The ghost amendment that could have authorized U.S. military force in Panama
In short: In the late 1970s, a specific legislative provision sparked a fierce debate over American interventionism. Known as the DeConcini amendment, it sought to preserve U.S. military rights in the Panama Canal. Today, its existence remains a point of intense historical and legal contention between former negotiators.
In 1977, Senator Dennis DeConcini sponsored an amendment to the Panama Canal Treaty. The provision was designed to allow the United States to take necessary steps, including the use of military force, to reopen or restore the operations of the Canal. While the amendment was reportedly written and signed by Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos in the Instrument of Ratification, its actual presence in the final treaty is disputed. Former Panamanian negotiator Carlos López Guevara has publicly maintained that the DeConcini amendment does not exist. He argues that the provision was effectively neutralized by the 'leadership amendment' or the 'Church amendment.' López Guevara describes the Church amendment as a rebellion by a group of liberal senators intended to disown, undo, and balance the interventionist effects of DeConcini's original proposal. The senator served three terms in the U.S. Senate starting in 1977. He was a Democrat who defeated Republican Sam Steiger for the seat. Before his time in the Senate, he worked as a lawyer for the Arizona Governor's staff. He also served as the chief prosecutor for Pima County.
This legislative tug-of-war highlights the tension between maintaining strategic military access and pursuing diplomatic de-escalation. The debate over these amendments continues to shape the understanding of U.S. foreign policy during the Carter administration. While the Panama Canal Treaty ended in December 2016, López Guevara suggests the negotiation dynamics remain relevant because the treaty is part of a broader negotiation framework. DeConcini's legislative legacy is thus defined by this complex interplay of power, where a single amendment could represent the difference between a negotiated exit and a preserved military foothold.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Dennis DeConcini
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/wars-dennis-deconcini.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Ancient & biblical wars · More in Wars & Conflicts · Latest · A–Z · All topics
