A Historic No

Panama's decision to call a meeting of the United Nations Security Council in Panama City was primarily intended to embarrass the U.S. for maintaining control of the Panama Canal—and it succeeded. On opening day, the delegates arriving at Panama's Legislative Palace faced a three-story billboard that declared in the five official U.N. languages: "You may rest assured that in our negotiations with the U.S. you will always find us standing on our feet and never on our knees. Never! Torrijos."

In a 20-minute speech delivered at the first session, Panama's "Leader of the Revolution," Brigadier General Omar Torrijos, assailed the U.S. in buchi, a back-country accent peculiar to Panama. "It is difficult to comprehend," he said, "how a country that has characterized itself as noncolonial insists on maintaining a colony in the heart of our country. Never will we add another star to the flag of the United States." Cuba's acerbic Foreign Affairs Minister Raúl Roa joined in with a tirade against the U.S. for "its perfidy and its claws." Communist China's Huang Hua added: "U.S. imperialism has subjected the Latin American countries to aggression and enslavement."

In the first of a series of curbside press conferences, fledgling U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Scali countered that Torrijos was "knocking on an open door," and added that "the world knows that the United States is ready to modernize our treaty arrangements with Panama to the mutual advantage of both countries." In fact, during the nearly two years of the latest round of negotiations, U.S. officials repeatedly agreed that Panama shoudl eventually be granted jurisdiction over the Canal Zone and a much larger share of canal shipping revenues (from $20 million to $25 million annually). The one sticking point is the timetable for U.S. withdrawl. Washington wants to provide for the defense of the canal (with Panama) for another 50 years or, if new locks are built, another 85 years. Panama wants a complete U.S. withdrawl by 1994.

To apply pressure, Panama drafted a resolution calling on the U.S. to draft "without delay" a new treaty that would guarantee Panama "sovereignty over all its territory." To Scali's dismay, this move won the support of 13 of the 15 delegates (Briiain abstained). Scali, who argued that the soverignty question was a bilateral matter between the U.S. and Panama and therefore beyond the U.N.'s purview, finally raised his right hand and cast the third U.S. veto in its 27 years in the United Nations.

What now? Bilateral talks between Panama and the U.S. will probably continue. But veto or no, Panamanians felt that they had got the better of the Yanquis. Said Foreign Minister Juan Tack jubilantly: "The U.S. vetoed the resolution, but the world vetoed the U.S."