Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 6, folder "Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations:
1959-1974" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 6 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
PANAMA CANAL MATERIAL
On June 3, 1976 Jim Connor
said to hold here until further notice.
Trudy Fry
The President's News Con ference
December 2, 1959
q
288
Public Papers of the Presidents
Q. Marianne Means, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, in the in-
terest of Latin American relations, is it possible that the United States
will let Panama's flag fly beside the United States flag in the Canal Zone?
THE PRESIDENT. This is one of the points that's been talked about for
many years, since for 50 years the United States has recognized the
titular sovereignty of Panama. There have been numbers of problems
over the years that have come about because, first, of what the Pana-
manians felt were injustices to them in the original treaties; and secondly,
by the interpretations of treaties as revised in later years.
These last problems of the differences were under study for the last
few months, and we had already agreed with the Panamanians for
methods of taking another look at them and trying to see whether we
couldn't meet their requirements in this matter. So there has been a
very conciliatory attitude toward governments, as far as I have known,
and the one question of the flag has never been specifically placed before
me, no decision has ever been made about it; but I do in some form or
other believe we should have visual evidence that Panama does have
titular sovereignty over the region.
Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr.
President.
NOTE: President Eisenhower's one hun-
from 10:32 to 11:02 o'clock on Wednes-
dred and seventy-sixth news conference
day morning, December 2, 1959. In at-
was held in the Executive Office Building
tendance: 261.
289 У Statement by the President Concerning
Treaty Negotiations Between the United States and
Japan. December 2, 1959
DURING the past months, we have been negotiating a new treaty and
other security arrangements with Japan. We attach the greatest impor-
tance to this new treaty with Japan which is being negotiated between
equals for the mutual benefit and enlightened self-interest of both countries
and is therefore in keeping with the new era in our relations with Japan
enunciated following my talks with Prime Minister Kishi here in Washing-
ton in June 1957. The timing of this new treaty with Japan is particularly
opportune since I feel it is most essential at the present juncture in inter-
national affairs for the free world to maintain its unity and strength.
794
I
277
Public Papers of the Presidents
between missiles, by which we normally mean weapons, and space and
the rocketry that will be useful in exploring the space.
I cannot, for the life of me, see any reason why we should be using or
misusing military talent to explore the moon. This is something that
deals in the scientific field, and to give this to the Air Force or Army or
Navy, it just seems to me is denying what really is a sort of a doctrine in
America. You have given to the military only what is their problem
and not anything else; the rest of it stays under civilian control. That is
the reason for having this agency.
Q. Warren Rogers, New York Herald Tribune: Last week, Dr. von
Braun and Roy W. Johnson said that the Saturn project should be de-
veloped on a crash basis to beat the Russians in space explorations. They
said $140 million for fiscal '61 was not enough; it should be $100 million
more. What do you think of that, sir?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, I haven't had the studies placed
before me yet as to what our people believe to be the proper thing, but
I will say this: I have never seen any specialist of any kind that was
bashful in asking for Federal money. [Laughter]
Q. Stewart Hensley, United Press International: You were speaking
a moment ago about Cuba, and yesterday we had an attack on our
Embassy in Panama.
Now, so many of these nationalist eruptions that keep coming over the
landscape down there take on an anti-American tinge. Do you have any
idea of anything new the United States can do to try to rectify the
situation?
THE PRESIDENT. I think that no administration, supported by the Con-
gress, I should say, has ever made more effort to develop better under-
standing between all of the countries below the Rio Grande than this one;
and I think by and large there has been a very great measure of success
achieved.
But there are in many of these countries an excitable group; people
that are extremists and they start sometimes a mob action.
Now, as you know, or I think you know-I think the State Department
gave you the statement, the protest, that our Ambassador made to the
government of Panama-so you know exactly what our feelings are with
respect to that, and that we confidently hope that every, not only in Pan-
ama, but every civilized government will make certain that law and order
are preserved.
772
President's News uference
November 4. 1959
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1959
277
In a way it's a little bit puzzling to me. We have had some problems
with Panama, and the treaty by which the canal was first built has been
modified and revised a couple of times, each time giving a greater liberty
or a greater degree or level of rights to the Panamanians.
Right today, we have been for, oh, a good time, several months, work-
ing with the Panamanians about the interpretations of the latest treaty,
so that many problems that have come up to which they think they
have not quite acquired all of the rights and privileges that they feel they
should have, they have been studied in the effort to ameliorate all of
the causes of these difficulties.
I do not know why this fact has not been brought out more, so that
the feeling that causes such extraordinary performances would not be
so acute.
Q. Paul Martin, Gannett Newspapers: Mr. President, I think you
talked with Governor Rockefeller of New York for an hour and ten
minutes last week and I believe that is the longest time you have spent
in conversation with anyone since Khrushchev. [Laughter]
The Governor said you talked about some politics. Could you tell
us anything about it?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would say this: this was a personal conversa-
tion and this is the first time that I knew that anyone was keeping a
stop watch on me whenever I had a visitor.
It happens that I like Mr. Rockefeller. He served in my adminis-
tration for a considerable time. And I will say this: I believe that a
good portion of the time, I don't know whether more or most of it,
but a good portion was about civil defense. It is a subject in which
he and I have both been interested for a long time; and he, as Chairman
of the Governors' Conference in this particular problem, wanted to talk
to me about it.
Now we talked politics all across the board. You couldn't expect any
two people that have political office to avoid that subject completely, and
I could not possibly now remember any kind of conclusion we reached.
We just found it interesting, that's all.
Q. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, in discussions about
a date for an East-West summit conference, the point has sometimes
been made about the need to preserve the momentum resulting from
your talks with Mr. Khrushchev.
The Russians talk about the need to preserve the spirit of Camp David.
773
Cont
Nov 4, 1959
Cooler
Mostly cloudy and rather cool with
high is the low 70g today. Northeast
Must winds 10 to 18 mph.
