This collection is a mixed lot—mixed with respect to quality, form, and theme. Moreover, the editor’s methodology is exasperating at best. The editor is a Panamanian national living in Mexico, who made a trip to his homeland in August 1974, in order to write an article for a Mexican popular magazine. He collected a large quantity of published material relating to the Panama Canal issue and decided to organize it into a book. Because of constraints of time and distance, he was unable to obtain biographical data about all of the authors, so he omitted it for each; he did not secure the consent of all of the authors for the use of their work, but assumed they would not object, because he was giving them a larger audience; and he took the liberty of cutting the selections where he deemed advisable, without consulting the authors and without indicating in the text where he did it. The result resembles a scissors-and-paste effort, except that it works, because the editor is insightful and has a definite purpose.
In criticizing both the old oligarchy and the government of General Omar Torrijos, the editor represents the most militant position with reference to the present canal treaty negotiations. That position is not concerned with treaty modification, or in a new treaty, but in abrogation. It seeks the absolute, unqualified withdrawal of the United States from the isthmus. It is not “hasta luego,” but “adiós.” This goes for a future canal as well. The position holds that Panama, in the full exercise of its sovereignty, may locate and design a future canal and seek financial assistance wherever possible, if not in the United States, then in the Soviet Union, or in Japan, one of the principal users of the canal. In fairness to the authors of the selections, not all of them espouse this position (or even make reference to it), but their works are used because they support a highly nationalistic viewpoint in one way or another.
Of special interest to historians is the selection by Ernesto Castillero Pimentel, taken from his book, Panamá y los Estados Unidos (4th ed., 1974). It is a well-researched piece and speaks well for Panamanian scholarship. Although Castillero does not excuse Philippe Bunau-Varilla for his part in the 1903 treaty, he places a large share of the blame for it upon Panama’s “founding fathers” (Manuel Amador, Federico Boyd, and José Agustín Arango, among others). Castillero also comes very close to explaining the delay by the Panamanian delegation in New York for a day, which gave Bunau-Varilla time to sign the treaty. He cites two cables from the archives of the Panamanian Foreign Ministry which lend substance to the suspected collusion between Bunau-Varilla and William Nelson Cromwell. There are other good selections in this volume, but they deal with current rather than historical themes.
Despite its deficiencies, this volume is important to students of United States-Panamanian relations, because it is challenging and because, whether one likes it or not, it states the ultimate position in this lengthy, painful relationship.
