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

letters

Fear and loathing --- and bits of concern and appreciation

Proposed Panama dolphinarium

In January 2006, the Marine Connection, a UK based charity working worldwide for the protection and conservation of dolphins and whales, contacted the Panamanian government after learning that a request had been put forward from Ocean Embassy Panama Inc. (OEP) to capture 80 bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). We were delighted that the Panamanian government took the forward-thinking and responsible decision not to issue the permit.

Therefore, you will understand our trepidation at recent information issued advising that OEP are again attempting to construct a dolphinarium incorporating a dolphin therapy program in Panama potentially through the wild capture of animals but under a scientific guise (health assessment). OEP's use of the word "scientific" simply provides a convenient camouflage for the truth and despite this masquerade the situation remains the same as when OEP requested the permit previously in 2006.

Bottlenose dolphins are listed under Annex II of the SPAW (Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife) Protocol to which Panama is a signatory, and Article 11 of this prohibits the capture of this species from the wild. Studies undertaken elsewhere in the Caribbean region indicate that bottlenose dolphin populations are smaller in number than in other areas of the world. Whilst the animals do occasionally congregate in large pods, the majority of the time they are in small groups of 3-8 animals, therefore a capture of 80 animals would have disastrous consequences on the population.

It has been proven that wild dolphin populations cannot withstand more than a five percent loss per year and natural losses through death alone can reach this height, therefore removing a further 80 dolphins would greatly compromise the structure of this population and endanger its survival for the future. A fundamental point to note is that during capture operations it is not only captured animals which must be taken into consideration, but also any animals not removed which may die afterwards in the wild as a result of stress and injury or dependent calves whose mothers are captured that will die due to lack of food source and protection.

In addition, we are alarmed that the proposed captures may be linked to illegal captures of dolphins from the wild in the Solomon Islands a few years ago. Following this capture, the Solomon Islands government received international condemnation for its actions and subsequently banned captures of dolphins from the wild in their waters. The Panamanian government should therefore be aware of receiving similar criticism from the international community if it does not deny this permit. It would appear that this company again wants to exploit Panama as a new source for wild captures to continue trading in dolphins for their own profit but to the detriment of the wild dolphin populations of Panama as well as the environmental reputation of the country.

Dolphin and whale watching in the wild is one of the fastest growing tourist attractions in the world. Tourists are becoming much more reactive to poor environmental records and increasingly prefer to travel to areas which havem environmentally friendly, sustainable and ethical roots. Panama is in a great position to develop its ethical whale and dolphin watching industry but this would be dramatically compromised if OEP's permit is authorized. It has been proposed that the potential earning from a regional dolphin and whale watching industry of is approximately $24 million annually.

I respectfully urge the Panamanian people to object to this facility and the Panamanian government not to authorize the capture of these animals for the sake of the wild dolphin population, the reputation of Panama and the lucrative potential for the Panamanian development of ethical wild dolphin watching.

Andrina Murrell

Captivity Officer

The Marine Connection

London, England

Is that the one the critics call "Dead Frog?"

I just wondered if you are aware of the battle royal taking place in Bocas del Toro over the scandal of the Red Frog Beach Club --- another environmental disaster for Panama but this one on a grand scale, as you will appreciate if if you are familiar with Bastimentos island and the Bocas archipelago.

In case you don't know all about it, see www.stopredfrogbeachclub.com.

We admire your wonderful newspaper and remain very fond of Panama, which we have visited on several occasions.

Percy van der Spuy

"Authorizing" torture and war crimes

University of Panama law professor Miguel Antonio Bernal's reminder of the importance of the anniversary of the adoption of the Statute of Rome seems particularly timely for those of us from the United States concerned about human rights. The Statute of Rome, an international convention that created the International Criminal Court, was signed by Panama on July 18, 1998. Panama deposited its instrument of ratification with the United Nations on March 21, 2002. Among the crimes falling under International Criminal Court's jurisdiction are genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity.

US President Clinton, after much misgiving, signed the convention on December 31, 2000. Most notoriously, George W. Bush's Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, notified United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on May 6, 2002 that the United States would withdraw its signature to the agreement. Bolton asserted that the United States would have no legal obligations under the terms of the Statute of Rome. Since Bolton's announcement, the United States has negotiated so-called "Article 98" bilateral agreements with about 100 countries exempting US citizens from prosecution before the International Criminal Court. Most of these bilateral agreements are with smaller nations, such as Albania, Fiji, and Panama. A superpower's guns and foreign aid tend to be persuasive.