The Miami
Herald
Twin Double
Nets $53,220
******
see story on Page
Saturday, January 11, 1964
No. 41 Florida's Most Complete Newspaper
54th
Year
58
Pages
10 Cents
Midnight
A Latin American Edition to Published Daily
CITY EDITION
73:
Rainfall
.00.
Panama Moves to Evict U.S.
After Bloody
Street-Fighting
U.N. Plea
3 GIs Among
Plan OKd
By Panama
27 Fatalities;
Handling of Crisis
By OAS Accepted
Canal Open
UNITED NATIONS, N.Y.
Showing of the flag leads to death
(UPI) Panama early today
accepted a Brazilian suggestion
# ho is sovereign in Canal Zone?
for a U.N. appeal for an end to
Profile of President Roberto Chiari
the fighting in the Canal Zone
Rundown on facts on Panama
in order to leave the crisis to
the Organization of American
By Herald Wire Services
States
PANAMA CITY Panama formally severed
But Panamanian Ambassador
matic relations with the United States Friday night
Aquilino Boyd accused the
opened a campaign to drive It out of the Panama 0
United States of unprovoked.
Zone after two days of bloody fighting between U.S. to
armed aggression and demand-
ed that the Panama Canal be
and Panamanian civilians.
ationalized or inter-
President Roberto F. C
nationalized
already had ordered Am
sador Augusto Guille
U.S. Ambassador Addat E.
Arango home from Wash
Stevenson categorically de-
ton in preparation for
nied the aggression charge
leveled by Boyd during an
formal rupture. Arango
emergency night session of
reported standing by in W
the Security Council.
ington awaiting "the
plane out."
Boyd later accepted a Bra-
The announcement of
zillan suggestion that Couneil
formal break was made by
President Renan Castrillo Jus.
1964
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Sept. 28 [607]
cher friends took
and it takes determination, and it takes a
so
City to sell, and
search for areas of common interest.
one
e
stockyards said
In the IO months since that fateful day
to 1
waiting for the
last November when tragedy cut our Presi-
bidde
ell me what is
dent down, and on a moment's notice, I had
really
The ,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
a Sheriff and
to step in and pick up and try to carry on
a Texa
for him, first, if you will remember, some of
many years,
our soldiers were fired upon and killed in
ran his
and delib-
Panama, and there were those that shouted
erated, an
ger is one
"Move in with the paratroopers."
that when
hit him,
Well, we went over to the Peace Corps
he just kee
must let
and got one of our most skilled diplomats
the rest of L
e speak
who had lived in Panama for years. We said
softly, we can
ve the
to them, "We will not negotiate with a gun
will and the de
ever
at our temple. We will not sign a blank
hit us it is not &
just
check to a treaty, but we will treat you fairly
going to keep CO1
and justly. We are a big Nation and you are
Our military S
se-
a small one, and we are not going to take
curity and it is V
to our in-
advantage of you. But you are not going to
fluence. But it cai and it must not be
take advantage of us."
used to compel and to frighten all others
And we were criticized for weeks. But
into following our command and our every
ultimately we reached an agreement on
wish. Nor can it build the lasting frame-
exactly the terms that I proposed the first day~
work of an enduring peace, because peace
by telephone to the President of Panama.
does not come from threats or intimidations,
A few days later Mr. Castro decided to
or humiliations, or overpowering. The only
cut our water off at our military base at
consequence of such a policy would be con-
Guantanamo. We were paying him for that
stant conflict, rising hostility, and deepening
water, and we were employing some 3,000
tension.
Cubans to do our work there. We were
Force could not rebuild Europe. It took
spending about $5 to $6 million a year with
the vision and the statesmanship of the Mar-
them. Suddenly and impetuously and im-
shall plan, and the patient molding of the
pulsively, and I think irrationally, he cut our
NATO Alliances.
water off. The shout went up, "Send in the
Force will not bring democratic progress
Marines."
to Latin America. It will take many years
I don't want the newspapermen to think
of the Alliance for Progress to create free-
I am quoting anybody now. But we let our
dom's answer to false Communist promises.
coffee cool a little bit and we decided, for
The ancient enemies of mankind thrive
better or for worse, that it was wiser to send
in that area of this hemisphere-disease, il-
in one admiral to cut the water off than it
literacy, and ignorance.
was to send in a regiment of Marines to turn
Force will not bring an end to the arms
it on.
race. We cannot coerce others to negotiate.
So we told Mr. Castro that we will make
We can't even compel them to be reasonable
this base self-sufficient; we will make our
and wise. It takes skill and it takes patience,
own water. We cut off about $5 million
Remarks in Manchester
1163
Members of the New Hampshire
Weekly Newspaper Editors ASSOCIATION
[544] Aug. 29
Public Papers of the Presidents
I seek it all the time. I am very happy that
than to lose 200,000. For that reason we
the men on this platform with me tonight
have tried very carefully to restrain ourselves
are the kind of men that I can counsel with
and not to enlarge the war. We have had
and I can trust. I have had advice to load
a good many difficulties that could have
our planes with bombs and to drop them on
sprung into major events. We had four of
certain areas that I think would enlarge the
our soldiers killed in Panama, and some of
war and escalate the war, and result in our
our people thought I ought to send in para-
committing a good many American boys
troopers, and that we ought to launch a
to fighting a war that I think ought to be
strong force against the small group of folks
fought by the boys of Asia to help protect
that live in Panama.
their own land.
