What's wrong with this picture?
On Tuesday, American ceremoniously transferred control of one of the world's engineering marvels -- the Panama Canal -- to the Panamanian government, and the United States didn't bother to send the first string to the event. Are members of the Clinton administration so busy tending to their personal legacies that they couldn't be troubled to attend a ceremony marking the end of 85 years of American control and the launch of a new age of relations with Panama? Or was the Panama Canal so much of a political hot potato that President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore did not dare have any connection to the canal transfer?This was another in a long series of miscues by the Clinton administration. While the United States was represented by former President Jimmy Carter, who was president when the Senate narrowly approved treaties to give away the canal, Clinton, if not a high-ranking member of his administration, should have led the delegation.
The Clinton administration missed a valuable opportunity to reiterate the United States' continuing commitment to the canal's security and free trade. He missed a chance to acknowledge the full sovereignty of Panama.
It also would have been a natural opportunity to comment on the changing nature of world politics. When the canal was built, it was a symbol of American might. Handing over control of the waterway to Panama demonstrates that the best way to defend it in the new millennium is through a partnership. Although Clinton commented on the handover from the White House, his decision to skip the ceremony was widely viewed as a snub. A prepared statement surely does not have the same impact as a state visit.
Second, the ceremony would have provided Clinton with a stage to quell concerns of ultra-conservatives who fear Panama will hand over the canal to China through a concession to operate ports at each end. The fact is, when the canal is handed over on Dec. 31, another treaty goes into effect that guarantees the U.S. military always will have priority at the canal. The United States retains the right to intervene at any time to keep the canal open.
Beyond that, the canal no longer is central to U.S. military strategy. Military conflicts rely more heavily on air power than when the canal was established. While aircraft carriers figure into that equation, they are already strategically positioned worldwide to come to the ready, and they are too large to fit through the canal.
Lastly, the Clinton administration needed to acknowledge the great cost -- both in dollars and human lives -- expended to construct and defend the Panama Canal. The 51-mile waterway cost $352 million to build and claimed more than 5,600 lives in the making.
Instead of worrying about how his administration will be remembered, Clinton should have been concerned about America's legacy on the world stage. Unfortunately, he squandered the opportunity.