OCR Text |
Show The National Enterprise, August 24, 1977 Page twenty-seve- n Pragmatic Dogmatics The Panama Canal question by Kent Shearer Another legacy of the Lyndon Johnson era is with us. In 1964, natives rioted in protest of America over the Panama In response, its and zone. Canal protective LBJ appointed envoys to mediate with Panama over the waterways future. The negotiations now are concluded, and our diplomats have agreed to two treaties, presently under draft. Their effect, if ratified of the Senate, will be to by relinquish to Panama operation of the canal in the near future, and to abandon all but residual United States rights at the turn of the century. Those pacts are not popular in our land. An NBC poll found barely a fourth in favor, and 55 percent outright opposed. Ronald Reagan nearly rode that kind of resentment to the 1976 GOP presidential nomination. Even the moderate Salt Lake Tribune expressed editorial ire. The Panama Canal and the Canal Zone, bought, built and paid for by Americans with American tax dollars, thundered the Tribune, quasi-sovereignt- two-thir- y ds should remain American and not be turned over to the Panamanian government. In light of this negative public reaction, the chance that over 33 senators will block ratification is strong. President Carter concedes defeat absent substantial Republican support. But many of that element have been d stung by Carters attempts to alter election laws to the detriment of the GOP, and will be in no mood to save the presidential skin on this one. Thus the easy, apparent, and obvious political answer is to vote the treaties down and effectively to tell the Communist-leaningovernment of Panama dictator Omar Torrijos where to go. But what then? Are we prepared to raise, equip and transport an expeditionary force to the Zone to resist sabotage and armed attack? Worse yet, will the sympathy of other Latin nations go to their Panamanian brothers, occasioning a resultant diminution of our influence south of the border? It is dubious that we want either consequence, but both high-hande- g appear likely if the Senate says no, and says nothing else. What else could the Senate say? It could, for instance, enunciate that: (1) its refusal to approve the subject treaties does not signal an adamant opposition to any alternation of the status quo; (2) it recognizes the real interest of s western hemisphere nations in traffic; (3) it acknowledges that the present canals locks cannot accommodate the many large vessels now, and to be, on the seas; and (4) it is prepared to authorize discussions, through the Organization of American States, aimed at both (A) hemisphere management of the current canal, and (B) construction of a modern, lockless watercourse elsew here on the isthmus, preferably in Nicaragua. If this type of conciliatory course is adopted, it at least w ould offer continued hope for a peaceful solution to the canal crisis. Otherwise, there may be no alternative to hostilities caused by clashes of irreconcilable national objectives. trans-isthmu- W WHS I TEAMS, OILY FREE ASeiffS V&PTO . pea BASEBAiX FANATIC C m wee pmm for fiw cm fc(? F&nrr wo 7HAT MAKE AIUY KTuev& s&jse. i M VS&JF A CLVeajU&t. Ik BAa Now aluminum is the target o s by Ralph de Toledano Copley News Service For the consumerist cabal, its not whats good for the country that counts, but what for its own reason it wants. This about sums up the "consumerist" drive to eliminate aluminum cans for soft drinks and other beverages. The way the cabal tells it, no one will suffer by the substitution of glass containers except the aluminum industry, so off with its head! Those workers who lose their jobs arc not so casual about it, but they are a minor factor in the equation. The first great victim will be the energy conservation program, though this is seldom mentioned. And this is how it w'orks out. When aluminum cans are recycled to produce new cans, the energy required is less than 5 percent of what it takes to manufacture a new can. And recycling of old aluminum has become an important industrial activity. Until recently, the country was throwing away one million tons of aluminum a year. At the last count, there were more than 2,000 aluminum recycling centers in the United States, with new ones springing up all over the country. In 1975, the aluminum industry recycled 3.9 billion cans, paying out some $26 million to the consumers who turned them in. In 1976, the figure had jumped to 4.5 billion cans, with consumers, municipalities, etc., being paid $35 million for them. That is only part of the picture. One aluminum can producer which collected 112 million pounds of aluminum for recycling in 1976 notes that these purchases cost it $17 million. But it saved the company more than $100 million which it would have had to spend to mine or import the bauxite from wrhich aluminum is made. Reducing imports is of service to all Americans since we our rapidly increasing balance of payments deficit weakens the dollar. import more than wc export now estimates that it recycles That same company roughly 50 percent of the beverage cans it produces. That aluminum industry set the example systems, but plants have been set up by a growing number of cities to recover solid waste once used for land fills, and garbage" is on its way to become one of the country's most valuable resources. Not only are metals, paper and fibers being recovered, but what remains is being used as "cco-fuel- " to create energy. Milwaukee, for example, is operating a recovery plant which will process the 250,000 tons of solid waste collected annually, with additional capacity to handle 400,000 tons a year. Some 90 percent of the total bulk is being recovered, with more than 50 percent being used as combustible waste which saves 75,000 tons of coal. And according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the recovery plants around the country will be recovering 35 million tons of municipal waste for recycling. That is a very conservative estimate. |