The concept of a “Third World” which comprises the socialist and non-socialist countries of Latin America, Asia, and Africa conceals the fundamental distinction between capitalism and socialism as well as the counter-revolutionary alliance which exists today between the imperialist bourgeoisies of the oppressor nations and the pro-imperialist bourgeoisies of the oppressed nations.
In the article, “Whitewashing Enemies and Slandering Friends,” Eileen Klehr asks, “How should the Third World be summed up today? From the viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism, it is the main force opposing imperialism, colonialism, and superpower hegemony.”[1] Klehr concludes that Marxist-Leninists must unconditionally support any move on the part of the non-socialist governments which is directed against one or another superpower. Not to adopt such an uncritical position, declares Klehr, is a Trotskyist stance, “amounting to the position that no anti-imperialist struggle is worthy of support unless it is a purely proletarian movement with the immediate aim of proletarian revolution.”[2]
As the CP (M-L) has not yet chosen to openly denounce the Party of Labor of Albania, the target of Klehr’s article is the RCP. “From the viewpoint of the RCP,” writes Klehr, “it (the “Third World”) is rampant with the imperialist puppets and a bastion of neo-colonialism.”[3]
Unlike the CP (M-L), the RCP views the “three world” division as a means of exploiting contradictions in the “enemy camp.” The RCP has denounced the reactionary character of various governments in the “Third World.” Yet, the RCP, too, posits that we must render unconditional support to various moves adopted by the existing governments against the two superpowers. In a recent article, “On the Three Worlds and the International Situation,” the RCP states: “It is the duty of the international proletariat in the arena of international struggle to encourage, assist and support all forces, even bourgeois forces, in whatever resistance they put up to domination by both superpowers.”[4]
Lenin, however, spoke precisely of the necessity to critically analyze the actions of the bourgeoisies of the oppressed nations from the standpoint of class criterion and to distinguish between reformist movements led by the pro-imperialist bourgeoisies and the genuinely revolutionary national movements. Only by making such a distinction, wrote Lenin, was it possible to really place the education and organization of the proletariat of the oppressed nations at the center of all communist activity and to ensure its hegemony in the national-democratic revolution. We quote here, at length, from Lenin’s ”Report of the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions,” adopted by the Second Congress of the Third International in 1921:
...The objections have been raised that, if we speak of the bourgeois-democratic movement, we shall be obliterating all distinctions between the reformist and the revolutionary movements. Yet that distinction has been very clearly revealed of late in the backward and colonial countries, since the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nations too. There has been a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often-perhaps even in most cases-the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movements, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e. joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes...[5]
What is the practical significance for the communists of this “rapprochement” between the bourgeoisies of the oppressor and oppressed nations?
...We, as Communists should and will support bourgeois movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organizing in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat (our emphasis) the reformist bourgeoisie, to whom the heroes of the Second International belong.[6]
Stalin, elaborating on Lenin’s theses in 1925, explained how they reflected a change from the earlier views of the Bolshevik party on the national and colonial questions. Again, we quote at length:
...Until now the situation has been that the East was usually spoken of as a homogeneous whole. It is now obvious to everybody that there is no longer a single, homogeneous East, that there are now capitalistically developed and developing colonies and backward and lagging colonies, and they cannot all be measured with the same yardstick.
Until now the national-liberation movement has been regarded as an unbroken front of all the national forces in the colonial and dependent countries, from the most reactionary bourgeois to the most revolutionary proletarians. Now, after the national bourgeoisie has split into a revolutionary and an anti-revolutionary wing, the picture of the national movement is assuming a somewhat different aspect. Parallel with the revolutionary elements of the national movement, compromising elements which prefer a deal with imperialism to the liberation of their countries are emerging from the bourgeoisie.
Thus, Stalin concludes:
Hence the task of the communist elements in the colonial countries is to link up with the revolutionary elements of the bourgeoisie, and above all with the peasantry, against the bloc of imperialism and the compromising elements of ’their own’ bourgeoisie, in order, under the leadership of the proletariat, to wage a genuinely revolutionary struggle for liberation from imperialism.[7]
No clearer statement than this exists on the tasks of communists in the dependent nations. The adherents of the “three world” theory claim to base their views on the existence of “new conditions.” In actual fact, however, the “three world” theory draws its inspiration from the period before the development of capitalism in the dependent nations when, as Stalin wrote, they were regarded as a “homogeneous whole.” It is the “three world” theory which negates the existing conditions: the tendency of finance capital to destroy national boundaries and to internationalize the economic and political life of oppressed nations. Since Lenin and Stalin’s lifetime, this tendency has not diminished but has, on the contrary, been greatly strengthened. As the Zeri i Popullit editorial states:
In many countries liberated from colonialism, the ties of the local bourgeoisie with foreign imperialist capital have not only been preserved, but are being strengthened and extended in many neo-colonialist forms, such as the multinational companies, various economic financial mergers, and so on and so forth. This bourgeoisie, which occupied key positions in the economic and political life of these countries, and which is growing, is a pro-imperialist force and enemy of the revolutionary and liberation movement.[8]
With the collapse of the old system of colonialism, neo-colonialism has become the main vehicle for the imperialist domination of the dependent nations. To disguise their alliances with finance capital, the pro-imperialist bourgeoisies of these nations have adopted the rhetoric of anti-imperialism. It is precisely their actual class role which is concealed by the “three world” theory.