But we told them that they couldn't be-
And for that reason, I haven't chosen to
have this way, and that they would have to
enlarge the war. Nor have I chosen to re-
sit down and reason with us across the
treat and turn it over to the Communists.
table, that we could not make any precom-
Those are two alternatives that we have
mitments and we wouldn't sign a blank
to face up to. The third alternative is
check to a treaty that we didn't know what
neutralization in Viet-Nam. We have said
was in it, but that we would do what was
that if anyone was willing to come forward
fair, what was right, and what was just.
and guarantee neutralization, in other words
It took us 60 days to work out an agree-
guarantee the independence of these free
ment with them, but they finally came to us
people and guarantee them security from
and said, "We think that is fair enough,"
their neighbors who are trying to envelop
and so we worked out an agreement. Now
them, we would be the first to stand up to
we have rather peaceful relations and we
the table and say to them, "Show us that you
are on the way to making amendments and
can guarantee their independence and we
modifications in the arrangements between
will salute you and we will be very proud of
the two nations that will be satisfactory.
you."
Mr. Castro sought to cut our water off at
But there is no country that is willing to
Guantanamo. He notified us in a hasty
do that, that we know of, so neutralization
moment in his own impulsive way that he
is not very practical at this stage of the game.
would not supply water to our base. I had
There are three alternatives we considered.
some military experts, some generals here
The fourth alternative is to do what we
and there, that hollered at me right loudly
are doing, to furnish advice, give counsel, ex-
and said, "Please send in the Marines im-
press good judgment, give them trained
mediately."
counselors, and help them with equipment
I didn't see any reason to send in the
to help themselves. We are doing that.
Marines to cut the water off. I just sent in
We have lost less than 200 men in the last
one admiral to turn it off and kept the
several years, but to each one of those 200
Marines at home. I didn't start any war,
men-and we lose about that many in Texas
although I would like very much to see the
in accidents on the 4th of July-to each one'
free people of Cuba be able to govern them-
of those 200 men who have given their life
selves without the dictations of Mr. Castro.
to preserve freedom, it is a war and a big
We are going to do everything that we
war and we recognize it.
consistently can in our policies to see that
But we think that it is better to lose 200
the people of Cuba are free people, and
I022
Remarks:
BArbacue
in
Stonewall, TeyAs
Remarks Louisville, Ky,
Breaksenst for
Indinna And
Krutucky State lenders Party
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Oct. 9 [643]
1964
President Eisenhower came along, and
months. We have had several test tubes
during the period he was President I was
run on us. They have put a thermometer
Democratic leader. I looked at the record
in my mouth several times.
the other day, the last year of our service.
One of the first experiences was that they
I supported the Republican President more
shot four of our men, our soldiers, in Pan-
than 90 percent of the time in the field of
ama, and they demanded we negotiate an
foreign policy, and that was about four times
agreement and sign a blank check. Well,
as much as the Republican leader supported
we didn't do it. We said we would make no
him. He supported him about 25 percent
precommitments; we would sit down and
of the time.
do what was right and just. In a period of
Then after President Eisenhower came
2 months, they finally agreed to the terms we
President Kennedy, and we had the Cuban
submitted the first day of the meeting.
missile crisis, and men like Senator Hicken-
We had a little flare-up at Guantanamo,
looper and others stood up with a Demo-
at our base in Cuba. The bearded dictator
cratic President and they presented a united
went out one day and decided to cut the
front. Khrushchev had to take his missiles
water off for that base. I got a lot of advice,
and load them on his boats and take them
free advice, from specialized quarters, and
out of the country, very much to his humilia-
some of them said, "Rush in the Marines.
tion.
Send in the Marines." It is mighty easy to
I am very sorry and I am saddened at what
start a fight, get into a war mighty quick.
has been said about that in recent days. I
We got the recommendation of the Ma-
sat in every one of those meetings on the
rines, the Army, Navy, and the Air Force,
Cuban missile crisis, 37. I never left home
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
in the morning that I was sure I would see
of State, and we unanimously concluded
my wife and babies when I got back that
that instead of acting impulsively and send-
evening. It was as tense a situation as I have
ing in the Marines to turn the water on, it
ever been in-I have been scared a lot of
would be wiser to send in one little admiral
times, from the time they took me snipe
to turn it off, and to tell them we were going
hunting on down.
to make that base self-sufficient where we
But through all that rather terrifying ex-
wouldn't have to depend on them any more,
perience, the coolest man that sat at either
that we would make our own water.
end of that table was our late beloved Presi-
A lot of new nations have been born in
dent John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And now
this world. There are more than I20 of
when he is not here to answer for himself,
them now, and a lot of them are going
and he can't speak up as he did so effectively
through a perilous period. They are like
in every State of the Union when he was
children learning to walk.
here, to have it said of him, your President
Some of the nations, Khrushchev says,
and your leader, that he manufactured all
have grown up like children and now they
this for political purposes, is sufficient in-
are too big to spank. So he has a lot of
dictment of the author of that statement to
problems with some of his satellites.
let everyone know who they ought to vote
But we have a varying situation all over
for for President.
the world. During this period we have
I have been in office a little less than II
done our best to advance the cause of free-
1263
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Oct. 27 [726]
At the end of the fiscal year, all the money
[ We have had a good many momentary
that had been appropriated had been allo-
difficulties. We had our water cut off at
cated. Red tape had been cut. Decisions
Guantanamo, but we solved that without a
were no longer being delayed. The watch-
major debacle. We had some difficulties in
word of the Administrator, Mr. Mann, who
Panama, but with patience and judgment we
had the authority of the White House and
solved that without a major catastrophe.
the State Department and the Alliance for
We had problems in Brazil and now we are
Progress all wrapped up under one hat, was
working very closely with them to give them
such that he could make a decision, and did.
major assists. We had an election in Chile
So we got out our allocations and made
and that has been decided. Nowhere, really,
our decisions. We proceeded on the premise
have the Communists taken over any govern-
that we could not really have a successful
ments, or have any governments gone com-
relationship that we could take great pride
munistic since Cuba in 1959.
in, unless we successfully attacked the ancient
In retrospect, as we look over the I2
enemies of mankind in this hemisphere-
months of our relations with our neighbors
poverty, disease, ignorance, illiteracy, ill
in this hemisphere, we can look at them with
health, and so forth; that we must have land
confidence, with respect, and with pride.
reform; that we must have fiscal reform; we
And now I am going to ask Mr. Mann to
must have tax reform; we must have budget
make a full and detailed report on these
reform.
developments to me quickly, shortly.
