people of Panama are necessarily in agreement with their present ruler who took office at the point of a gun? In a military overthrow, the clique, of which General Torrijos was a part, ousted the elected President 11 days after he had taken office following a landslide victory. One American newspaper, the Chicago TRIBUNE, sent a reporter to Panama several months ago while the negotiations were still going on. He interviewed the people of Panama on the street and in their homes. Even though many admitted to danger in talking to him, they expressed their opposition to Torrijos and said giving him the Canal would reduce their chances of ever freeing themselves from his dictatorship. One more point regarding the charge that the Canal cannot be defended against sabotage. Surely the Germans in World War I who were able to touch off the disastrous "Black Town" explosion in New Jersey could have profited by sabotaging the Canal. In World War II, when our Pacific Fleet had been virtually destroyed at Pearl Harbor, our enemies must have wished they could close the Canal. And, in the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Communists (who are the only recognized party in Panama) must have wanted to shut off the supplies we were pouring through the Canal. The TIMES says businessmen are fearful that failure to ratify the treaty will set off a wave of violence in Latin America. Of course they are! The State Department has been propagandizing them for almost two years to support giving away the Canal on the grounds that their business investments in Latin American will be endangered if we don't. In my next broadcast, I'll tell you what some of our greatest military experts think about the treaties. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.		Details Batch Number 76-19-A1 Production Date 09/06/1977 Book/Page RihoH-199 Audio Youtube? No
		Added Notes