Today, undeniably, the governments of Latin America, Asia, and Africa have acted, to one degree or another, in opposition to the dictates of one or another superpower. We have the recent examples of Israel refusing U.S. proposals for negotiating territory annexed during the 1973 Middle East War, South Africa rejecting U.S. and British plans for implementing “majority rule,” Ecuador challenging the U.S. ban on the sale of Israeli weaponry, Torrijos re-negotiating the Panama Canal Treaty, Sadat abrogating the 1971 Egyptian-Soviet “Friendship” Treaty, Brazil purchasing nuclear breeder reactors from West Germany,[9] etc.
Of course, not all of the above “anti-hegemonic” moves have been supported “unconditionally” by our adherents of the “three world” division. The RCP and CP (M-L) have chosen not to speak about the first three examples whose pro-imperial1st content is readily apparent for all to see. In practice, the RCP and CP (M-L) only apply the “three world” division to those moves which at least have the appearance of being anti-imperialist. Such moves, too, however, must be analyzed from a class standpoint and not merely accepted on face value. The “unconditional” support of the RCP and CP (M-L) only serves to lend credibility to the “reformist” pro-imperialist bourgeoisies of the oppressed nations. As the Zeri i Popullit editorial states:
U.S. imperialism, the other capitalist states and Soviet social-imperialism have bound the classes which are ruling in the countries of the so-called “Third World” to them with a thousand threads. Being dependent on the foreign monopolies and wanting to prolong their domination over the broad masses of their own peoples, these classes are, of course, trying to give the impression as if they allegedly form a democratic bloc of independent states, which aims to exert pressure on U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism and to stop their interference in their internal affairs.[10]
The application of the “three world” theory actually serves to aid the imperialist nations and the pro-imperialist bourgeoisies of the oppressed nations in their JOINT efforts to direct the genuinely revolutionary movement of the masses into reformist channels. To illustrate this process, we will examine; in depth, the role of Torrijos and Carter in the present re-negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaty.
Since 1903, when the U.S. assumed sovereignty “in perpetuity” of the Canal Zone, the U.S. government has been faced with the popular resistance of the Panamanian people. It was not, however, until the eruption of the anti-U.S. riots of January 1964, that the U.S. government was finally forced to consider re-negotiating the notorious 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty.[11] The 1964 riots lasted for nearly a week. 700 people were killed or injured before the fighting was over. Damage to “U.S.” property was estimated at $2,000,000. Of the rioting, one bourgeois historian of Panama declared, “There has been an entire week of bitter turmoil without precedent in the history of the Canal Zone.”[12]
President Roberto Chiari, under whose administration the historic riots occurred was, of course, compelled to adopt an anti-U.S. stance. The actual content of his presidency, however, was of an entirely pro-U.S. character. Chiari, a wealthy sugar planter and dairy farmer, was elected on May 21, 1960 as the candidate of the National Union Party.
He soon became reknowned as an outspoken advocate of the Alliance for Progress (Alianza Para Progressor). During President Kennedy’s term, large sums of money “proportionate” to Panama’s total economy were dispensed to the Chiari government through the CIA-created Agency for International Development (AID). Chiari, moreover, acted as an outstanding defender of the Kennedy administration’s counter-insurgency programs, conducted throughout Latin America, and aimed, especially, at the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. Said a U.S. admirer of Chiari, “After it took office in October, 1960, the Chiari administration controlled local Communists much more firmly than had its predecessors...Denunciations of Castro in Panamanian newspapers and public forums was more outspoken than in most other Caribbean countries and the Chiari government followed other hemispheric states in breaking diplomatic relations with Cuba.”[13]
While discussions concerning a new treaty were begun under Chiari’s administration, formal negotiations were undertaken with his successor, Marcos Robles. Robles had served as Minister of the Interior under Chiari. An ardent anti-communist, Robles, in 1961, had testified at length before the Panamanian National Assembly about the “communist threat” in Panama. Shortly before assuming office, in 1964, Robles denounced the January riots: “In every country of Latin America we are suffering from the pressure of international Communism either directly from the Iron Curtain countries of Europe or through the island of Cuba. I want to tell the Communists here and abroad that they don’t have the opportunity to achieve their objectives in this country. During my administration there will be no opportunity for extremist groups to try to block the development of our country.”[14]
In 1965, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson and Robles reached an agreement concerning the provisions of the new treaty. The agreement, however, was immediately attacked by ultra-reactionary forces in the U.S. and left opposition in Panama. Commenting on the odds against the passage of the new treaty, a Panamanian journalist concluded, “Someone has to sell the terms of the agreement to the public and the timing of such salesmanship is important.” Faced with popular opposition, Robles’ “salesmanship” consisted of unleashing the repressive apparatus of the Panamanian state. All opposition was met with the official violence of the Panamanian National Guard (Guardia Nacionale).[15] Negotiations were temporarily forestalled. Two years later, in 1967, Robles and Johnson announced a new tentative agreement whose main principles were no different than those elaborated in 1965.