We have watched with great interest the
I am going to ask Dr. Sanz here with
improvement that has been made in these
CIAP to realize that we maintain an open
various fields. But I also concluded-and
door policy and that that door there to the
my view, I think, was shared by Secretary
President's office is always open to him and
Rusk and Mr. Mann-that you could take all
to his group for suggestions, for criticisms,
the gold in Fort Knox and it would just go
for ideas. Because we do have a very genu-
down the drain in Latin America, unless the
ine respect not only for the independence of
private investor, upon which our whole
our fellow men in this hemisphere but for
system is based, free enterprise, could have
their lofty and worthy desires to achieve for
some confidence that he could make his
their people a better standard of living and
investment and it would not be confiscated
a better way of life.
and that he would have an opportunity to
And because so many people helped us
make a fair and a reasonable return.
develop our economy and to become a strong
So we worked very closely with a number
and mighty nation politically and economi-
of leading businessmen and we worked very
cally and educationally, we feel a debt of
closely with some of the great thinkers, some
gratitude and we want to, in part, repay it
of whom are represented here this morning,
by working with our other neighbors. Be-
in trying to make it possible to make private
cause the stronger they are, the stronger
investment increase and also make it safer.
America is.
In 1963 we made investments of around $60
Thank you very much.
million in other countries. In 1964, at the
NOTE: The President spoke about 2:15 p.m. in the
rate we are going, it will be over $100
Rose Garden at the White House. During his re-
million, almost twice as much. So, progress
marks he referred to Thomas C. Mann, Assistant
Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, United
is being made.
States Coordinator for the Alliance for Progress, and
1465
Remarks members of the
Committee on the Alliance for
Progress, oct 27,
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Jan. 23 [143]
Now if I may have your attention, I am
Kennedy and other members of the family, thanked
going to ask the very able junior Senator
the President and the Members of Congress for
"making this day possible," adding that the Cul-
from Massachusetts to make a brief response.
tural Center was "something extremely close to
NOTE: The signing ceremony was held in the Cab-
the President's heart and to Jackie's heart as well."
inet Room at the White House at IO a.m. Senator
The bill (S.J. Res. 136) as enacted is Public Law
Edward M. Kennedy, on behalf of Mrs. John F.
88-260 (78 Stat. 4).
143 The President's News Conference of
January 23, 1964
THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I want to take this
lic of Panama. Both of these objectives can
opportunity to restate our position on Pan-
and should be assured by the actions and the
ama and the Canal Zone. No purpose is
agreement of Panama and the United States.
served by rehashing either recent or ancient
This Government has long recognized that
events. There have been excesses and
our operation of the Canal across Panama
errors on the part of both Americans and
poses special problems for both countries.
Panamanians. Earlier this month, actions
It is necessary, therefore, that our relations
of imprudent students from both countries
be given constant attention.
played into the hands of agitators seeking
Over the past few years we have taken a
to divide us. What followed was a need-
number of actions to remove inequities and
less and tragic loss of life on both sides.¹
irritants. We recognize that there are things
Our own forces were confronted with
to be done and we are prepared to talk about
sniper fire and mob attack. Their role was
the ways and means of doing them. But
one of resisting aggression and not commit-
violence is never justified and is never a
ting it. At all times they remained inside
basis for talks. Consequently, the first item
the Canal Zone and they took only those
of business has been the restoration of public
defensive actions required to maintain law
order. The Inter-American Peace Commit-
and order and to protect lives and property
tee, which I met this morning, deserves the
and the Canal itself. Our obligation to
thanks of us all, not only for helping to
safeguard the Canal against riots and van-
restore order, but for its good offices.' For
dals and sabotage and other interference
the future, we have stated our willingness to
rests on the precepts of international law,
engage without limitation or delay in a full
the requirements of international commerce,
and frank review and reconsideration of all
and the needs of free world security.
issues between our two countries.
These obligations cannot be abandoned.
We have set no preconditions to the re-
But the security of the Panama Canal is not
sumption of peaceful discussions. We are
inconsistent with the interests of the Repub-
2 The Inter-American Peace Committee of the
1 In defiance of an order of the Governor of Pan-
Organization of American States, composed of Ar-
ama to eliminate the flying of flags at schools, Amer-
gentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, the
ican students on January 7 hoisted their own flag at
United States (in connection with this matter the
Balboa High School. Two days later Panamanian
OAS Council elected Chile to serve in place of the
students attempted to display their flag and disorder
United States), and Venezuela, was called upon
followed. On January IO Panama broke diplomatic
jointly by the two countries to study the U.S.-
relations with the United States. (See also Items
Panamanian dispute and to recommend measures
95, 104, II4.
for its settlement.
219
[143] Jan. 23
Public Papers of the Presidents
bound by no preconceptions of what they
million in the bill by a 9 to 8 vote and then
goin
will produce. And we hope that Panama
reported the bill to the Senate by a vote of
it I
can take the same approach. In the mean-
12to5.
abo
time, we expect neither country to either
[3.] You are also writing some other
N
foster or yield to any kind of pressure with
stories, I think, about an insurance policy
tion
respect to such discussions. We are pre-
that was written on my life some 7 years ago,
pared, 30 days after relations are restored, to
and I am still here.
issue
sit in conference with Panamanian officials
The company in which Mrs. Johnson and
It
to seek concrete solutions to all problems di-
my daughters have a majority interest, along
viding our countries. Each government will
with some other stockholders, were some-
be free to raise any issue and to take any
what concerned when I had a heart attack
position. And our Government will con-
in 1955, and in 1957 they purchased insur-
sider all practical solutions to practical prob-
ance on my life made payable to the com-
lems that are offered in good faith.
pany. And the insurance premiums were
Certainly solutions can be found which
never included as a business expense, but
are compatible with the dignity and the se-
they thought that was good business practice
curity of both countries, as well as the needs
in case something happened to me, so Mrs.
of world commerce. And certainly Panama
Johnson and the children wouldn't have to
and the United States can remain, as they
sell their stock on the open market and lose
should remain, good friends and good
control of the company.
neighbors.
