THE PANAMA GIVE-AWAY

Here is a picture of President Jimmy Carter
shaking hands with Panamanian
Dictator General Trujillos when he gave away
the Panama Canal to the Dictatorship. Notice
all the American Democratic Socialists clapping?

Back to the Clinton Criminal Page

Admiral Thomas Moorer Testifies on Panama Canal

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am indeed honored today and grateful to you for this opportunity to testify before your important committee on behalf of the defense of our great country.

I have testified several times before several Congressional Committees and I am very gratified to be allowed once more. I am hopeful that today's hearings will begin at last to develop specifics as to why the developments at the Panama Canal, and in particular the US policy toward Panama, deserve more attention from Congress. I am hopeful that today's work will persuade Senators to consider a change in U.S. policy.

In 1978, I testified before this Committee concerning the ill-advised Canal Treaty. I stated:

"The defense and use of the Panama Canal is wrapped inextricably with the overall global strategy of the United States and the security of the free world. If the United States opts to turn over full responsibility for the maintenance and operation of such an important waterway to such a small, resource-poor, and unstable country as Panama and then withdraws all US presence, a vacuum will be quickly filled by proxy or directly by the Soviet Union, as is their practice in every opportunity."

However, not the Soviet Union but the Chinese Communists have filled this vacuum. The Chinese have negotiated with the Balladares government of Panama what has become known as Panama Law #5, passed on January 16, 1997.

I strongly concur with noted constitutional law scholar Bruce Fein, Esq., who has submitted testimony to the Committee demonstrating how and why Panama Law #5 constitutes a gross violation of the 1977 treaty agreement between our two countries. Panama has reneged on its agreement with the United States and has allowed a hostile outside country to assert control of vital defense sites inside Panama, contrary to the promises made to the United States.

But I do not think you need to be a constitutional law scholar like Mr. Fein to see in plain English the contradiction between the "priority operations" of the entrance/exit ports of the Panama Canal given to the Communist China surrogate Hutchison-Whampoa by Panama Law #5, versus the "head of the line" and "expeditious treatment" promised to U.S. warships in the 1977 treaty.

Further, Panama Law #5 gives Red China's surrogate company control of the pilots-without which a ship cannot transit the Panama Canal. Clearly, U.S. interests and rights are not protected in Panama Law #5, which violates a pre-existing agreement between Panama and the US Senate. I would think this is a matter which should be examined very carefully by Senators, since it is a treaty passed on by this body which is being tampered with.

We are told by the Administration that the Treaty gives us the right to protect the Canal. Does it really? Does the United States have the unilateral right to defend the canal? I happen to agree with Captain G. Russell Evans, USCG (Ret.), who extensively documents in his books, including Death Knell of the Panama Canal?, that perhaps this is not true, after all.

Captain Evans documents very carefully how Panama's counter-reservation to the U.S. Senate-passed DeConcini Condition contradicts what this body stipulated in allowing the treaties of 1977 to pass, namely, it requires the "Cooperation" of Panama for the U.S. to exercise force. This change, or counter-reservation, was never reviewed, debated and approved by Senators. This resulted in two versions of the treaty. To be legal, both treaties must be identical. It is all spelled out in Captain Evans's book and in the testimony I understand he will be submitting for your consideration.

The Administration and the main-line media are misleading and incorrect when they say that everything is just fine and the canal is doing well. I still believe to this day that the Carter Treaty, which fixed the date of U.S. departure as December 31, 1999, was a severe blow to our national security. Now the Cox Commission has confirmed what I warned about, that Chinese Communists are busily infiltrating our hemisphere through various means, including the use of corporate front groups. I feel that U.S. policy must force Panama into compliance with the Carter treaty. China's corporate front should be expelled from defense sites and as "Gatekeeper" of our Canal. China's presence at the Panama Canal is a hostile act against our country.

The Panama Canal is vital to the United States. I urge Senators to change U.S. policy so that a hostile foreign power does not control it. We built it, we paid for it, and we should be able to use it. Permit me to review with the committee some of the history of the United States at the Panama Canal, and why I feel security interests and safety of our country.