Robles, like his predecessor Chiari, was to leave office before treaty negotiations were completed. In 1968, presidential elections were held in Panama. Utilizing the popular opposition to Robles, Arnulfo Arias ran on a platform of denouncing the “Robles Treaty” as inviting “Yanqui exploitation.” Arias’ criticisms of Robles were, indeed, ironic. A member of the 40 or 50 leading families of the Panamanian oligarchy, Arias had twice before served in the Panamanian presidency. His own record in office was as pro-U.S. and anti-communist as Robles! In 1948, Arias ran unsuccessfully as a candidate of the Authentic Revolutionary Party. In the 1948 elections, too, Arias campaigned as an anti-U.S. candidate. In particular, he criticized President de la Guardia for allowing U.S. military bases to remain in Panama.[16] Arias was defeated in the elections but came to power, nonetheless, through a coup which was henceforth designated the “Revolution of November, 1949.” The next year, on January 25, 1950, Arias negotiated a new “Treaty of Amity” with President Truman. Under its terms, Panama was to pay the U.S. approximately $35,000 as settlement of all claims filed by United States citizens against the Republic of Panama for expropriation and past damages in insurrections beginning with 1915!
Arias’ anti-communism also served the U.S. government well. On April 29, 1950, Arias signed a Presidential Decree which “outlawed communism in Panama.” The Panamanian People’s Party (which had been affiliated with the Comintern[17] until its dissolution in 1943), was declared unconstitutional. Arias denounced the People’s Party as the “absolute negation of all democracy, contrary to Christian civilization, and a menace to all democratic regimes...All propaganda, activity, or agitation of a Communist character is contrary to the democratic regime of the Republic...and has the sole objective of undermining the stability of democratic institutions.”[18] In May, 1960, the People’s Party headquarters were raided and its records confiscated. Arias further decreed that ships of Panamanian origin would no longer be allowed to deliver goods to communist nations or “communist-dominated” nations.
Such a record of pro-U.S. and anti-communist accomplishments was, however, not to be the legacy of Arias’ third administration. On October, 18, 1968–11 days after assuming office–Arias was overthrown by a junta led by Brigadier General Omar Terrera Torrijos. At this point, showing his true colors, Arias abandoned all “anti-U.S.” pretense and fled to the Canal Zone where he sought sanctuary from the U.S. government.
Torrijos was the Commander of the 5,000 member Panamanian National Guard. This was the same National Guard which acted with the U.S. to “restore order” during the 1964 riots. It was financed, trained, and equipped by the United States. Panama’s Guardia Nacional, wrote a bourgeois historian, “is the nation’s second line of defense after the U.S. and it derives considerable benefit from the existence of the School on the Isthmus. A number of guardsmen are trained in the Canal Zone and the rest in Panama.”[19] The “School on the Isthmus” is the infamous School of the Americas based at Fort Gulick which trains its “students” to employ counter-insurgency tactics and techniques throughout Latin America. It was founded in 1940 for training U.S. personnel.By the 1960’s, the majority of graduates were of Latin American origin. In addition to the School of the Americas, the Canal Zone houses such centers of counter-revolution as the Inter-American Police Academy which, by February of 1963, had already graduated 12,400 Latin American trainees.[20] “The Nixon recognition of Torrijos, wrote a historian, “gave the junta the opportunity to benefit from this program in the Canal Zone. The junta, as a ’legitimate government’ thus gained U.S. assistance which would enable it to cope with possible insurgency. ”[21]
The role of the Panamanian National Guard as an instrument of U.S. domination was demonstrated quite graphically soon after Torrijos came to power. In the middle of 1960, then Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, journeyed on a “fact-finding” tour of Latin America for the Nixon administration. Panama was one of the few nations on which Rockefeller was not confronted by hostile demonstrators. His “safe visit” was accredited to the elaborate security measures provided by Torrijos which included the stationing of National Guardsmen with machine guns at frequent intervals along Rockefeller’s motorcade route.