That insurance was purchased here in
[2.] Q. Mr. President, before you go, I
Washington, and on a portion of the pre-
wonder if you could entertain another ques-
miums paid, Mr. Don Reynolds got a small
tion or so. For example, how do you think
commission. Mr. George Sampson, the gen-
things are going up on the Hill?
eral agent for the Manhattan Insurance Com-
THE PRESIDENT. Well, we signed the cul-
pany, handled it and we have paid some
tural bill this morning. We finished up the
$78,000 in premiums up to date and there is
appropriation bill before we went home
another $11,800 due next month which the
Christmas. We completed the education
company will probably pay to take care of
bills that were then in conference, and
that insurance.
signed them.
[4.] There is a question also which has
We had two big items that are high on the
been raised about a gift of a stereo set that an
agenda; the civil rights bill.
employee of mine made to me and Mrs.
We have the feeling and the belief of the
Johnson. That happened some 2 years later,
leadership that we will have that bill before
some 5 years ago. The Baker family gave
the House early in the month and that we
us a stereo set. We used it for a period, and
will have final action on it before they take
we had exchanged gifts before. He was an
a holiday for Lincoln's Birthday.
employee of the public and had no business
On the tax bill, Senator Byrd has called me
pending before me and was asking for noth-
within the hour and told me that they re-
ing, and so far as I knew expected nothing
versed the decision earlier made and today
in return any more than I did when I had
they took the language out, all repeal lan-
presented him with gifts.
guage, dealing with excises and restored $450
I think that is about all I know that is
220
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Jan. II [96]
95 White House Statement on the Events in Panama.
January 10, 1964
THE President has this morning reviewed
The President has noted President Chiari's
the situation in Panama with his senior ad-
appeal to the citizens of Panama to join in
visers. He has ordered the Assistant Secre-
the restoration of peace, and the President is
tary of State, Mr. Mann, to proceed at once
making a similar appeal to the residents of
to the Canal Zone. The U.S. Government
the Canal Zone. The path to a settlement
greatly regrets the tragic loss of life of Pana-
can only be through peace and understand-
manians and Americans. The President has
ing and not through violence.
given most earnest instructions to General
NOTE: This statement was read by the Press Secretary
O'Meara, Commander in Chief, Southern
to the President, Pierre Salinger, at his news con-
Command (CINCSOUTH), to do all that
ference held at the White House on January 10, 1964.
is within his power to restore and to main-
See also Item 104.
tain peace and safety in the Canal Zone.
96 Remarks at a Reception for Members of the Democratic
National Committee. January II, 1964
I KNOW that all of you have met her but I
matters always on principles and never on
want Lady Bird to say a word before I get
personalities.
opened up on a long speech.
There are many things that divide our
[At this point Mrs. Johnson spoke briefly, welcoming
country, but we would do nothing to muffle
the Committee members to the White House. She
dissent. That is one of the great and pre-
expressed her pleasure at seeing among them old
friends she had met as she traveled "across the many
cious things about this land and the freedom
years and across the many States." The President
that we enjoy; but we do think that we can
then resumed speaking.]
disagree without being disagreeable.
We know how much you have sacrificed
I had the good fortune to serve as leader of
through the years in order that the convic-
the Senate for 8 years-the longest period of
tions that you possessed could be carried into
time any leader ever served under the Presi-
Government. We know how sorrowful the
dent of another party. Although we fre-
last 7 weeks have been for all of you. We
quently did not see eye to eye on matters of
meet tonight with heavy hearts because of
governmental policy, we found that it was
the loss of a fallen leader, but he left us many
not necessary to indulge in personalities.
good things to work for. We enumerated
Not once that I recall did I ever make a
some of those things in our State of the
caustic personal criticism of President Eisen-
Union Message a few days ago.
hower, his wife, his children or his dogs.
Above all, we are Americans before we are
I think you will find that we will be able
Democrats or Republicans. When I was
to get through this campaign and any others
talking to the Congress, I particularly ap-
in which we may engage with the same
pealed to the members of my own party to
thought in mind that basically there are so
put the interests of the country ahead
many more things that unite us than divide
of the interests of the party, to debate
us. We have faith in this country and we
I2I
[113] Jan. 16
Public Papers of the Presidents
113 Memorandum on the Observance of Brotherhood Week.
January 16, 1964
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
The Honorable Brooks Hays is on leave
Departments and Agencies:
to serve as the National Brotherhood Week
I have accepted the Honorary Chairman-
Chairman for 1964. He and the offices of
ship of Brotherhood Week for 1964.
the National Conference of Christians and
Dedicated to the principle of "to bigotry
Jews throughout the country will be glad to
no sanction, to persecution no assistance," as
assist you and your employees in observing
expressed by our first President, Brotherhood
this important week of dedication.
Week is traditionally held during the week
I hope that in its own way, each Depart-
of George Washington's birthday. This
ment and Agency throughout the country
year it will be February sixteenth through
will find it possible during this week to
the twenty-third.
commemorate and underscore the impor-
This is a time of deep appraisal for all
tance of implementing the principle of the
Americans. In view of our recent national
Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood
tragedy, no better time exists for the search-
of God.
ing of our hearts and minds.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
II4 White House Statement Concerning U.S. Readiness To
Carry On Discussions With Panama. January 16, 1964
THE United States Government is ready
culty between the two countries that it is time
and willing to discuss all problems affecting
for the highest exercise of responsibility by
the relationship between the United States
all those involved.
and Panama. It was our understanding that
the Government of Panama was also willing
NOTE: This statement was read by the Press Secre-
tary to the President, Pierre Salinger, at his news
to undertake these discussions. Our position
conference held at the White House on January 16,
is unchanged. We feel in this time of diffi-
1964.
