Commentary
The Panama Canal
Military Stewardship of the Environment
Restoring and Supporting Democracy
End of an Era
U.S. Military Regional Activities
Panama The Country
Related Web Sites and Literature
Dedications
The principal controversy is mainly over the extent to which the ranges should be cleared. The cleanup carried out by the U.S. military -- although consistent with range close-out practices in the United States and elsewhere overseas -- has been criticized as inadequate by Panamanian officials, environmentalists, editorialists, and commentators from all walks of life in the Panamanian press and in some U.S. media.

The Panama Canal Treaty called for the United States to take all measures to ensure "insofar as may be practicable that every hazard to human life, health and safety" is removed from any defense site or other military areas. Panama disputes the U.S. assertions that total removal of all unexploded ordnance in the steep forested terrain in the impact areas is impossible with current technologies without severe detrimental deforestation of those areas (thus seriously damaging the canal watershed), degrading the exceptional biodiversity in those areas, and exposing cleanup personnel to grave risks.

Typical range impact area in Panama in remote areas of steep hilly terrain covered by double and triple canopy jungle. (U.S. Army South photo).
Panama also disputes the U.S. assertion that the U.S. military had done all it could, namely in clearing the other 80 percent of the range areas, which were maneuver areas and safety buffer zones near impact areas (Impact areas are those small areas with low through very high unexploded ordnance densities, and maneuver areas -- including firing fans -- are those with none, suspected or very low unexploded ordnance densities.) Panama also claims that the U.S. responsibility concerning the ranges go beyond the termination date of the Panama Canal Treaty (December 31, 1999).

The Atlantic Council paper viewed this as an emotional rather than an economic issue, for the ranges are located far away from developed areas, their potential for alternative use is low because they are within the canal watershed, and they represent a small fraction of the total land turned over to Panama. [The total area of the impact areas in the three ranges represents about eight percent of the total land previously controlled by the U.S. military in 1978 (before any transfers to Panama) or two percent of the entire former Canal Zone land in 1978 -- Ormsbee's note]. Also -- stated the paper -- the ranges are located within the canal watershed, which further limits their potential for development because of the need to protect the canal from silting and to provide an adequate water supply to operate the canal.

more...