Continuing in the anti-Imperialism in words, pro-imperialism In deeds tradition of his predecessors, Torrijos, on September 12, 1970, granted an interview to a UPI reporter in which he declared that he “wanted no part of the three draft treaties negotiated in the Marcos Robles and Lyndon Johnson administrations.” The next month, Torrijos signed a decree banning all political parties from participating in elections for the Constituent Assembly, scheduled for 1970. These repressive measures were well-calculated, as the principles of the present treaty under negotiation are exactly the same as the Robles/Johnson Treaties so hypocritically denounced by Torrijos.
Based on the principles of the Johnson/Robles Treaties, those presently before the Senate were prepared by the “bi-partisan” Trilateral Commission – Rockefeller think-tank for neo-colonialist solutions to imperialist crises. Its members include such figures as President Carter, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, former U.S. President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as well as Sol Linowitz, one of the two chief U.S. negotiators of the treaties.
As in 1970, Torrijos is today acutely aware of the politically volatile nature of these treaties. An examination of their main points[22] reveals that the implementation of the treaties will only serve to strengthen the hold of U.S. imperialism and its Panamanian collaborators over the Panamanian masses. The agreement actually includes two separate treaties: the Panama Canal Treaty and the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Canal. The first treaty concerns the administration of the present canal and the construction of a new sea level canal. An economic and military “aid” package supplements the treaty agreements.
(1) Administration of the Present Canal:
Article I, “Abrogation of Prior Treaties and Establishment of a New Relationship,” and Article III, “Canal Operation and Management,” abrogate the 1903 treaty which granted the U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone “in perpetuity.” These articles stipulate that complete control of the canal shall pass to Panama on December 31, 1999 – the date of the treaty’s expiration. Until that time, management of the canal is to be shared by both governments through the Panama Canal Commission[23], which will replace the U.S.-owned Panama Canal Company (whose President, today, is also Governor of the Canal Zone).
Torrijos has hailed the new treaties as a great victory for the Panamanian people. On the face of it, the abrogation of the 1903 Treaty does, indeed, appear to be an important concession wrung from U.S. imperialism. It must, however, be placed in the context of U.S. plans for the construction of a new, lockless sea level canal as well as the “neutrality” provisions of the second treaty document.
(2) Construction of a New Sea Level Canal:
The future obsolescence of the present canal was projected as early as the 1960’s. Today, no less than 2,000 ships are unable to transit through the canal’s locks; they are no longer able to serve the needs of modern shipping. Article XII, “A Sea Level Canal or a Third Lane of Locks,” of the proposed treaty grants the U.S. exclusive rights to the construction of a new sea level canal through Panama: “During the duration of this Treaty, the united States of America shall not negotiate with third States for the right to construct an inter-oceanic canal or any other route in the Western Hemisphere, except as the two Parties may otherwise agree.”
Having studied the feasibility of various routes for several years, the U.S. Corps of Engineers has concluded that the best site for a new sea level lockless canal to be in Panama. As a U.S. official testified before the Senate hearings, “Yes, the new treaty contains restrictive language that the new canal will be built in Panama but this is in our interest anyway.” He said, further, that “settling the question” of a new canal is of prime importance to international shipping. Currently, supertankers and large container ships are unable to use the canal. The percentage of world trade which utilizes the canal is decreasing each year. Panamanian guarantee of exclusive rights to the U.S. would serve as a stimulus to the world shipping industry faced, at present, with a depressed market. First, however, concluded the official, the “canal and its operation must be taken out of the political arena.”
From the U.S. standpoint, the new sea level canal will have a number of advantages over the present one. As a bourgeois historian wrote, “A sea level canal would be simpler to operate and harder to sabotage. It would require only hundreds rather than thousands of men to maintain and operate it. The U.S. would have no need to maintain large military and civilian establishments, or to control the zone on the isthmus.”[24]
The completion of this new canal is timed to coincide with the expiration of the proposed treaties when full sovereignty of the obsolete canal is scheduled to pass into Panamanian hands. And, while the pro-imperialist Panamanian bourgeoisie has been assured that it will receive an increased share of the new canal’s revenues, its “own” proletariat will be faced with unprecedented levels of unemployment. Surely, the blood of generations of Panamanians has not been spilt for this “great concession!”
(3) Defense of the Canal and Its Neutrality:
The depth of U.S. concern over potential sabotage of the Canal’s operations has also been revealed in the course of the Senate hearings. “Liberal” Idaho Senator Frank Church, for example, has spoken of the proposed treaties as a preventative measure against the outbreak of “guerilla warfare” in the Canal Zone.
