letters

As a Canadian who has now retired here to Panama after many visits between 1970 and the present, and who sees a great future for this country, I read your "No US-RP free trade deal yet" article with a great deal of concern.

NAFTA has done nothing positive for Canada. Indeed Canada's net exports have declined from pre-NAFTA days.

If the Excited States don't get things exactly their way, they play dirty. Look at the Softwood Lumber Dispute that has been going on since the very beginning of NAFTA.The US claim that Canadian provinces subsidized lumber exports, and imposed a 27 percent duty in 2002.

("The World Trade Organization and a ruling under the North American Free Trade Agreement both concluded that US complaints about Canadian lumber imports are not valid." --- CBC News Aug. 31, 2004: "NAFTA rejects US softwood claims.")

Every time the dispute is taken before the World Trade Organization, the WTO rules in favor of Canada, but the US refuses to abide by these rulings because they don't suit the US of A.

(The gist of the dispute is that "stumpage" charges are unrealistic and therefore amount to a government subsidy. In fact all "Crown Land," to which stumpage applies, belongs to the people, as represented by Her Majesty the Queen, so the revenue from stumpage belongs to the people of Canada, and it being a sovereign nation, can set any value it likes on its own resources.)

Now Montana Senator Max Baucus plans to introduce a bill that will allow US lumber companies to keep an estimated $3.6 billion in duties paid on Canadian imports. (CBC News 15 November, 2004) In effect, he wants the US to permit its citizens to steal over three and a half billion from Canadians.

I am alarmed by the fact that the US expects Panama to grant special status to US produced motor vehicles. Please don't fall for this, Panama! You are doing fine without
US made vehicles. Some of the best and most reliable vehicles in the world can be seen on the streets here, and they suit us very well. And just in case anyone wonders --- no I did not bring a North American car with me from Canada. I have a European import.

And, farmers, you produce excellent produce here. Just keep up the quality and we will buy your produce over foreign goods, any day. You could not compete with the mechanization and crop futures marketing that drives the US farm economy. It is a process that borrows from your children and only gives an illusion of prosperity.

Canada is learning this the hard way, as many farms, that have been in families for generations, are being sold. A way of life gradually became an industry, and the personal pride, and dare I say it, love, that went into the family farm, took a beating from the market and business pressures and influences of a neighbor who judges prosperity by figures on paper instead of the overall well-being of all other people associated with, and contributing to, its well-being as a state.

As for the US insistence that professionals from the United States be permitted to work here "temporarily" when the given profession in Panama does not educate sufficient people in the field. (1) It is an arrogant position, suggesting a low opinion of the level of training of local professionals. I have met, here in Panama, some tremendously well-qualified people who obtained their qualifications in Britain, Germany, Spain and Mexico. The US is not the universal leader in education. It would be better for Panama to augment its university faculty with visiting professors from any country where leadership in the particular faculty exists. My professors in Canada came from as far away as Basel, Switzerland, and Aberdeen, Scotland.

(2) It is a dangerous practice from the point of view of long-term state security to grant special status to one particular country. Even Canada, which used to allow British subjects to enter the country and occupy government jobs without any qualifying period, changed its position, and one must now become a citizen first. (The process takes three years). Remember the Trojan Horse. It is far wiser for Panama to select, as the need arises, from applicants from all over the world. In that way, Panama will chose the best available --- people whose focus will be on their field of expertise and who will not be subject to manipulation by a foreign state. People use the Internet now for job hunting, and we can take advantage of that to find the people we need in Panama.

Of course, the way the US "negotiates" means that many other issues in the relationship will be used for leverage. Reaching an agreement will take a great deal of skill and diplomacy, but at least we are talking and we should take a lesson from the Nisga'a people of Canada who say, "When you are making plans, think four generations ahead."

J. Malcolm Wilson

I'm a little bit late reading the most recent Panama News (November 7th issue), but I just noticed something in one of your business briefs that might warrant some clarification and/or legal expounding.

In your business brief about Decameron and Devil's Beach (http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_10/issue_21/business_briefs.html), you state that: "The contemplated Devil's Beach tourist project, which was first explored by the Barcelona-based Melia hotel chain, has always been controversial for two other reasons. First, it would represent an unconstitutional privatization of a public beach." (the underlining is mine and is what I'll refer to).

I know little to nothing about this project, and I've never been to Devil's Beach (the most I know of Sherman is what you see when you drive to Ft. San Lorenzo). However, it's probably a good idea for us to review what the legal dispositions in Panama are in regards the use of beaches, seabeds and beach banks:

a) Article 146 of Panama's 1941 Constitution (Although Panama's 1941 Constitution is no longer valid, the following article explains why titles from before 1941 have become null and void as to sea beds, beaches and beach banks, and why from that date, property titles on beaches and beach bank (should any have been granted) are unconstitutional):

[The following] are assets of public domain, and thus, may not be the subject of private appropriation:

1. The marine waters, both lake and flowing, beaches, shores and beach banks, as well as ports and sounds. All these assets are of free and common utilization subject to such rules as are established by Law.