I realize that some of the Committee members may think I was born before the start of the century. They are close enough, but listen to Henry L. Stimson, who actually was born before this century began; this Secretary of War said, in 1913:

"The control of the Panama Canal is far more important to our national security than is the control of the Kiel Canal to that of Germany, or the Suez Canal to that of Great Britain. Its protection is more essential than the protection of any part of our coast or any of our seaports, however important, because it is the key to the protection of many seaports and thousands of miles of coast-line."

If the Congress, as a co-equal branch of government with the Chief Executive, does not use its power to force a change in the current U.S. policy towards Panama, then after the last day of this year, Communist China will become the de facto new owners and rulers of the Panama Canal.

Now some Senators may dispute that statement, and I can respect that, while disputing it. But I have very little patience or understanding for those who cannot see that there is a clear and present danger to leaving Communist China in a commanding position at this vital and strategic choke point so very essential to our nation's security, economy and safety.

It boggles this old warrior's mind to consider that the mistake being made in U.S. policy today at Panama is a mistake that will need to be rectified with the blood of brave young soldiers, sailors and marines some day in the future. It bothers me a great deal that policymakers can leave untouched a policy that will cause brave servicemen to die unnecessarily, when we can avert what I feel is the certainty of a future military confrontation with Communist China at the Panama Canal, with a new and different U.S. policy towards Panama today.

What is it I am so concerned about? This so-called People's Republic of China is the same Red China which has been so heavily involved in massive espionage efforts to steal our satellite, missile, and nuclear weapons technology; the same totalitarian regime that massacred thousands of students at Tianamen Square, yet still denies this atrocity; the same Red China that is supplying terrorist regimes such as Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea with missiles and weapons of mass destruction; the same Beijing thugs who are threatening Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines, who are helping Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, and who call the United States their "number one enemy"; the same Red China that has so thoroughly penetrated our government and our military research laboratories during the Clinton Administration. (Bob's note: All so that Clinton could get their money for the Democratic National Committee to use as soft money for his own re-election-that is treason against the United States! That's why I consider the Democratic Party co-conspirators in TREASON and that they are actually not in favor of democracy, but in favor of socialism. And they are using lies to promote their position with the leftist GOVERNMENT-MEDIA COMPLEX).

As injurious as the many Chinagate treacheries have been to our nation's security, the impending surrender of our Panama Canal is more serious still.

Tragically, Americans have come to take the Canal and its myriad benefits for granted. One of the great engineering marvels of the world, the Canal is not only a tribute to the genius, vision, determination, and political will of an earlier generation of Americans, but a crucially important artery and choke point for our Navy and merchant marine vessels. Its value far exceeds the $32 billion we have invested in it over the years, though that price tag alone is reason enough to question the sanity of those who are so determined to relinquish this valuable property. (Bob's note: Giving it away also means they are taking it out of your own taxes and giving it to the Chinese to use against us.)

Over 13,000 commercial vessels transit the Panama Canal every year with some 190 million long tons of cargo. In the past year our Naval vessels used the Canal countless times.

This 51-mile waterway cuts 8,000 miles off the trip around the southern tip of South America, saving as much as two weeks of transport time.

In warfare, time means lives, and that much time can mean the difference between defeat and victory. The Panama Canal played a crucial role in World Wars I and II, the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and many other conflicts.

This tremendous asset was bought at such a cost in gold, lives, sweat and labor at the beginning of this century. It is still so necessary to our nation's safety. Yet current U.S. policy is to leave the forces of a company controlled by an adversary in command of the entrance and exit ports of this vital Panama Canal.

I must contrast this current U.S. policy with the past, in the words of President Rutherford B. Hayes, addressing this same body:

"The policy of this country is a canal under American control. The United States cannot consent to the surrender of this control to any European power or to any combination of European powers...An inter-oceanic canal across the American Isthmus would essentially change the geographical relations between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and between the United States and the rest of the world. It would be the great ocean thoroughfare between our Atlantic and Pacific shores and virtually a part of the coastline of the United States...No other great power would, under similar circumstances, fail to assert a rightful control over a work so colossal and vitally affecting its interest and welfare."

As bad as the U.S. retreat from the Panama Canal may be, allowing an opponent to entrench their forces at a point where they know you must surely commit to an attack in a future conflict is far, far worse. Surely the likelihood of a future disaster for U.S. forces at the Panama Canal is not something capable of understanding only by those who wear the uniform of our country?