This concern, however, is not limited to the U.S. bourgeoisie but is also shared by the Panamanian government. In its October 3, 1977 article on Panama, The Call favorably quotes an editorial on the treaty which appeared in the Panamanian newspaper La Republica: “Not all that belongs to us has been obtained, and not all that has been achieved is positive for us...(but) the Panamanian people have been good at struggle and know how to carry the struggle through to the end. What the CP (M-L) did not quote from La Republica is the following statement: “The agreement...will make us a sort of sanctuary – similiar to Switzerland...In fact the only threat to the canal’s security is sabotage...Our people have proven over the years... that they are capable and responsible enough to keep it functioning. The agreement seems to be right and proper for the Panamanian community’s best interests.
Panama, of course, is already a “sanctuary – similiar to Switzerland for finance capital. Numerous banks and multinational corporations are currently using Panama as a base for their financial operations throughout Latin America. More than eighty foreign banks, with deposits totalling over $12 billion, are located in Panama City.[25] This “sanctuary” is, undeniably, in the interests of foreign investors and the pro-imperialist Panamanian bourgeoisie. For the Panamanian masses, however, the export of finance capital to Panama only results in the intensification of imperialist exploitation – in their greater impoverishment.
Torrijos’ betrayal of the Panamanian anti-imperialist struggle is no more clearly expressed than in his unqualified support for the right of the U.S. to “defend” the canal after the year 2,000. Article IV, “Protection and Defense” reads: “The United States of America and the Republic of Panama commit themselves to protect and defend the Panama Canal. Each party shall act, in accordance with its constitutional processes, to meet the danger resulting from an armed attack or other actions which threaten the security of the Panama Canal or of ships transiting it...” The article further stipulates that, in order to meet their defense obligations, the U.S. and Panamanian governments “shall establish a Combined Board comprised of an equal number of senior military representatives of each Party...”
The proposed treaty will thus legitimize, by force of law, the presence of U.S. military bases in the Canal Zone, U.S. military intervention to maintain “neutrality” of the canal, and obligate the Panamanian National Guard to act “in concert” with U.S. military forces against any Panamanian citizens who may be accused of threatening the security of the canal.
Of these provisions, which grant the U.S. the right to “defend” the canal “in perpetuity,” Panamanian chief negotiator Escobar Bethancourt has said, “We have repeated time and again that the U.S. will not have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of Panama. But Panama and the U.S. have the responsibility to keep the canal open, secure, and accessible. And each (of us) have the right to defend the Canal.”[26] In his endorsement of this “right,” Escobar was, however, outdone by Torrijos himself. On September 7, at the treaty signing ceremonies in Washington D.C., Torrijos said that the treaty “places us under the Pentagon’s defense umbrealla.” In a nation-wide October 20th, “Conversation with the People,” broadcast, held three days before the plebescite, Torrijos declared:
There are those who say I signed a receipt for intervention – but that is not true. If we are attacked by a superior force, the United States is obligated to defend us. I am not ashamed of this. I want the canal to be really neutral, so that all the world respects the isthmus. If there is an attack superior to our forces, we push the button, the bell rings there (in Washington), and they must come to our defense.[27]
How has Torrijos dealt with those who accuse him of signing a “receipt for intervention?” He has rejected appeals to postpone the October 23rd plebiscite, attacked the opposition as “traitors” and “bad Panamanians,” called instead for “iron-like national unity,” and allowed political parties which support the treaties to function freely. One of these parties is the revisionist Panamanian People’s Party.
Even in the face of such treachery, the CP (M-L) has remained uncritical of Torrijos and has supported his so-called “opposition” to U.S. imperialism.[28] in a July 25, 1977, article in The Call, the CP (M-L) states, “In face of increased activity by the Southern Command, the Panamanian government has remained firm in demanding complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by the year 2,000.” Later, in October, the CP (M-L) favorably quoted a speech Torrijos delivered before a rally on September 9, in which he stated that the Panamanian struggle “is not over” and “there is still a long way ahead.” The struggle of the Panamanian people against the imperialist domination of their country is, indeed, “not over.” It will, however, only be victorious as a result of the most uncompromising struggle against such agents of U.S. imperialism and the reactionary Panamanian landed oligarchy as General Torrijos himself!
(4) Economic and Military “Aid” Package:
to be made up by a projected 24-25% increase In tolls), Panama is to receive from the U.S. a military and economic “aid” package. The package is not a formal part of the treaties which are confined to legal relationships between the U.S. and Panamanian governments. According to its terms, over a ten year period, the Panamanian government is to receive $295 million in economic loans and $50 million in military sales. Through the Panama Development Bank, to which OPEC has pledged to contribute funds, Panama will also receive investment guarantees.
