Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:41:42.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Pro mundi beneficio’? The Panama Canal as an international issue, 1943–8

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

John Major
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From its inception Americans have thought of the Panama Canal as one of the outstanding national interests of the United States, and a glance at the map explains why. By cutting out the long haul round South America, the canal markedly reduces the distance by sea from coast to coast, from the Atlantic ports to East Asia and Australasia, and from the Pacific ports to Europe and the Atlantic seaboards of Africa and Latin America. The result has been an immense enhancement of American naval strength and mercantile potential. But the canal also possesses great international significance, as the map again shows. It provides quicker access to the Pacific as far west as New Zealand for traffic from Europe and from most Atlantic ports outside the United States, and it puts the western coast of South America within correspondingly easier reach of the Atlantic littoral. Like the Suez Canal, it has become a focal point of global strategy and commerce, a thoroughfare between the oceans of enormous value to the world at large.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 17 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Siegfried, A., Suez and Panama (New York, 1940), pp. 127, 138Google Scholar, 141, 333–4, 337–8, 350–3, 357–64. Useful background on relations between the United States and Panama and on the particular themes of this article may be found in LaFeber, W., The Panama Canal: the crisis in historical perspective (New York, 1978). pp. 62–106Google Scholar; in Ealy, L. O., The Republic of Panama in world affairs (Philadelphia, 1951), pp. 62–5Google Scholar, 151–4, 169–70;and in J. and Biesanz, M., The People of Panama (New York, 1955), pp. 61–96, 167–89.Google Scholar

2. US Senate, 95th Congress, 1st session, Committee on Foreign Relations, Background documents relating to the Panama Canal (Washington, DC, 1977), pp. 3Google Scholar, 7–10, 11, 27–30 (hereafter, BD); Richardson, J. D., A compilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents 1789–1897 (Washington, DC, 1898), VIII, p. 327.Google Scholar

3. BD, pp. 51, 52–8.

4. Ibid., pp. 127–9; Roche's poem 'Panama' is quoted in Weinberg, A. K., Manifest Destiny: a study of nationalist expansionism in American history (Gloucester, Mass., 1958), p. 333Google Scholar; Parliamentary Debates, fourth series, LX, col. 800. Arias, H., The Panama Canal: a study in international law and diplomacy (London, 1911), pp. 102–8Google Scholar, saw the 1901 treaty as an agreement that nullified American nationalist pretensions and gave the Canal an international status! Arias later became president of Panama.

5. BD, pp. 279–88, 326–48.

6. Ibid., pp. 301–19; Morison, E. E. (ed.), The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), VII, p. 280Google Scholar; United States National Archives, Records of the Department of State (Record Group 59), Despatches from United States Ministers in Panama 1906–1910, File 1502, Squiers to Knox, 8 March 1909 (hereafter RG 59).

7. Seager, R., Alfred Thayer Mahan: the man and his letters (Annapolis, 1977), p. 502Google Scholar; RG 59, 763.72119/3602. Morales' articles were published in La Revista Nueva, vi (1919), pp. 65–78.

8. RG 59, 184.00101/35; The New York Times, 25 January 1919 (hereafter, NYT).Google Scholar

9. United States National Archives, Records of the Joint Board of the Army and Navy (Record Group 225), File 338, US Mission, Geneva, to Kellogg, 23 April 1927; Records of the US Army War Plans Division (Record Group 165), File 2938, Davis to Kellogg, 28 April 1927; NYT, 21, 23, 24 and 28 December 1926; US Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1923 (Washington, DC, 1939), vol. II, p. 710Google Scholar (hereafter, FRUS); NYT, 11 and 13 September 1927; RG 59, 710.1012 Washington/544. The Army's view of the Canal in 1927 echoed Hayes' assertion in 1880 that it would be 'virtually a part of the coast line of the United States'; BD, p. 51.

10. NYT, 12 July 1934; RG 59,711.1928/436½, minutes of meeting of 24 April 1935; BD, PP. 871–906.

11. Ibid., pp. 899–900; Rosenman, S. I. (ed.), Public papers and addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. 1941 Volume (New York, 1950), pp. 233–5.Google Scholar

12. RG 59, 810.504/290; 811F.504/448b has the text of the memorandum (italics in text).

13. US National Archives, Record Group 38, Records of th e Office of Naval Intelligence, Reports 1940–1945, C-9-c, 21743a, 29 December 1943 and 6 January 1944; RG 59,819.504/55; Notter, H., Postwar foreign policy preparation (Washington, DC, 1949), pp. 246–52.Google Scholar

14. RG 59, 811F.504/448a; Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Official File, 25-i, Roosevelt to Daniels, 1 March 1944; Ibid., Daniels to Roosevelt, 13 May 1944 (hereafter, OF).

15. RG 59, 811F.503/455, Muccio to Hull, 22 April 1944; Washington Federal Records Center, US Army Military Intelligence Division, Regional File 1933–1944 (Panama), MID 2300, 26 April 1944.

16. RG 59, 811F.504/458, McGregor memo, of 10 May 1944.

17. OF, 25-i, Roosevelt to Mehaffey, 16 May 1944.

18. International Labour Conference, Conventions and Recommendations, 1919–1949 (Geneva, 1949), pp. 561–77Google Scholar (hereafter, ILO); RG 59, 500.C115/28th Conf./362; Panama Canal Commission Archives (Record Group 185), 2-P-68, de la Rosa to Perkins, 6 May 1944.

