|
 |
 |
UNITED NATIONS -- The first Europeans to colonize the China coast were the last to leave. Nearly five centuries of Portuguese presence in the Far East ended when the fabled, if tiny, island of Macau reverted to Chinese control. Nearly a century of American presence in Panama ended too, when the USA departed the strategic Canal Zone with barely a whimper. In both cases the People's Republic of China, the world's largest dictatorship, has good reason for cheer.
During the splendid Age of Discovery, Portuguese mariners landed in Macau in 1557 turning the island into a base for missionaries and merchants penetrating legendary China. Contrary to Hong Kong which was wrested from the hands of a declining Chinese Empire in 1843, Macau was actually ceded "in perpetuity" to Portugal by an earlier Chinese Emperor. Missionaries like Mateo Ricci and St. Francis Xavier used Macau as the springboard for East Asian evaligilazation. In recent times the island reverted from a torpid backwater to an trading entrepot into a kind of "Humphrey Bogart Theme Park."
Through Lisbon has long wanted to return its overseas territory to Beijing, the bottom line remained that modern Macau has served as the classic go between for money laundering, gambling, and "third party deals." Such a status has seamlessly suited the PRC's Marxist mandarins quite nicely. The sleaze and inequity particularly thrived on tourists from neighboring Hong Kong not to mention oft puritanical People's China.
Macau thus fulfilled a mission for both sides. Yet there was never the animosity between China and Portugal over this island as there was between Beijing and London over the more powerful politically maverick and brash British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. The handover ceremony, though lacking the media frenzy of the Hong Kong retrocession was dignified and high level, closing the last colonial chapter in East Asia.
Macau's reversion to the People's Republic as with the Hong Kong handover in July 1997--allowing for the one country, two systems formula, now resets the clock for what the Chinese like to call the final piece of unification--namely with the Republic of China on Taiwan. The clock is noticeably ticking putting new pressures on Free China.
Yet, while the People's Republic has gained Macau, almost unnoticed was the unique role China has also gained over the strategic Panama Canal. Following the 1977 treaties reached between President Jimmy Carter and Panama's military strongman Omar Torjios, the Canal has reverted to Panamanian sovereignty. The majestic piece of engineering, a legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, was almost furtively handed over to the Republic of Panama.
President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright--at least two of whom should have been at the ceremony by any proper gauge of protocol, crudely snubbed and shunned Panama's President Mireya Moscoso.
The Clinton Administration, perpetually seeking a photo-op foreign policy and free rides to balmy climes, was noticeably absent from the handover ceremony allowing for "Panama Jimmy" himself to turn over the proverbial key--"It's Yours!" to one of the world's most strategic waterways. Given the upcoming U.S. Presidential elections, no politician in his right mind would willingly sign off on such a double-edged deal.
Why? While I do not dispute the democratic credentials of Panama's current government the institutional roots and climate for long term stability are, putting it very charitably, seriously challenged by a host of issues ranging from local money launderers, nearby Colombian drug paramilitaries some of whom may like to return Panama to its former sovereignty of Gran Colombia, and Beijing's backdoor influence.
A number of Hong Kong firms such as Hutchinson Whampoa, some of who have cosy links with the PRC military, just coincidentally are major players in the container ports of the former Canal Zone. Two thirds of Canal transit commerce is destined for American ports.
Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff told a Congressional hearing that he felt "a certainty of a future military clash in the Canal between China and the U.S. "
Former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger rhetorically asked why the People's Republic of China "should pass up a chance to a acquire a major foothold in one of the world's three major choke points, especially if it can be done with little cost or risk?" Indeed, and few seem to care.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues who writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