During Senate hearings on the treaties, a U.S. government official testified that no economic growth had occurred in Panama in 1976. This, despite great possibilities for profit. The major reason for the economic stagnation, he said, was the “uncertainty (around the canal) which had resulted in a considerable decrease of foreign investment in Panama. The Panamanian government, in 1976, thus showed a budget deficit of $122 million. Should the treaties pass, however, the official predicted that conditions would again be “favorable” for Investment.
Of the aid package itself, President Carter has stated that it will contain “standard ’Buy America’ provisions that will greatly benefit U.S. businesses which invest and sell goods and services to Panama.”[29]
Speaking as a true demagogue, Torrijos promised Panamanians attending an October 22 rally in Colon that the treaties would “end unemployment.” It was, indeed, ironic that Torrijos should have made such a statement in Colon. The Colon Free Zone is a duty-free port city where 600 U.S. companies net $750 million annually without paying customs duties, export, personal, or corporate taxes. The pro-imperialist policies of the Torrijos government only provide “employment” for foreign investors.
Today, the Canal Treaties are being hailed from various reactionary quarters: a sector of the U.S. bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy,[30] imperialist allies of the U.S.,[31] and the pro-imperialist Panamanian and Latin American bourgeoisies.
The class role of the Latin American governments in supporting the treaties has, In particular, been distorted by the CP (M-L). The Call, for example, has favorably quoted the recent statement of Panamanian President Demetrio Lakas that the new treaties were won as a result of “Latin American unity.”[32] What the CP (M-L) fails to expose, however, is the obviously pro-imperialist character of this unity. The Chilean and Argentine governments, for example, expressed the view that the treaties deserve support because they sanction U.S. defense of the canal’s “neutrality.” The Chicago Tribune has reported that in Chile, “The government newspaper El Cronica said in an editorial that the Treaty was ’particularly positive’ because it permits continued military security of the Canal.” In Argentina, too, “The Government is reported to have told U.S. officials that the U.S. should maintain its presence on the canal to avoid transit-fee increases and a takeover by a Communist government.” For his part, Carlos Andres Perez, President of Venezuela, gave the Carter administration his unqualified stamp of approval, declaring that Carter had “passed the test” in his relations with Latin America.[33]
These reactionary Latin American governments have played an invaluable role for the Carter administration in promoting the canal treaties and Torrijos as a “popular leader” who represents the interests of the Panamanian people. Tied to U.S. finance capital with a “thousand threads,” they are a pro-imperialist force whose class interest lies in the preservation of neo-colonialism and the suppression of the anti-imperialist struggle in Latin America.
Today, a sector of the U.S. bourgeoisie has fully acknowledged that it can no longer dominate Panama ”in the old way.” It must abandon the open colonialism of the 1903 flay-Bunau-Varilia Treaty and adopt new methods of imperialist control. As one columnist denounced Strom Thurmond’s intransigent opposition to the new treaties:
Southerners generally now acknowledge that the civil rights struggle of the last 20 years made today’s vital ’New South’ visible. ..colonialism is as dead – or even deader – an idea than racial segregation. And the Panama Canal issue, at its roots, involves an American administration in colonialism...In the end, now or soon, colonialism will become no more defensible than racial segregation by law.
The canal treaties, of course, will no more create a “new Panama” than did the civil rights movement of the 1960’s result in the birth of the “New South.” As a recent article in Latin America, a journal based in London, stated bluntly, the treaties are “tension-reducing ’concessions’ to Latin America which will not involve a real reduction of U.S. control.” Ellsworth Bunker, one of the two chief negotiators for the U.S. (and former ambassador to Vietnam) has spoken also of the 1903 Treaty as an anachronism:
Our control of the civilian government in the Canal Zone no longer is necessary to operate or defend the canal itself. It contributes only to tensions with Panamanian citizens, who resent – as we would – the presence of a foreign power running their local government within their territory...We have negotiated a new treaty because the old treaty arrangements could no longer provide the protection our interest (in ensuring U.S. passage through the canal) continues to warrant. All of America’s interests that matter would be preserved, or in many instances enhanced, by putting the new agreement into force...[34]
The new treaties do not represent a “step forward,” as the CP (M-L) claims. They are, instead, a means by which the U.S. will substitute neo-colonialism for open colonial rule. According to the agreement between Carter and Torrijos, the Canal Zone is to be eventually abolished and fully integrated into the rest of Panama. What, however, is the “rest of Panama” but a nation independent in appearance and subservient to finance capital in actual fact?
“Imperialist economic relations,” as Lenin wrote, “constitute the core of the entire international situation as it now exists.”[35] Today, the anti-imperialist struggles in Latin America, Asia, and Africa must, necessarily, be directed against neo-colonialism – against the pro-imperialist forces which are acting jointly with the imperialist powers to suppress the genuinely revolutionary national movements. It is precisely through this counter-revolutionary alliance that imperialism is able to maintain its domination of the dependent nations.