...

b) Article 147 of Panama's 1941 Constitution:

In regards those assets mentioned in numbers 5 and 6 of article 145 and the first three numbers of article 146, in respects which there exist private property rights acquired as per previous legislation at the time of the coming into force of this Constitutional Reform, their current owners will conserve their domain for twenty years on the same terms as per the laws under which the acquisition operation occurred; but the full property of these assets will revert to the Republic without any compensation. After twenty years, the current owners will conserve the domain over these lands in such terms as are outlined in such laws as are issued in development of this disposition and of articles 145 and 146.

c) Article 258 of Panama's current Constitution (it was article 255 until the renumbering of the Constitution which was recently issued in Official Gazette (GO) 25,176 of November 15th, 2004 due to the approval of the recent Constitutional amendments).

[The following] belong to the Republic of Panama and are of public use, and thus, may not be the subject of private appropriation:

1. The territorial sea and flowing inland waters; beaches and their banks, as well as the banks of navigable rivers and ports and sound. All these assets are of common and free use, subject to such regulations as are approved by Law....

d) Article 1 of Law 35 of January 29, 1963 --- G.O. 14,806 of January 30th, 1963 (as modified by Law 20th of December 30th, 1985 - G.O. 20,462 of December 30th, 1985 --- and Law 36 of July 6th, 1995 --- G.0. 22,825 of July 13th, 1995) states that:

The Ministry [of Economy and Finance] is authorized to sign contracts with natural or juridical persons, which allow for the occupation of beaches for special use, when [such use will be] for the building, installation or establishment of the following activities:

1) The establishment of shellfish breeding grounds, salt marshes and other works pertaining activities which are of public benefit.

2) Beach resorts, ramps, pools, cooperatives and other works destined for sporting or touristic purposes, with the exception of concessions for the installation of port and marine facilities, such as shipyards, marinas of all types (touristic, private or public), docks, floating drydocks, buoys and underground pipelines, which are the privy of the [Autoridad Marítima de Panamá].

3) Works qualified as of public interest by the Cabinet Council, which will also indicate the extension of the concession, as well as its duration.

4) Generally, all such other uses whose concession do not correspond to another public entity.

...

Concession contracts must be signed by the Minister [of Economy and Finance] or the [Administrator of the Autoridad Marítima de Panamá], as may apply, and must be countersigned by the Contralor General de la República.

e) Article 1A of Law 35 of 1963 (as added by Law 36 of July 6th, 1995) states that:

The occupation and usage of beaches, beach banks and sea beds without the express authorization of the Ministry [of Economy and Finance] and the [Autoridad Marítima de Panamá], as may correspond, or without the formalization of the concession contract as per the previous article, will be sanctioned by a fine equivalent to five (5) times the value of the occupied area, as per valuation done according to the Fiscal Code, which at no time may be for less than five thousand Balboas (B/.5,000.00). The Ministry [of Economy and Finance] and the [Autoridad Marítima de Panamá], as may apply, may order the demolition of such works as have been built on the aforementioned public assets, restoring them to their original condition, or to lease them to their occupant, as may be preferable to the public interest.

So quickly summarizing the above legal gobbledygook, granting a concession on a beach is perfectly legal and constitutional, though selling or claiming ownership of a beach is unconstitutional.

In this regard, the Procuraduría de la Administración has issued countless opinions on the fact that private parties cannot own a beach (or beach bank or sea bed --- please note that in the early days of the Republic one could own a piece of seabed, which is why most of the Bocas del Toro townfront was titled in the early 20th century), since effective as of 1961, no private citizen can own a piece of sea bed, a beach or a beach bank, because these assets are of a national nature.

Indeed, in one consultation (C-128-95), the Procuraduría expressly indicated that the title that a specific family had in regards a certain beach and its beach banks since 1915 were null from 1961 onwards:

The private property which the Araúz Anguizola family claims over "La Barqueta" beach has no legal basis, since the complete domain over beaches reverted to the Republic in 1961, at which time private ownership over same was eliminated, which is why the 1915 title which this family holds over same is not valid.

In another consultation (C-160-98), the Procuraduría stated that "beaches, beach banks and sea beds are assets of public domain and subject to public usage, which may not be the object of private property, and to which all have a right of use and enjoyment."

The Procuraduría has also stated in opinion C-56-97 (this is the opinion that I referred to in my January 31st, 1998 Panama news article called "Bocas: low-tide lots and the National Port Authority") that the Public Registry was not obligated to ex officio eliminate such title records as exist on beaches, beach banks and sea beds, since no specific law had ordered it to do so. However, each and every title granted on such beaches, beach banks and sea beds is unconstitutional, and the central government should proceed judicially to have such titles struck off the books.