I again ask Senators to focus on history and listen, from the year 1881, to Secretary of State James G. Blaine:

"If a hostile movement should at any time be made against the Pacific coast, threatening danger to its people and destruction to its property, the Government of the United States would feel it had been unfaithful to its duty and neglectful toward its own citizens if it permitted itself to be bound by a treaty which gave the same right through the canal to a warship bound on an errand of destruction that is reserved to its own navy sailing for the defense of our coast and the protection of the lives of our people."

Do we live in such a safer world for Americans than a century ago when Secretary Blaine made that observation?

Is our government not being "unfaithful to its duty and neglectful toward its own citizens" by its continued insistence on walking away from this vital lifeline through the fraudulent Carter-Torrijos Treaties, and leaving Communist China in command of the heights, in command of the future bottleneck through which brave Americans in uniform will likely be sent?

Senators, this is a point I will return to again and again and again: once an American President has been forced to expend those American lives in pursuit of legitimate policy at the Panama Canal, it will be too late except for recriminations. On that day the bugle calls and the Commander-in-Chief summons them, I will refrain from my criticism, for it will then, that day, do no good whatsoever for those in uniform who will be obedient to the dictates of their country, and who will pay the price of today's ill-thought policy.

When I testified on the Panama Canal and United States interests before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 16, 1998, I stated that our military readiness was at an all-time low as regards our ability to defend our country, and at an all-time high as regards the threat to our national security, especially in our own hemisphere.

I noted that although we had engaged in more so-called "contingency" military operations than under any previous administration in the history of our nation, our military forces had suffered 14 consecutive cuts in the defense budget, invalidating the long-standing policy of our country to be able to win in tow major regional contingencies simultaneously. The United States Marine Corps, by its own admission, is prepared and trained to fight one-not two, but one-major contingency at the present time.

According to Representative Floyd Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the House National Security Committee, it is doubtful that we could win even one major contingency at this point. This is a particularly grave assessment coming from Chairman Spence, who, as one of our top elected civilian officials in Congress, is charged with overseeing our military preparedness and regularly receives detailed updates and evaluations from all the branches of our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, I see no reason to contradict this alarming appraisal.

I further pointed out in my testimony before the Senate committee last year the actual approximate figure on specific cuts, which greatly endanger our nation:

*The Army was cut 14.2 percent, from $74.3 billion in 1993 to $63.8 billion in 1999; the Department of the Navy, which includes the Marine Corps, suffered a similar cut of 14.1 percent, down from $94.7 billion in 1993 to $81.3 billion in 1999; and the Air Force is weathering a 14.4 percent cut, down from $89.5 billion in 1993 to $76.6 billion in 1999.

*In overall manpower, active duty military personnel suffered a 17.8 percent cut, down from 1,776,000 in 1993 to 1,459,000, despite the many so-called military contingencies and peacekeeping operations around the globe."

Since I delivered that testimony, our armed forces have been involved, of course, in the newest major "contingency" known as Kosovo. We are accepting military commitments, one after another, under the aegis of the UN or NATO, while simultaneously disarming America.Meanwhile, we have seen an alarming increase in tensions between North and South Korea, where we have tens of thousands of American soldiers at risk, without adequate naval and air support, because of our force commitments to Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and elsewhere.

Since 1812 no war has been fought against a foreign enemy on American soil. This is a very long time ago. I am an old sailor now, but I know trouble when I see it, and I see big trouble in Panama, trouble that could evolve quickly into a conflict in our own hemisphere with worldwide implications.

As I stated earlier, the impending transfer of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government, under the circumstances which now exist, amounts to handing over control of the Canal to Red China, an aggressive, brutal, expansionist, totalitarian regime that has shown, by word and deed, that it is our enemy.

Senators may question whether in fact it is Red China, or simply a private business concern, which is the "Gatekeeper" today of the Panama Canal.

This is what we know. An entity calling itself the Panama Ports Company in Panama is actually a front corporation for Hutchison-Whampoa Limited, whose principal stockholder is Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. Li's business empire has long been intertwined with enterprises that front for the Communist military and intelligence arms of the People's Republic of China for many years.

