Obama's Panama Canal

At a political function just last week one of the speakers said, “it takes a Carter to make a Reagan.” Well, if that’s the case then we got a Reagan coming.

President Jimmy Carter’s record on foreign affairs is most notably tainted by his decision to return the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. The consequence led to a significant decrease in US influence in the region and certainly contributed to the perception that the US was easily manipulated. The then president of Panama, Omar Torrijos prepared a plan to sabotage the canal should the US not ratify the treaty. General Manuel Noriega confirmed this, as did documents found on him when captured some years after the treaty’s ratification. While conflicts over the ensuing years in Panama, Nicaragua and El Salvador had numerous causes, clearly these threats and President Carter’s response served to weaken the perception of the US in its dealings in Central America.

On Sunday April 5, Barak Obama was awakened with the news that Kim Jung Il, Commander of the 4^th largest standing army in the world and leader of the rouge state of North Korea, had in direct violation of a UN Security Council Resolution, fired a three-stage rocket over Japan. The missile failed to operate as expected, but still managed to travel 1900 miles from its launch site. That is twice the distance of its previous longest rocket launch. And, unless we are willing to write Japan off, it is a big deal for a nation who professes to have nuclear weapons.

Our president did make some very strongly worded comments. “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished.” He also called the act a “provocation that can not go unanswered.” Then within a few hours of the launch, he made a major speech in Prague stating the United States will lead the world to become nuclear free.

Obama’s promise to give up our nuclear supremacy only hours after North Korea launched a missile designed to reach the US sends a very clear message to people who would continue to pose a major threat to the US and our allies. That message is weakness. It is not a little known secret that Iranian scientists and political leaders were present at the launch. While many speculate that Kim Jung Il’s launch was to gain bartering chips in negotiations with the West, the presence of the Iranians make it more plausible that this was a sales demonstration. And our president follows his denunciation of this missile launch with a speech about getting rid of our nuclear weapons? Sounds like Jimmy Carter to me.

And what was Iran’s response to this? The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi announced the following day that the US should dismantle all its nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. However he contended that Iran had a right to continue its quest for nuclear energy: this from the nation with the world’s 4^th highest production of oil.

Whether Obama attempts to follow through on his Carter like promise to give up our nuclear arms, just speaking those words after such an historic confrontation is enough to set back any efforts to compel Iran or North Korea to abide by the Security Counsel’s resolutions. It was an irresponsible speech. Giving DVD’s to world leaders who cannot play them due to format issues is bad form. Making a speech about giving up our nuclear edge only hours after Kim Jung Il launches a missile designed to land on US soil shows a lack of insight that is extremely frightening.

While I would love to see the emergence of a Ronald Regan like leader after a one-term presidency for Mr. Obama, I hope it will not be on the tail end of a similar crisis to President Carter’s other major international relations failure; his impotence with regard to the US Hostages taken by Iran in 1979. The next confrontation with Iran has the potential to silence a million souls in a second. President Obama must learn fast. We cannot afford too much more “on the job training.” And even the hope of another Ronald Regan is not worth the possible consequences of a nuclear Iran.