As Marxist-Leninists, we must expose, rather than conceal, the neo-colonialist maneuvers of our own bourgeoisie. This will only be possible if we fully abandon the “three world” theory which denies the existence of neo-colonialism and promotes the pro-imperialist bourgeoisies as allies of the anti-imperialist struggle.
[1] Klehr, “Whitewashing Enemies and Slandering Friends,” p. 31
[2] Ibid, p. 33.
[3] Ibid, p. 31.
[4] “On the Three Worlds and the International Situation,” p. 5.
[5] Lenin, “Report of the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions,” July 26, 1929, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 242. (The Commission was formed by the Second Congress of the Comintern under Lenin’s leadership).
[6] Ibid, p. 242.
[7] Stalin, “Results of the Work of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P. (B),” Sec. III, The Immediate Tasks of the Communist Elements in the Colonial and Dependent Countries,” May 9, 1925, On the Opposition, pp. 204-205.
[8] “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” p. 14
[9] Brazil concluded the agreement with West Germany following the refusal of the U.S. to sell it nuclear reactors. The Communist Party of Brazil had denounced the advocates of the “three world” theory who have promoted the sale as a model of “Second” and “Third” world co-operation. In the article, “Hold High the Invincible Banner of Marxism-Leninism,” published in the July, 1977, issue of its central organ, A Classe Operaria, the CP of Brazil states: “The aid of the second world for the third world is a fraud...Federal Germany is now one of the biggest investors in Brazil, second only to the USA. The aim of its investments is not in the least different from that of U.S. monopolies. It Is mercilessly exploiting the Brazilian workers and people, drawing fabulous profits from their sweat and blood and the plunder of natural assets. Can it be said that the German monopolists act differently in other countries? They act in the same way everywhere...” (See Albania Today, No. 5 (1977), p. 39.)
[10] “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” p. 15.
[11] In January of 1903, the U.S. concluded the Hay-Herran Canal Treaty with Columbia. The Columbian government, however, rejected the sum of $10 million offered by the U.S. for construction of the canal. In October, Teddy Roosevelt declared in a proposed message to Congress: “The Isthmian Canal bill was, of course, passed upon the assumption that whatever route was used, the benefit to the particular section of the Isthmus through which it passed would be so great that the country controlling this part would be eager to facilitate the building of the canal. It is out of the question to submit to extortion on the part of a beneficiary of the scheme. All the labor, all the expense, all the risk are to be assumed by us and all the skill shown by us. Those controlling the ground through which the canal is to be put are wholly incapable of building it.” (R. Roosevelt, Autobiography, pp. 572-574). Unable to reach accord with Columbia, the U.S. then exploited the Independent movement within Panama, a province of Columbia, to its own advantage. The Panamanian bourgeoisie readily accepted a U.S. proposal whereby, in exchange for the guerilla leader, Victoriano Lorenzo, the U.S. would militarily support the new republic against the Columbian government and provide it with economic aid. The “Republic of Panama” was thus created only a few weeks before the Canal Zone itself. Lorenzo was executed and the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, signed in 1903, was ratified in 1904 – granting the U.S. control of the Canal Zone “in perpetuity.” Indebted to its U.S. sponsors, the Panamanian bourgeoisie has, historically, pursued a policy of national betrayal.
[12] Lawrence 0. Ealy, Yanqui Politics and the Isthmian Canal, p. 123.
[13] Ibid, p. 119.
[14] Ibid, p. 125.
[15] In January, 1965, demonstrators attempted a march on the Canal Zone to commemorate the first anniversary of the 1964 riots. When students and workers started to move toward the zone boundary across the street from the Legislative Palace, they were immediately dispersed by tear gas grenades thrown by members of the National Guard. In November, 1965, 2,000 students, defying a ban against demonstrators set by the municipal administration and national government, demonstrated for Robles to assume a strong position towards the U.S. in the negotiations. They, too, were met with National Guard clubs and tear gas. Robles also rejected the demonstrators’ demand that the National Guard be removed from the Canal Zone boundary where they had been stationed by Robles to block demonstrators from entering the zone area. As Ealy wrote, “Fifteen intersections leading into the U.S. area were policed in this manner with very effective results,” (See Yanqui Politics and the Isthmian Canal, p. 127).
[16] 14 military bases were constructed by the U.S. in the Canal Zone during World War II. They were to be closed within a year of the conclusion of the war. Today, 10,000 U.S. troops are stationed on these bases. The new treaty does not preclude the Panamanian government from signing a military pact with the U.S. to maintain U.S. troops on Panamanian soil.