Ten percent of his Panama Ports Company is owned by China Resources, the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation.

Two years ago, on July 16, 1997, Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) was quoted in the South China Morning Post as stating that China Resources was "an agent of espionage-economic, military, and political-for China." Shen Jueren, the Communist official who heads China Resources, and Li Ka-shing are both partners in the Riady family's Hong Kong Chinese Bank.

Li is also a principal in the PRC's huge China Telecom and the China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC), a ministry-level conglomerate with global assets of $21 billion run by Chinese "princeling" Wang Jun. As chairman of Ply Group, Wang Jun also serves as the PRC's main arms dealer to Communist regimes, terrorists and rogue states. Nevertheless, Shen Jueren and Wang Jun, like many other notorious Red Chinese agents bearing campaign gifts, were welcome guests at the Clinton-Gore White House.

Li Ka-shing's Hutchison-Whampoa is a partner with the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), the merchant marine arm of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Hutchison-Whampoa also controls countless ports around the world. Because of its relationship to the PRC and the potential impact this implies for our global maritime interests, this should be of major concern to the United States.

I recommend to the Committee the testimony of Richard Delgaudio, who has done extensive work to document the connection of Li Ka-shing and his company to Communist China. His Peril in Panama book contains excellent references for Senators about Li Ka-shing. Richard found press reports saying that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has known all along about the Li Ka-shing connection to Communist China-even before passage of Panama Law #5. But a Freedom of Information Act request was turned down, as well as another request to the CIA Appeal Board. I suggest Senators look into this question strenuously.

My specific concern is that Beijing, operating through this company, has virtually achieved, without a single shot being fired, not just a beachhead but a stronghold at the Panama Canal, something which took our country so many years and such tremendous effort to accomplish. How has this come about? At the same time that China's Communist leaders were buying their way into the Clinton White House, they were also directing large sums of cash into Panama's political process. Panama is a small and relatively poor country, and China, a major power with $45 billion in cash reserves, has had a fairly easy time getting its way with bribery.

As Congressman Leopoldo Bennedetti, a member of Panama's Legislative Assembly, put it in an interview with El Siglo, "Bucketloads of money from Asian contractors are pouring in." President Ernesto Balladares and members of his administration and the legislature have been very cozy with Hutchison-Whampoa and the PRC, as well as with Fidel Castro and the drug lords of Colombia. They rigged the bidding process to guarantee that Hutchison would get the bid. Hutchison's $22 million per year bid was only the winning bid after five repeat bids and after the government of Panama strong-armed some competing bidders to drop out of the contest. And to this day no one knows how much additional money changed hands "under the table."

How can this have all happened right under the nose of the United States? Perhaps Senators on the Armed Services Committee may want to ask another witness you are hearing from in today's hearing, the Panamanian administrator of the Panama Canal Commission, Alberto Aleman Zubieta.

Let me tell you something about Mr. Zubieta, which may not appear in his official biography. He is also the owner of a private company, CUSA, which has been awarded multimillion-dollar contracts to tear down facilities at the strategic Amador military base. Is the fox guarding the henhouse? Are Senators completely satisfied about the checks and balances that exist in Panama, the independent judiciary, the free press, all of which are no doubt in play guaranteeing that Mr. Zubieta is nothing but an honest broker in his work?

Then there is Balladares' Foreign Minister, Jorge Ritter, who has purposely torpedoed base talks in Panama, even though polls have shown that 80 percent of Panamanians want the U.S. to stay. Previously, Ritter served as Panama's ambassador to Columbia during the time that dictator Manuel Noriega was servicing Colombia's drug cartels. In truth, Ritter was Noriega's "point man" to the cartels and has been noted in the press for his many connections to the most notorious and violent of the drug capos.

On January 28th of this year, Fidel Castro's Radio Havana reported, "Cuba and Panama signed at the Panamanian capital an agreement for the promotion and protection of investments in the two countries, as well as a basic cooperation agreement between the two governments. The documents were signed by Cuban Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation Minister Ibrahim Ferradaz and Panamanian Foreign Minister Jorge Eduardo Ritter. Following the signing of the two documents, Ibrahim Ferradaz emphasized the importance of this event, "which strengthens Cuban-Panamanian ties..."Yes, this is the same Jorge Ritter.

