Most ads are interactive -- click on them to visit the folks who make The Panama News possible

editorial

When George W. Bush visits

Say what needs to be said, and do so peacefully

It is an observation and a safe bet, rather than an incitement, to say that there is likely to be rioting when George W. Bush visits Panama.

What's apt to happen is that campus militants and others so inclined will take the occasion to seek a confrontation, the police will intervene rather quickly, and the rocks and bottles, and maybe a molotov cocktail or two, will start flying on the one side and the tear gas shells and rubber bullets on the other. The protesters will probably not be allowed very close to President Bush, unless his political advisors decide to present a contrived picture of the heroic man of principle standing up to an enraged mob. The international TV crews will almost surely go looking for the trouble, and it will almost as certainly be the main thing about Panama that people in the USA will be shown. A post-riot blame game is likely to ensue.

It would be a pleasant surprise if this editorial is entirely wrong about this, and not because of massive roundups of dissidents on the eve of the US president's visit.

It would be nice to see the highly paid international press corps act with more sophistication than the “if it bleeds it leads” syndrome, and seek out neither the most violent people on the streets nor the government-approved sycophants in suits, but instead talk to a wide range of intelligent and articulate people from all walks of life about what they think matters in US-Panamanian relations

It would be nice to see Bush and the rest of his official entourage make the effort to hear the voices of non-obsequious Panamanians from all walks of life, whose expertise and concerns about this country run further than a knowledge of the rabiblanco families' genealogies.

If the press and presidential entourage really make the effort to find out what concerns those Panamanians outside of the political class about relations between the United States and Panama, they will find that all is not well and that some problem areas could be rather easily improved.

US farmers' demands for full access to Panama's market for their subsidized products will not be granted without infuriating Panamanian farmers. Most people in this country are not going to accept any American arguments about how it's legal and proper to shift the burden of cleaning unexploded ordnance and old chemical weapons left here by US forces to Panama. Panamanians are by and large not about to support the war in Iraq or another US-backed attempt to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela. Few people here are going to be persuaded to consider the right-wing AUC paramilitaries who are an integral part of Plan Colombia, and who from time to time attack this country, to be anything other than a bunch of thugs.

These points will be made by various groups of protesters during the Bush visit, and they should be made and heard. The most important point to impress on the American president's mind is that Panama is not his country's “back yard” --- the “lot line” is on the Rio Grande and though we are a small country we are a sovereign and independent nation.

But can't concerned Panamanians say all of this peacefully? Can't the visiting multinational press organizations report calm and enlightening conversations about these matters? Can't both police and protesters do what they need to do without reducing all questions to a matter of who's toughest?

And can't the governments of the United States and Panama, after agreeing to disagree about certain things, set aside egos and formalities and do some simple things to improve relations?

For example, if the American forces insist that they need to monitor Panama's sea lanes for their lost cause War on Drugs, can't they at least share such information gathered in that process that helps this country defend its territorial seas from illegal fishing and other criminal activities of concern to us?

Or, given the US legal position that the heads long ago chopped off of the pillars at the El Caño archaeological site for export to a US museum were legally taken, wouldn't it still be better for both countries if the heads were put back on the pillars and a set of reproductions made, so that both Panama and the United States would have unmutilated pre-Columbian pieces to exhibit?

Can't President Bush make an appearance at the Panama Canal and use the occasion to tell his constituents back home that the allegation that Red China runs our canal is ridiculous?

Can't President Torrijos use the Bush visit as an opportunity to let everyone know that foreigners who use this country as a base from which to commit international frauds, largely directed against Americans, will no longer be tolerated?

Panama and the United States are old friends, but our relationship has always had its tensions and within each country there are those who would play up the problems for domestic political gain. Can't everyone concerned, most of all the North American media, treat all the posturing as mere background noise and instead of getting carried away with it sponsor an intelligent discussion among adults?

The Panama News will be there to cover the protests, but because the Torrijos administration only recognizes those media aligned with the advertising cartel that the president's father-in-law leads, most likely we won't be directly covering the official events. But we will get the story, and we will do everything possible to play it as accurately and honestly as possible.

Let us hope that we have something more than silly political games to report.

Bear in mind...

Why is it when we talk to God we're said to be praying, but when God talks to us we're schizophrenic?

Lily Tomlin

Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

C. S. Lewis

I want nothing to do with any religion concerned with keeping the masses satisfied to live in hunger, filth, and ignorance.

Jawaharlal Nehru