19. Stimson Diary, 20 June 1944.

20. RG 59, 811F.504/12-1244, 819.00/12-1844, 811F.504/12-744; RG 185, 80-A-3, Mehaffey to Burdick, 5 December 1944; 811F.504/461, 12–944.

21. RG 59, Papers of Alger Hiss, 811.014/9-446 (herafter, Hiss); RG 185, 2-P-68, Perkins to Mehaffey, 27 January 1945, Mehaffey to Perkins, 26 February 1945, Mehaffey to Burdick, 6 January 1945.

22. RG 59, 819.504/11-145; ILO, pp. 593–604.

23. Yearbook of the United Nations, 1946–7 (New York, 1947), pp. 570–3Google Scholar; hereafter, YUN.

24. RG 59, 711.19/1-2346, 811F.504/4-2446.

25. Ibid., 819.4016/3-645, 81 IF.504/4-2446, 81 IF.504/3-2146.

26. Ibid., 500.C115. Mexico City/4-1246, 4–1346, 4–2046.

27. Ibid., 811F.504/4-2446, 5–1646.

28. Ibid., 811F.504/6-1246; 500.C115. Montreal/7-2546.

29. Ibid., Hiss, 811.014/9-446; 711.1928/10-246; 811.014/4-2946.

30. Ibid., 811F.504/4-2046, 8–1446.

31. Ibid., Hiss, 811.014/9-446.

32. Ibid., 811.014/10.746.

33. BD, p. 926; RG 59, 711F.1914/11-745;YUN, 1946–47, p. 409; RG 59, 819.5043/9-646.

34. RG 59, 711.1928/10-2546; 819.5043/9-1646, 9–2546; 811F.504/7-246, 9–2446.

35. Ibid., 811F.504/7-946, 9–2446; RG 185, 28-B-233, Wang circular of 30 September 1946.

36. RG 59, 5OO.C115. Montreal/9-3046, 10–446, 10–1546.

37. NYT, 24 September 1946; YUN, 1946–7, p. 134; RG 59, Hiss, 501BB/9-146; 811F.812 Protection/10-1746.

38. RG 59, Hiss, 811.014/9-446; 811.014/10-1146.

39. Ibid., Hiss, 811.014/9-446.

40. United Nations General Assembly Official Records, Trusteeship Committee, 15 November 1946, pp. 113–14; RG 59, 811.014/11-1546, 12–1346.

41. US Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings before the Subcommittee to investigate the administration of the Internal Security Act and other internal security laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 83rd Congress, 1st session on interlocking subversion in government departments. December 22, 1953. Part 17, p. 1270. Ibid., March 25, 1954. Part 19, p. 1359.

42. Ibid., Report, January 3, 1955, p. 10. Braden, S., Diplomats and demagogues. The memoirs of Spruille Braden (New Rochelle, 1971), pp. 354–5Google Scholar (hereafter, Braden).

43. Testimony of Fred Schlafly to Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 13, 1977, p. 6.

44. RG 59, Hiss 811.014/9-446; FRUS, 1946, I (Washington, DC, 1972), p. 290 n.57, p. 291. The file on the base negotiations is 71 IF. 1914/11-545 to 2–2648. The only example I have found of a proposal for United Nations control of the Panama Canal is in a speech by the fellow-travelling Labour Party MP, Konni Zilliacus; seeNYT, 23 November 1946.

45. For Dulles's conversation with Forrestal, see FRUS, 1946, 1, pp. 637–8. Dulles was, of course, wrong in saying that the Zone was leased in perpetuity by Panama to the United States; it was granted in perpetuity by the Convention of 1903.

46. Ibid., pp. 969, 975, 977, 1041, 1042–3; RG 59, 71 IF. 1914/12-846.

47. FRUS, 1946, I, p. 1067; NYT, 22 Novembe r 1946; R G 59, 71 IF. 1914/12-846.

48. FRUS, 1946, I,, pp. 1099, 1102 n.70, 1099–1102; NYT, 14 December 1946. On 1 August 1946. there were 19,880 members of the US armed forces in the Zone: RG 319, US Army, Plans and Operations Division, 1946–1948, File 370.02 (hereafter, P&O).

49. RG 59, 711F.1914/12-1146, 12–1846, 12–1946; P&O, ABC File, 381 Panama, Section 1-B.GAL memorandum, 11 December 1946; Braden, p. 353.

50. RG 59, 811F.504/10-2246, 12–3146; RG 185, 79-A-6/U and 2-P-68, Newcomer to Burdick, 12 May 1947.

51. RG 59,811F.504/7-2847; 819.504/7-2547; RG 185, 2-P-68, McSherry to Mehaffey, 24 June 1947.

52. RG 59, 811F.504/10-3147, 12–1847; RG 185, 2-P-68, Mehaffey to Burdick, 2 October 1947, minutes of meeting of 13 November 1947, Porter to Mehaffey, 15 December 1947, Newcomer to Burdick, 12 October 1948; RG 59,81IF.504/12–848. Plans and Operations Division believed that swift and well-publicized action on McSherry might have saved the defence agreement rejected by the Panama National Assembly in December 1947: P&O, 091 Panama, memorandum of 9 January 1948.

53. Mahan, A. T., ‘Was Panama “A Chapter of National Dishonor”?' The North American Review, cxcvi (October, 1912), p. 568.Google Scholar