In 1978, I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee concerning the Panama Canal. I stated:

"The defense and use of the Panama Canal is wrapped inextricably with the overall global strategy of the United States and the security of the free world. I submit that if the United States opts to turn over full responsibility for the maintenance and operation of such an important waterway to a small, resource-poor, and unstable country as Panama and then withdraws all United States presence, a vacuum will be created which will be quickly filled by proxy or directly by the Soviet Union, as is their practice in every opportunity."

The Soviet Union's thinking and conclusions about the Canal, and its approach to gain control of this important, strategically situated waterway, were not lost on the Chinese Communists. They have replicated the Soviet Union's intent to the letter-quickly, silently, and successfully.

Simultaneously, they are establishing bases on Tarawa and in the Spratly Islands near the Philippines, with the obvious intent of controlling another key maritime choke point, the Malacca Strait, through which much oil and other strategically important trade commodities are transported. The Chinese have shown repeatedly that this is a favorite tactic, to get behind their enemies' lines of supply and interrupt their access to vitally needed goods. There can be no doubt that their intent is inimical to our national interests.

Yet Senators are being told today that there is no problem with the current policy, there is no need of strong oversight by Senators, there is no reason to be dissatisfied, and perish the thought of any challenge by Senators to the current policy of President Bill Clinton.

I urge Senators to press on and investigate what is afoot in Panama. I urge Senators to devote substantial resources to investigating what is a substantial problem for the United States at the Panama Canal. I have never heard, except from some foolish souls disconnected from reality, that the best defense for our country is to completely abandon and walk away from vital choke points. Yet that is the policy of the United States at Panama.

It is not a policy that the people of Panama want, not a policy that guarantees more freedom, economic prosperity, higher employment, or a better national security, for the people of Panama. The current policy hurts the people of Panama, it certainly hurts the thousands of unemployed workers who did a good job working at U.S. military bases and who today add to that country's very high unemployment rate. If Senators press for U.S. military bases in Panama, they will not only be advancing the legitimate interests of the people of the United States, but they can do this in a way that also advances the interests of the people of Panama.

On the other hand, if the Congress acquiesces in the Clinton plan to abandon the Panama Canal and walk away, as currently planned, then China will take our place on the commanding heights, at the bottleneck. This is no longer idle speculation, but a matter of fact. China through its surrogate has command of the strategic choke point. Will there be any rearguard U.S. military bases?Will there be any presence whatsoever, any challenge whatsoever, or will the United States simply fade away from the Panama Canal without even a protest?

Senators, I believe we are thus setting ourselves up for inevitable conflict. We will be forced, as a matter of national survival, at some not too distant point in the future to go to Panama and win back militarily what we have bought and built, and what is rightfully ours. When that happens, we will have to pay a high price in blood and treasure-because the alternative will be far worse.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is not that President Bill Clinton has not been very energetic to challenge China's emerging command of the Panama Canal. Those familiar with other Clinton Administration "policy" initiatives towards China-if we can use that word policy-will understand what is happening.

The surprise is not the Clinton Administration's policy towards Communist China, nor the fact that this Committee has witnesses from the Administration to tell you how wonderful everything is at Panama, and fear not.

For me, and for many others who have been highly dissatisfied with the U.S. policy towards Panama, the surprise and the disappointment has been the utter failure, so far, of the co-equal branch of government, the Congress, to demand answers to the questions being raised today, to demand accountability, and to assert its status as a partner in the creation of U.S. policy.

Perhaps that is now going to change, with today's Armed Services Committee. Chairman Warner and Senators, I hope and pray this is the beginning of a change in U.S. policy. I hope and pray that you see fit to devote substantial investigative resources to this matter. I hope and pray that you see fit to question and then to change, U.S. policy towards Panama. Thank you for hearing me out.

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer,USN, (Ret.) has served as Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet; Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic and Atlantic Fleet; Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), and Chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States. In recent years, he has spoken out on issues relating to the national defense of the United States, including service as the Honorary Chairman of the 80-member Retired Military Officers Advisory Board of the National Security Center.