|
|
|
News
| Economy
| Culture
| Opinion
| Lifestyle
| Nature |
Volume 15,
Number 13 |
Also in this
section:
The
metro
They call it a metro, but it's a commuter train system that could be a subway, could be an el, and given the realities of geology and geography would probably be a bit of both. It was one of the few specific campaign promises that Ricardo Martinelli made on his way to the presidency. It was a winning issue because it's a good idea. What we get could not only solve many transportation woes, but become an urban development stimulus that few people now expect. It could also be a disappointment if things are not done as well as they should be. Burrowing underground is relatively expensive to do, but can save a lot of money on land acquisition and avoid expensive entanglements with surface transportation routes. Running on elevated tracks can mean cheaper construction costs but can aggravate the city's noise problems and create issues with respect to rights of way. Geology may be the determinant in some stretches along the way. A subway in a rainy place like Panama creates drainage issues that competent engineers know how to solve, but we need to be careful about the probability of rising sea levels and the complications these could cause. The decisions are not just of a technical nature for the system itself. A new commuter rail system can dramatically change the capital's way of life. Its power to do that should be the subject of an open and intelligent public debate, the results of which should be reflected in the plans. Some key points need to be addressed:
We need to get the details of the new system right, because they will in many cases become difficult or impossible to change once it is built. To get it right, at a minimum everyone with a stake or an interest in the system should have a chance to be heard before the final plans are made. US bases in the region? The latest "carrot" to get the US Congress to approve a free trade agreement with Colombia is an offer of five American military bases in Colombia. Washington politicians who ought to know better consider it a game-changing offer. President Uribe protests that "the accord is to strengthen Colombian military bases, not to open US bases," but it's about bringing US military personnel to those bases. So do bases strengthen democracy? Did the bases we had here prevent a 21-year military dictatorship? Did the US air base in Soto Cano, Honduras, prevent the recent coup there? And is a bases deal that boosts Uribe's ambitions to revise the constitution to extend his death squad and corruption tainted presidency to a third term and beyond really pro-democracy? Do US bases prevent the rise of politicians who oppose Washington's policies in the region? Is that what happened in Honduras? Is that what happened in Ecuador, which elected Rafael Correa despite the presence of a US air base at Manta? Is that what happened in Cuba back in 1959, when Fidel Castro came to power despite the well established US naval presence at Guantanamo? And what's the need for US military bases in Latin America anyway? Is it about "winning the War on Drugs?" That idea is demonstrably the product of insane minds, and only one of the many proofs of that is how little the complex of US military bases that we used to have in Panama affected drug trafficking in those times. Are we going to invoke the "s-word" and say that the bases are "strategic," maybe even as a matter of "national security?" Of importance to a strategy for what? Making which nation secure against what? Yes, military emergencies may arise in the hemisphere. Maybe we already have one on our hands as the result of the Honduran coup. But there are already mutual assistance treaties in effect that would pave the way for US forces to pass through or operate from Latin American countries that are willing to allow this in the event of such an emergency. US military transports might be called into a Latin American country in the event of a natural disaster --- but this is done from time to time now, without any need for bases. So please understand the many Latin Americans who take the term "strategic" to mean "useful to a modern version of the old American gunboat diplomacy, the aim of which is to assert US hegemony throughout the Western Hemisphere." And please note that the American politicians who have hailed Plan Colombia as a great success that justifies ratification of a free trade deal can't have it both ways and now argue that the government in Bogota is in such peril that it needs five US military bases. New American bases in Latin America? That's an old idea and a bad one, an idea that starts with false assumptions and gets worse. In these days of economic crisis, it's also an inexcusably expensive folly. Bear
in mind...
When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do --- lose. Dwight
D. Eisenhower
They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but the fools, the fools, the fools! --- they have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace. Pádraig
Pearse
You carry forever the fingerprint that comes from being under someone's thumb. Nancy
Banks-Smith
Also
in this
section: News
| Economy
| Culture
| Opinion
| Lifestyle
| Nature
Noticias | Opiniones | Archive | Unclassified Ads | Home Panama
Hotel: Luxury
apartment rentals
in Casco Viejo, Panama City |
||||||||||||||
|
©
2009 by Eric Jackson email: editor@thepanamanews.com or phone: (507) 6-632-6343 Mailing
address: |
|
|
||||||||||||