[17] The Communist International was founded by Lenin in 1919, following the collapse of the Second International in 1914 at the outbreak of World War I. With the single exception of the Bolshevik Party, all the Social Democratic parties of the Second International adopted a social-chauvinist position advocating defense of their own imperialist bourgeoisie. The Panamanian People’s Party was originally affiliated with the Comintern as the Panamanian Communist Party. The party changed its name to the Panamanian People’s Party during the Popular Front period.
[18]Lawrence 0. Ealy, The Republic of Panama in World Affairs, pp. 168-169.
[19] Sheldon Liss, The Canal, p. 84
[20] The existence of counter-insurgency training bases in the Canal Zone was not fully exposed in the U.S. bourgeois press until 1970 when a series of articles appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer. For more detailed Information concerning these bases, see: Sheldon Liss, The Canal, “Special Schools and Special Forces,” pp. 82-85, and Lawrence 0. Ealy, Yanqui Politics and the Isthmian Canal, pp. 140-142.
[21] Lawrence 0. Ealy, Yanqui Politics and the Isthmian Canal, p. 141. In December, 1960, while in Mexico, Torrijos was overthrown for a few hours by Col. Amado Sangur - third in command of the Panamanian National Guard. Later, it was learned that Torrijos had returned to power through the aid of the pro-U.S. Nicaraguan reactionary, Anastasio Somozo.
[22] “Partial Text of Panama Canal Pact,” Chicago Tribune, September 7, 1977, Sec. 4, p. 16.
[23] The Commission, however, is to contain five U.S. and only four Panamanian members. Ellsworth Bunker, one of the two chief negotiators of the treaty, has described the commission as providing for “joint U.S.-Panamanian maintenance of the canal through a U.S. government agency with U.S. control during the rest of the century.” (See “Should Canal Treaties be Approved?” Chicago Tribune, September 11, 1977, Sec. 2, p. 1).
[24] Ealy, Yanqui Politics and the Isthmian Canal, p. 131.
[25] The national currency of Panama, for example, is pegged directly to that of the United States.
[26] The CP (M-L), characteristically, only cites the first sentence of Escobar’s statement.
[27] “U.S. Obligated to Defend Canal, Panama Chief Says,” Chicago Tribune, October 21, 1977, Sec. 1, p. 14.
[28] The RCP’s support for Torrijos is implicit, rather than explicit. The views of the RCP on the Panama Canal are contained in the article, “New Treaty Keeps U.S. Grip on Canal,” Revolution, September, 1977, p. 10. In the article, the RCP critically examines the new treaty and concludes that it maintains the “grip” of the U.S. on Panama. Yet, the RCP fails to expose the collusion between the Carter and Torrijos administrations without which the U.S. would be unable to impose a neo-colonial solution to the canal question.
[29] New York Times, August 13, 1977.
[30] UAW Vice President Martin Gerber, for example, has spoken in favor of ratification of the treaties as a means to end U.S. “colonial, Imperial power on the soil of Panama.”
[31] Torrijos has campaigned world wide among international users of the Canal to win support for the treaties. He has visited U.S. allies West Germany, France, Italy, and Britain. On the personal invitiation of Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin, Torrijos also journeyed to Israel. The Panamanian government holds an entirely pro-Israeli position. It voted for the creation of Israel and opposed the UN General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism. (See “Panamanian to Visit Israel in Cause of Canal Treaties,” New York Times, September 25, 1977, p. 8.
[32] “Panamanians Say ’Carry Struggle Through to the End,’” The Call, October 3, 1977, p. 8.
[33] “Most Latin Nations Hail Panama Canal Treaty,” Chicago Tribune, September 13, 1977, Sec. 1, p. 10. Brazilian reactionary, President Ernesto Geisel was unable to attend the treaty signing ceremonies in Washington. He remained in Rio de Janeiro to lead a celebration of the 55th anniversary of Brazil’s independence from Portugal. Geisel, of course, was hoping to divert attention from Brazil’s current subservience to foreign capital by promoting a false national unity. This was symbolized by the song, “Brazil is You and Me,” broadcast over radio and television for several days from the Brazilian capital of Brasilia. (See David Vidal, “Brazil Rallies Popular Support on Independence Day,” New York Times, September 11, 1977, p. 40).
[34] “Should Canal Treaties by Approved? Chicago Tribune, September 11, 1977, Sec. 2, p. 1. For the views of Henry Kissinger and Dean Rusk on the treaties, see ”Rusk and Kissinger Unite in Defense of Canal Treaties,” New York Times, September 15, 1977, p. 13. According to the Times article, “Mr. Rusk and Mr. Kissinger were emphatic in saying that the separate “neutrality’ treaty would give the United States a stronger position from which to help protect the canal indefinitely than that provided by the 1903 pact under which the canal was built.”
[35] Lenin, “Report on the International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist International,” July 19, 1920, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 215.