The Canal: Interim Notes

I can’t say that either side in the Great Debate over the new Canal treaties has overwhelmed me by the cogency of its arguments. In a lengthy political dispute the rhetoric always rises to the “fate of the country” level, but in re these treaties, objectively considered, the choice between pro and con seems to me a close thing. Flipping a coin would probably be as good a way as any to settle it, and would be a lot easier on all of us.

The choice is between evils, like most choices in this vale of tears. They are unsatisfactory treaties from whatever side you look at them—and that goes for the Panamanian side, too, as the big dissenting vote on them, in a nation where dissent is not encouraged, plainly showed. However, they’re the best the negotiators could come up with. Since they worked on them for 14 years, it’s a bit utopian to suppose we could get anything much better by another try.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

I can’t say that either side in the Great Debate over the new Canal treaties has overwhelmed me by the cogency of its arguments. In a lengthy political dispute the rhetoric always rises to the “fate of the country” level, but in re these treaties, objectively considered, the choice between pro and con seems to me a close thing. Flipping a coin would probably be as good a way as any to settle it, and would be a lot easier on all of us.

The choice is between evils, like most choices in this vale of tears. They are unsatisfactory treaties from whatever side you look at them—and that goes for the Panamanian side, too, as the big dissenting vote on them, in a nation where dissent is not encouraged, plainly showed. However, they’re the best the negotiators could come up with. Since they worked on them for 14 years, it’s a bit utopian to suppose we could get anything much better by another try.