II5 Statement by the President in Response to a Report
on Immigration. January 17, 1964
THE REPORT of the Immigration and
versity of its heritage. Its future has always
Naturalization Service is an example of Gov-
rested on the hopes of our forebears as they
ernment with a heart.
came to seek freedom and abundance.
By applying existing immigration laws
We can take renewed faith in the eager-
with humanity, we are demonstrating that
ness of people throughout the world to be-
compassion and efficient administration go
come citizens-to share with us in the build-
hand in hand.
ing of an even stronger country. We can
America's strength has risen from the di-
express that faith by passing and implement-
144
[103] Jan. 14
Public Papers of the Presidents
103 Telegram to Governor Sanford on His Attack on
Poverty in North Carolina. January 14, 1964
I WANT to congratulate you on your initia-
promises to make an exciting and important
tive in mobilizing for an attack on poverty
contribution to this deep-seated problem. I
in North Carolina. Please convey to those
want to assure you of the full cooperation of
at your conference today my heartfelt wishes
the Federal departments whose programs
for the success of your efforts. As you know,
contribute to the war on poverty.
my State of the Union Message proposed an
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
all-out war on poverty in America. I am
confident that the Congress will respond to
[The Honorable Terry Sanford, Governor of North
this challenge. The North Carolina Fund
Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina]
104 White House Statement Following Receipt of a
Report on Panama. January 14, 1964
THE President received a full report on the
cannot allow the security of the Panama
situation in Panama from Mr. Mann. Mr.
Canal to be imperiled. We have a recog-
Mann emphasized that U.S. forces have be-
nized obligation to operate the Canal effi-
haved admirably under extreme provocation
ciently and securely, and we intend to honor
by mobs and snipers attacking the Canal
that obligation in the interests of all who de-
Zone. The President continues to believe
pend on it. The United States continues to
that the first essential is the maintenance of
believe that when order is fully restored it
peace. For this reason, the United States
should be possible to have direct and can-
welcomes the establishment of the Joint Co-
did discussions between the two govern-
operation Committee through the Inter-
ments.
American Peace Committee.
NOTE: This statement was read by Andrew T.
The United States tries to live by the
Hatcher, Associate Press Secretary to the President,
policy of the good neighbor and expects
at the Press Secretary's news conference held at the
White House on January 14, 1964.
others to do the same. The United States
105 Remarks to Leaders of Organizations Concerned With the
Problems of Senior Citizens. January 15, 1964
Mr. Celebrezze, ladies and gentlemen:
Presidency: You have a variety of matters
I am sorry that I have been delayed a little
and you never get bored with just handling
bit in getting in here this morning, but I am
one problem. But I don't know any problem
happy that you are here and that you have a
that has ever faced all of our people that
chance to come to this house that belongs to
should concern us more than the one about
all of us.
which we meet this morning.
There is one thing you can say about the
The 20th century, in which we live, has
132
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Jan. 25 [150]
Will you interpret for me?
paper, dated 1870, founded by Mr. Crespi's family.
This is a picture of the Acting Mayor of
The President then resumed speaking.]
Washington welcoming your President to
It is a great honor to me and I appreciate
the Blair House. Now pick me another.
this beyond words, and I will always treas-
This is a picture welcoming him at the
ure it and have thoughts of a fine, aggressive
White House. And this is for you.
group of friends from Italy who came here
Now will you pick me three of the girls.
this morning.
I believe I will give the Ambassador this
Thank you very much.
one.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:45 a.m. in the
You have one of the finest Ambassadors
Theater at the White House. In his opening re-
and one of the loveliest ladies of any embassy
marks he referred to Sergio Fenoaltea, Italy's Am-
bassador to the United States. Later he referred to
here in Washington. And tell them I am
Jack Valenti, Special Consultant to the President,
going to send that one to the Ambassador's
U.S. Senator John O. Pastore of Rhode Island, and
wife.
U.S. Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New
Jersey.
[At this point Mario Crespi Morbio, co-owner of the
The group, under the leadership of Mr. Crespi,
Corriere Della Sera, presented the President with a
was sponsored by the Corriere Della Sera.
small bronze facsimile of the first page of the news-
150 The President's News Conference of
January 25, 1964
THE PRESIDENT. So you know about your
leaning over backwards to hold the appro-
weekend plans, I am not going to Camp
priation and authorization hearings together.
David. I will be here and I will be working
The schedule that the chairman of the Ap-
all day. I may go out a time or two on lit-
propriations Committee gave out was very
tle personal matters, but basically I will be
good, very orderly, and very well planned.²
in the office.
We are going to meet it.
[1.] I have been working with McNa-
I have been talking to Mr. McNamara
mara some this morning on his presentation
about that, as well as some other matters,
to the committee.¹ We think we are mak-
this morning.
ing some real progress up there getting our
[2.] I have also been talking to Mr.
authorization measures up in January so
Mann on the Panamanian situation, and we
they can really get their teeth into these
are working very hard on that along the
things. All this delay has not been solely
lines of my statement the other day.³ That
attributable to Congress. I have said to
statement is basically United States policy.
these bureau people and agency and de-
It is the same policy we enunciated to the
partment people to get ready. That is why
President when we first talked to him, and
you are going to get your briefing on hous-
it is the same policy that applies to all na-
ing today. We have that scheduled for
tions. That is the policy of being fair and
hearing early in February.
just and discussing any problem that arises
People like Senator Russell are really
2 Schedule of the House Appropriations Commit-
tee, printed in the Congressional Record, January 21,
1 Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's mil-
1964, page 688.
itary posture briefing before the Senate and House
3 For the President's statement on Panama, see
Armed Services Committees.
Item 143.
