Several weeks ago an edition of Forbes Global Business & Finance contained an inaccurate article about the Panama Canal. It was a very unfair piece and I want to help set the record straight.

While I have real concern about the Canal operating effectively under Panamanian control, to call the Panama Canal a "wasting asset" in the headline for the article was totally misleading. It did a disservice to the efforts of Americans and Panamanians to maintain and modernize the Canal over the years. Beyond past programs of outstanding maintenance and capital expenditures, current efforts have provided new state-of-the-art hydraulic systems to operate the locks, a satellite ship positioning system and advanced locomotives used to pull ships through the locks. Alberto Aleman Zubieta, the second Panamanian administrator of the Canal, has created, with board approval, a progressive five-year $1 billion modernization program. How in the face of these and other programs can the writer say that the Canal's "technology is obsolete?"

Next, I would comment on an erroneous statement by John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation. He was quoted in the piece as saying, "...Canals like the Panama Canal just aren't that relevant anymore...". Let me first call to Mr. Sweeney's attention that over 90 percent of the ocean-going vessels in the world can transit the Panama Canal. And even if the percentage changes over the next decade, the Canal will still remain an extremely important crossroads for world shipping. But the quickest challenge to Mr. Sweeney would come from the farmers of America and Chile. Over 20 percent of Canal traffic is US bread basket grain shipped down the Mississippi River to Baton Rouge and then through the Panama Canal to Asia and Pacific destinations. Without the Canal, there would be absolutely no cost-effective way for that grain, representing one-third of US grain exports, to find its way to the markets of Asia. At the same time, about 4 percent of Canal traffic is made up of Chilean fruits and vegetables on their way to the dining tables of America. These are just two examples of what could be repeated many times about several countries in the Western Hemisphere, China and Japan. From phosphates to petroleum products and from scrap metals to container traffic, the Canal is absolutely relevant.

Finally, let me comment on the writer's statement about, "...armadas of cargo ships drifting at anchor and waiting half a day to enter the Canal...". For years the Panama Canal has had a 24-hour Canal water time policy for vessels. That means it will take no longer than 24 hours from the time a ship arrives at one of the entrances to the Canal before it will have completed its transit. With relatively few exceptions, the Panama Canal Commission has lived up to that guarantee. To also say in the article that the Canal adds "24 hours to a ship's voyage" misses the point, particularly since it take 12 hours for a vessel to cross the Isthmus of Panama. Shipowners fully understand the rule of 24-hour Canal water time. The Canal saves vessels some 13 days by eliminating passage around the tip of South America.

The leadership of the Panama Canal Commission and its board of directors have a vision for the next century¬a vision which may also include wider locks, a decision which will be made only after a thorough financial review has been completed. At the same time, Panama is getting ready to run the Canal. It has experienced people in place. From my view, the key test for the future will be Panama's commitment to the execution of current plans without political interference once the Canal is transferred on December 31, 1999.