Finally, the Supreme Court of Panama has ruled on these matters in the past. Specifically, a ruling from October 24th, 1997 (Unconstitutionality action against Cabinet Resolution No. 131 of June 13, 1996 --- http://bd.organojudicial.gob.pa/rjhtml/pleno/sn199710094.htm) indicated that while sea beds, beaches and beach banks cannot be owned by private parties, they can be given in concession to private parties, but in adherence to what is established in the relevant Laws (e.g. Law 35 of 1963 or Law 42 of 1974).

In summation, while giving out a beach in concession is perfectly legal and constitutional, selling a beach and/or claiming ownership of a beach is unconstitutional in Panama (notwithstanding whether there's a very old title attached to such beach, beach bank or sea bed).

Hopefully this gives you some extra feedback on the matter (a lot of this info is from a recent consultation I gave on the matter).

Juan Ramón Vallarino J.
attorney, Panama City

I am an American citizen raised here in the US. My father was stationed at the US Navy base in Coco Solo back around 1957. Had his papers to return home arrived three months later I would have had dual citizenship. This would have been a good thing.

I am wary of the future of these United States. We are being taxed to death and I feel the harder I work the more money flows from my paycheck to subsidize people who don't work. It's as if we are being programmed everytime we lose another "right."

The "Homeland Security Act" is a prime example of this. I am truly proud to be an American but I love Pamama --- and after only one visit would very much like to live there. There are lots of people like me who support Bush but at the same time would like to exercise one of their fleeting rights to travel from the States to Panama.

Steve Patten
USA

Something to consider writing about if you touch upon the US election again. We have all heard that the media was very biased. Ask yourself why would the media tend to be against Bush? What are the characteristics of the media? For one, by the nature of their work and by the inclination which lead them to this type of work, they tend to be well informed. They are also more educated than the average, but let's focus on the well informed part. A survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the US has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the US-led invasion. I assume that you realize that these are not true. And IF you know these facts and IF you have a rational, open mind, you will tend to be "biased" against Bush.

But that is NOT a bias because it is neither preconceived nor a opinion held in disregard to the facts which contradict it. It would be more accurate to say that the evangelicals and religious fundamentalists have a bias in favor of Bush and against Kerry. This IS a bias because the facts contradict their view of Iraq, the war on terrorism and the effect of Bush's actions on the economy.

By the way, the survey was accompanied by a report which said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him." Ignorance, not "bias," seems to have played a large role in Bush's re-election.

Ancon
Tonosi (Pueblo Olvidado)

Thanks for the lovely photos of Dia de la Independencia. Keep up the good work.

M. Smith
Georgia, USA

Your political preferences are noted. Either factually report what is going on in Panama or go to another website and vent your spleen with your opinion.

Kurt Barry

I must say that we have become addicted to your Internet news service. My husband used to live in Panama, approximately 20 years ago, in the bad old days.

We would however, disagree with your political philosophy, as we are self admitted members of the Christian Right, and unabashedly so, thus we are generally, most grateful for the outcome of this election.

All the best, and keep up the good work.

Alice
USA

As the battle for Falluja began, the world heard a Shiite urging troops into battle agains Satan, to send the enemy to Hell. Later that same Shiite extended his ban on the independent press and ordered those reporters still allowed to work to report only his side of the story, or else face reprisals.

Compare that with these words from the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."

When you know that the Shiite was the Bush-appointed president of Iraq and the troops were US Marines, then you will know how far America has strayed from its founding principles. It seems that if you want to enjoy traditional American freedoms these days, you will find them here in Panama easier than in the land of their birth.

name withheld

This day [November 12] is one that the Palestinian people can hold forever as a day of pride. No matter how you view Yasser Arafat's life or imagine what will happen next, a certain hurdle has been passed. I watched in amazement at what didn't happen as the helicopters sat on the tarmac. Thousands of people --- many armed! --- in a state of emotional distress at the loss of their recognized leader expressed their feelings in what the Media claimed was "chaotic," but I saw as reverential and self-controlled. Think of what happens in America when certain college sports teams win a "big game"... both sides overreacting enough as it is... now imagine the non-authority side carrying AK-47's.

There is NO way the authorities could have held back that crowd if they had decided to express their emotions in a violent manner. But they didn't. No one in that tremendous gathering --- on either side! --- passed the point of no return when the slightest spark could have set off a powder keg of incredible destruction. Gunfire, lots of it, shot in the air in traditional salute offered the opening for tragedy, thankfully and incredibly no one chose to.

Could this be the true sign of a new day dawning? Not the passing of Arafat or whom gains control, but the restraint showed in an incredibly tense situation. If this attitude could become the norm instead of endless retaliations for long ago wrongs, it could be the start of a peaceful coexistence --- and what more could anyone ask at this point?

I don't pretend to understand all the nuances of the Israeli/Palestinian political and religious struggles, but I can't help but hope that they build on this brief moment of civility. No overnight solutions, obviously, but it could be a foundation... just try to keep the bulldozers from tearing it down before the house gets built.

Tim Coney
Medford, OR

Back to top