227
Remarks At the St.Louis
Bicentennial
Dinner
[189] Feb. I4 ,964 Public Papers of the Presidents
houses each year, many new schools,
children can have the benefits of a whole-
libraries, streets, utility lines, transport sys-
some and a vital environment.
tems, water and sewage facilities, and stores
But it is not enough to build healthier
and churches.
local communities. America's larger task to-
If by the year 1970 we are to fulfill the
night is to help build a healthier world.
ideals of our free society, we shall have to
These objectives are very related: we cannot
have ample housing for our low-income
secure the success of freedom around the
families, for our rural families, for our
world if it is not secure for all citizens
elderly families, and for the families of those
in our cities; and no city in America can be
who serve in our Armed Forces.
certain of its safety until all the world is
If by the year 1970 we are to save the vital-
made safe for diversity.
ity of our cities, we must make continued
In the past 3 years that safety has steadily
progress in eliminating slums, in rehabili-
grown, thanks to the leadership of your own
tating historic neighborhoods, in providing
Senator Symington, and to Senator Long
for the humane relocation of people that are
and other members of your congressional
displaced by urban renewal, in restoring the
delegation. The vast and rapid increase in
economic base of our communities, and in
our nuclear and conventional military
revitalizing our central areas.
strength has enabled us to meet each new
This is an agenda, but only a par-
conflict and to face each new crisis-from
tial agenda and only a partial answer.
West Berlin to Cuba-with both courage
If we of this generation are to do what
and calm. It has likewise enabled us to
must be done to preserve the quality and
bargain for an end to arms from a position
the character and the meaning of American
of strength and conviction.
life, we must, at home and in the world,
The very progress we have made, to be
make a basic choice. We must choose
sure, brings problems in its wake. Many
progress or we must choose decay.
nations that are no longer frightened for
Three weeks ago I sent to the Congress a
their future now feel more free to press their
Message on Housing and Community De-
more narrow national interests. Disputes
velopment,1 proposing a number of specific
between our allies and our friends in Cyprus,
ways in which the National Government can
in Malaysia, in Africa or Kashmir or the
work with citizens in localities throughout
Middle East tend to weaken free world coop-
the country to meet the crisis of the city.
eration, and tend to invite Communist ex-
Working together, strong civic spirit, strong
ploitation. So it is in our interest not only as
local and national leadership can meet these
a world power but as a partisan of peace, to
problems.
work patiently with our friends on any of
The Federal Government cannot act where
these disputes where we can be helpful to
local spirit and leadership are absent. But
achieve a just resolution.
the Federal Government tonight stands
I would remind you that we did not
ready to help every city that is determined to
create these quarrels, but we can, and we
become a place where children can grow up
must and we should, help to end them. In
in decent neighborhoods, where children
the Panama Canal Zone we ourselves are
can go to decent schools, where children can
party to such a dispute and, too, here tonight
play in decent parks and playgrounds, where
we are working for a peaceful solution. It
1 Item 152.
is a solution that is compatible with the inter-
300
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Feb. 14 [189]
ests of both nations and with the principles
by friend and foe, by the great and the small,
of a good neighbor.
will always do its full part to achieve in our
Elsewhere in the world, particularly in
time a world without war in a century of
Southeast Asia, conflict continues between
peace.
those that are seeking to impose the Com-
Thank you and good night.
munist system by direct or indirect aggres-
[Following applause the President resumed speak-
sion and those who are seeking to protect
ing.]
their freedom of choice and their freedom
Many years ago an inquiring friend asked
of action. The United States is determined
a great member of the Congress why the
to help those free and peaceful peoples who
delegation from his State was the ablest in
need and seek our help. It is their land
the Congress. He gave him a very fine and
and their war, but we will never weaken
frank answer. I think that I should like for
our support for their effort, or we will never
all the people of not just St. Louis and St.
betray their trust in us.
Louis County, but all the people of Missouri,
All of these tense and troubled problems
to hear that answer tonight, and to apply it
require much of the American citizen-a
to your own great delegation.
steadiness of purpose, a sense of perspective
He said, "Why does your State have the
and, above all, enduring and persevering
greatest delegation in Congress?" The an-
patience. We cannot expect perfection in
swer was, "Because we pick them young and
an imperfect world, nor can we expect com-
we pick them honest. We send them there,
plete agreement among the world's free men.
and we keep them there."
Freedom prospers through the fair discus-
And so to the people of Missouri, I must
sion of honest differences, both at home and
admit, with apologies to Congressman
abroad. We invite and we welcome such
Curtis, that if I had been picking them in
discussions.
the original instance, I might have confined
But neither at home nor abroad is there
them all to one party. That would have
any need for twisted arguments that would
perhaps been a most narrow viewpoint, be-
damage the good name of our country. The
cause we are going to have two parties in
American people have little sympathy for
this country for a long time.
those abroad who seek political gain from
All I say to you in Missouri is this, that
baseless denunciation of the United States
every day I sit in the White House and I
because we have helped others and because
see the decisions that Harry Truman made
we are a leader for peace. And they will
and didn't make. I see the men that he
equally reject such tactics if they are em-
hired and the men he fired. I see the
ployed at home.
strokes of genius that came from his pen dur-
We are confident that our principles are
ing those few troublesome years. I saw
sound and that our progress is good; that
the injection of new policy known as the
those who distort the truth to alarm the peo-
Truman Doctrine in Europe, and the Mar-
ple, either at home or abroad, about either
shall plan that saved the world from com-
America's capacity or America's purpose,
munism. I never cease to be grateful to
do not serve their children or serve their
the State of Missouri for giving us that good
country, or serve freedom in the world.
and wise man in that troublesome period.
This Nation, more respected than ever,
Although some of my party people might
more respected than ever respected before
not approve of this statement, I would say
301
Remarks
96th Charter DAY Observance
of the Unio. of Calif.
