Tim Brown has sent a long and informative memo, part of which discusses
various canal routes:
In the Americas, between Mexico and Colombia, there are seven possible
routes for inter-oceanic canals, from Tehuantepec in the north to northern
Colombia, with possible routes elsewhere in Guatemala-El Salvador,
Nicaragua and Panama south of the existing canal. The problem with all but
one is that they would require massive and extremely expensive excavations
even larger than those done when the Panama Canal was built, and the
installation of locks even bigger than those in Panama which, in turn would
require everywhere but Nicaragua, the creation of a giant lake to feed them
water.
The exceptions are two routes in Nicaragua, which is the only place a sea
level canal without locks is possible. It is widely known that a Nicaragua
route was once considered the best alternative to Panama, but even those
well acquainted with it have long assumed it would run from the
Atlantic/Caribbean up the San Juan River to Lake Nicaragua [Cocibolco] and
then across the very narrow neck of land that separates Lake Nicaragua from
the Pacific.
But that was never the plan because it would require a set of locks
between the Lake and the Pacific. The plan was to dredge the San Juan from
the Atlantic to Lake Nicaragua as a sea level canal without locks, but then
to turn north, dredge a second canal between Lakes Nicaragua and Managua
[Xolotlan] at Titpitapa, cross Lake Managua and then dredge a third canal
northward across the inland plains to emerge on the Gulf of Fonseca north
of the town of Chinandega. That is the reason why the Bryan-Chamorro
Treaty, in addition to granting the US a perpetual lease to Greater and
Lesser Corn Islands in the Caribbean to
build defenses at that end, also granted the US the right to build a naval
base on the Gulf of Fonseca to defend the Pacific end of the canal. In
fact, in 1976-78 a LASH canal following this route was under active
development, with Harza Engineering of Chicago deeply involved. Given
recent unrest in Nicaragua, and the requirement the four historically
fractious nation-states [Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador]
would have to agree fully on its construction and operations it is unlikely
to be built for some time, if ever.
But Americans can rest easy. In 1978, as part of the treaty that returned
the Panama Canal to Panama, the Carter administration unilaterally, without
even being asked to do so by Panama, insisted on doing two things. First,
it unilaterally renounced the us-Nicaragua Bryan-Chamorro Treaty, thus
assuring that the United States not longer has treaty rights to build a
Nicaragua Canal. This unilateral renunciation of course, included
renunciation of the US's perpetual leases to Greater and Lesser Corn
Islands and to build a naval base on the Cosguina Peninsula on the Gulf of
Fonseca [which might have been nice to have during
the Sandinista's revolution, whcih began within months of ratification of
Carter's treaty].
And, second, the United States, without being asked by Panama to do so,
unilaterally renounced in perpetuity its rights to build or share in the
building of any second canal between the Atlantic and Pacific, except in
Panama. So, if Tehuantepec or any other canal is ever built in the Western
Hemisphere, given probable costs and complexity, it will probably be with
Japanese, European or Arab capital."
My comment: The Carter administration's concessions to Panama astounded
Americans. The Mexicans claim that the Tehuantepec route is much better
than the others listed. Since so many Mexican government agencies are
involved in the plan, it is not the pipe dream of one or two individuals.
This is no guarantee that the canal will be built, but it means that the
plan must be taken very seriously.
Ronald Hilton - 05/04/98