It is definitely no coincidence that the United States negotiated the bilateral treaties at the same time high-level White House and Justice Department attorneys were exchanging memos on how to bypass the requirements of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is also no coincidence that the pace of the other nations' willingness to enter into the Article 98 agreements with the United States pretty much died out once the abuses of Abu Ghraib prison were revealed to the world. The Bush administration prepared its strategy for the war on terror conscious that it needed "loopholes" around the various human rights treaties and left a damning paper trail in the process. In spite of all the clever Bush lawyers have done, the United States has never announced abrogation of either the Geneva Convention, which the United States ratified in 1955, or the Convention against Torture, which it ratified in 1994. It just would not look right to do so.

Various people claiming to be patriotic US citizens have recently been circulating spam e-mails in response to the recent US Supreme Court ruling against the Bush administration's proposed use of tribunals at Guantanamo. Essentially, they call for Americans to encourage "our government and our military to use any method necessary to challenge terrorism." Implicit is the idea that international law doesn't count or shouldn't count because we are fighting some new kind of enemy in the war against terrorism.

It should be pointed out that the United States has long accepted the validity of international law. It has entered into numerous bilateral treaties and multilateral conventions throughout its history and has ambassadors placed around the globe to negotiate for and represent the United States under the authority of international law. Where other nations can afford to send its ambassadors to various world capitols, the United States recognizes the credentials of such ambassadors according to the same international understandings. Most of the world's countries operate internationally according to their various international agreements, most of the time. Paying homage to the authority of international law is so common that it is hardly noticed above the background noise of other international news.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently gave a press conference on July 21, 2006 entitled "Special Briefing on Travel to the Middle East and Europe." During the course of the press conference, Secretary Rice stated, "Clearly, Hezbollah in its political role did not act very responsibly. If indeed Hezbollah went without the authority of the Lebanese Government, violated every conceivable international law not to mention a number of international UN Security Council resolutions and didn't bother to tell the members of the Lebanese Government."

Condoleezza Rice works for President Bush and serves at his pleasure. If she is claiming Hezbollah may have violated international law, she is acknowledging the authority of international law. President Bush, through his international representative, cannot credibly demand others obey international law without causing the United States to also obey international law.

US citizens claiming the United States is not bound by its various international law obligations probably fall into one of two camps. Either they are ignorant of the historical US recognition and citation of international law, or they are conscious of history and desire the United States to invoke and obey international law only when the United States feels like doing so. The second type of person may think it is crafty and advantageous for the United States to play a type of "heads, I win; tails, you lose" game in the international arena. But it is not so crafty when the United States now is a massive international debtor both in trade and dollars. What would happen to ordinary US citizens if they found their country the subject of economic embargos such as were imposed upon Cuba, Iraq, and Libya?

That will never happen to the mighty United States? Those who think otherwise should do a little reading on the recent economic fortunes of General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company. Or see who now owns the former "big three" US automaker, Chrysler. The fortunes of these once dominant industrial giants mirror the economic prowess of the United States. And foreshadow potential disaster.

In the meanwhile, let it be noted that Panama's participation in the Statute of Rome makes its example a brighter beacon to the world than all the fine words Bush administration lawyers can paste together for their failed attempt to bolster the US claims for international justice.

Nick Jackson

Disagrees with the last issue's editorial

With regard to this paragraph:

There have been enough lies and evasions. The truth of the matter is that the intentional Israeli bombardment of Beirut neighborhoods and such civilian infrastructures as utility plants, roads and bridges, the Beirut airport and civilian broadcasting stations is a war crime under international law. The truth of the matter is that indiscriminate Hezbollah rocket attacks aimed at towns and cities in general is a war crime under international law.

There is no equating attacks on infrastructures including power plants, bridges, airport runways, broadcasting towers, etc., with indiscriminate barrages of rockets aimed at killing civilians. In addition, Hezbollah has been leading reporters around by the nose in Lebanon, showing them exactly what they want them to see. Check the facts at: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000767.html.

Israel did not attack Lebanon because of one 200 meter incursion. It attacked because of a history of attacks from the Hezbollah armies, including rockets, mortars, kidnapping, murders and other provocative actions that NO COUNTRY can suffer forever.

Israel has no territorial ambitions in this war. All they want is to be left alone in peace.

Hezbollah, Iran and Syria are the aggressors. If you fail to understand that then you fail in your obligation to support freedom and democracy in the world, and instead become a proponent of "peace at any cost" which will lead to the defeat of Western civilization at the hands of the Islamofascists.

I'll be back in Panama on August 17. You have a wonderful country and I commend you for your free and independent voice. Just try to get it right.

Bill Fishburne

Editor,

Tribune Newspapers

Asheville, NC, USA

Get with the program, Jackson

I don't think we should live with excessive suspicion, or fear!

I think fear is the reason why you don't want to move forward with the expansion of the canal --- the fear of the investment. Then you already gave up on Panama, so why even bother writing about all this.

Imagine, if in 1903, the project of the construction of the canal, never took place for the simple reason that it was going to be too expensive???? Where would we be today?

Imagine that because of the expense people decided not to do the great things they have done, where would we be today? Panama is worth the investment, if you don't believe me ask Donald Trump.

In addition, you should know that Panama Max ships are no longer being built!

You should know that with the price of fuel today, the world would welcome this accommodation!

You should know that the Canal is over 100 years old and needs to be updated or we risk becoming obsolete? do you care about the future generations?

You should know that this project will bring more money to Panama for the next five generations to even think about the investment, I know you know all this!!!! Yet you continue to write your nonsense? You really think we are going to believe that the president sent somebody over to you to wake you up in morning?

Have you lost your mind?

Who is paying you? is all I can wonder. Yeya is paying you huh? She wants her party to take over next time around!!

But the people won't let her, sorry!

You need to be a part of the project, the people of Panama elected Martín Torrijos and he told us he would expand the canal, the people want the canal expanded. Get over it! And get a real job!

Marilu Reyes Ewing

Editor's note: As long-time readers of The Panama News will know, I was no friend of Mireya Moscoso's administration and have in fact opined in writing several times that the former president belongs in prison. But none of this has ever stopped enraged PRD ignoramuses from wrongly accusing me of being an Arnulfista because I am not controlled by the PRD.

I have never been paid by Mireya and I don't expect that I ever will be. I sell ads and ask readers for donations twice a year to keep this micro-enterprise going.

One last comment about the Mireya issue: How dare this "yes" campaign supporter accuse me of being on that miserable kleptocrat's payroll when the truth of the matter is that Mireya Moscoso has been included by Martín Torrijos and Alberto Alemán Zubieta as part of the "yes" campaign? The president's and canal administrator's embrace amounts to their tacit approval of the theft of $1,000 per day from the public treasury over five years by Mireya Moscoso to buy herself clothing and jewelry. It's the "yes" campaign's burden to carry, not mine, and it's in itself a powerful reason to vote "no."

At the moment we see a desperate PRD effort to brand all who don't blindly embrace the Torrijos - Alemán Zubieta Plan as a bunch of nuts. Well, I just may be crazy but that has nothing to do with my misgivings about the specific proposal. See, I have this odd habit, picked up in childhood, of saying no to those who propose to flip my dimes in a heads they win, tails I lose game.

Rather than defending his proposal on its merits, the president is creating a climate of hatred in this country. Some of this has been directed at journalists who express dissident views or report inconvenient news. I reasonably believe that the pre-dawn visit I received from people who were not my neighbors to blast hateful gangsta rap and shout epithets fits right in with that tone of hatred and with past PRD practices. I doubt that the president actually ordered it, just as I doubt that General Noriega actually ordered our current Minister of Public Works to have his goons kill Billy Ford's bodyguard and beat up the vice president-elect on the street.

Do the people want the canal expanded? That's a question that's overly general to the point of abstraction. Whether we want to approve the Torrijos - Alemán Zubieta Plan is a much clearer question, one which, assuming there is no fraud, will be decided by the people in an October 22 referendum.

Hmmm --- is it good to let passion shine through?

Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your articles and applaud all the hard work you put into your newspaper. Your dedication and passion shine through your words.

Keep up the great work!!!

Jami

Editor's note: Appended to this letter was a reference to an article from the last issue entitled "Torrijos signs law to increase legislators' impunity for corruption." That went into the news section. Now was this an improper mixing of fact reporting and opinion? Some might argue that it was and they'd have a certain amount of precedent to support their contention, but my decision was to not let politeness toward elected officials get in the way of reporting the truth about what they do.