[192] Feb. 2I
At has Angeles
Public Papers of the Presidents
(964
people of the United States, as Governor
people who seek only to be left in peace. For
Brown has told you, are proud of their en-
IO years our country has been committed
during friendship with our neighboring na-
to the support of their freedom, and that
tion, Mexico.
commitment we will continue to honor.
In the winning of our independence, in
The contest in which South Viet-Nam is now
the strengthening of our institutions, in the
engaged is first and foremost a contest to be
relentless quest of social justice and human
won by the government and the people of
rights, in the pursuit of a better way of life
that country for themselves. But those en-
for all of our peoplè, Mexico and the United
gaged in external direction and supply would
States have walked a common road. Others
do well to be reminded and to remember
walk that road today, and our experience,
that this type of aggression is a deeply dan-
Mr. President, enables us to understand their
gerous game.
hopes, for neither Mexico nor the United
For every American it is a source of sad-
States leaped into the modern world full
ness that the two communities in Cyprus
grown; we are both the products of inspired
are today set against each other. America's
men who built new liberty out of old op-
partnership with Europe began with Presi-
pression and, Mr. President, neither of our
dent Truman's brave pledge of assistance
revolutions is yet finished.
to Greece and Turkey. Now the people of
So long as there remains a man without
Cyprus, closely tied to these two friends and
a job, a family without a roof, a child with-
allies, our partners in NATO, stand at the
out a school, we have much to do. No
edge of tragedy. Of course, the United
American can rest while any American is
States, though not a party to the issues, will
denied his rights because of the color of his
do everything we possibly can to find a
skin. No American conscience can be at
solution, a peaceful solution. So I appeal
peace while any American is jobless, hun-
for an end to the bloodshed, before it is too
gry, uneducated, and ignored.
late, to everyone in Cyprus and to all inter-
Our "permanent revolution" is dedicated
ested parties around the world. It is the
to broadening, for all Americans, the ma-
task of statesmanship to prevent the danger
terial and the spiritual benefits of the demo-
in Cyprus from exploding into disaster.
cratic heritage. But while we pursue these
Closer to home, we ourselves seek a settle-
unfinished tasks at home, we must look also
ment with our friends in Panama. We
at the larger scene of world affairs. Our
give assurance to the government and to the
constant aim, our steadfast purpose, our un-
people of Panama that the United States of
deviating policy, is to do all that strengthens
America is determined to be absolutely fair
the hope of peace, and nothing will ever
in all discussions on all our problems. We
make us weary in these tasks. In our for-
are prepared, calmly and without pressure,
eign policy today there is room neither for
to consider all the problems which exist
complacency nor for alarm. The world has
between us, and to try our dead-level best
become small and turbulent. New chal-
to find a solution to them promptly. What
lenges knock daily at the White House,
is needed now is a covenant of cooperation.
America's front door.
As we are patient in Panama, we are pre-
In South Viet-Nam, terror and violence,
pared at Guantanamo. We have dealt with
directed and supplied by outside enemies,
the latest challenge and provocation from
press against the lives and the liberties of a
Havana, without sending the Marines to
304
[201] Feb. 29
Public Papers of the Presidents
great disservice, but we are keeping in close
He served in the United States Army after
touch with it daily.
resigning from the Senate. He had con-
We have Ambassador Lodge, who heads
siderable military experience there. He
our forces in that area. He is in constant
served his country well at the United Na-
communication with us. He makes recom-
tions under the administration of President
mendations from time to time. We act
Eisenhower. He was selected by President
promptly on those recommendations. We
Kennedy upon the recommendation of Sec-
feel that we are follqwing the proper course
retary Rusk. He has been given full author-
h
and that our national interests are being
ity to act as our top adviser in that area. He
fully protected.
had a long conference with me before he re-
Q. Mr. President, do you see any rea-
turned to Viet-Nam in November.
son to fear that an extension of the fighting
I am unaware of any political inclinations
in South Viet-Nam might bring Communist
he may have. I have seen nothing that he
China or even the Soviet Union into the
has done that has in any way interfered with
fight?
his work out there. I think that he has
THE PRESIDENT. I know of no good pur-
properly assessed the situation himself by
pose that would be served by speculating on
saying that since he is our Ambassador there
the military strategy of the forces of the
he cannot personally get involved in the cam-
South Vietnamese. I think that too much
paign plans that some of his friends may have
speculation has already taken place-I think
for him.
that a good deal of it without justification.
[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any
I sometimes wonder if General Eisenhower,
hope of reaching an agreement in Panama
before the battle of Normandy, had been
before that country's Presidential elections
confronted with all the-if the world had all
in May?
the information concerning his plans that
THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that we could
they seem to have concerning ours in Viet-
reach an agreement as early as possible. As
Nam, what would have happened on that
soon as I learned that the Panamanians had
fateful day.
marched on our zone and we had a disturb-
So, I would answer your question merely
ance there, and some of our soldiers had been
by saying that I do not care to speculate on
killed, some of the students had raised the
what might happen. The plans that have
flag and this disturbance had resulted, I im-
been discussed in the papers are not plans
mediately called the President of Panama on
that have come to my attention, or that I
the telephone and said to him in that first
have approved.
exchange, "I want to do everything I can to
Q. Mr. President, Henry Cabot Lodge,
work this problem out peacefully and
your Ambassador to South Viet-Nam, was
quickly. Therefore our people will meet
your opponent for the Vice Presidency in
with your people any time, anywhere, to
1960, and is a very strong potential Repub-
discuss anything that will result in bringing
lican nominee this time. Doesn't that make
peace and stopping violence."
conduct of your policy in South Viet-Nam
The President asked me how long it
awkward, if not difficult?
would be before those discussions could take
THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. Mr.
place, and I said we would have a team in
Lodge had a brilliant career in the Senate.
the air within 30 minutes.
324
The President's News Conforence
of February 29,1964
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Feb. 29 [201]
I designated Assistant Secretary Mann 3 to
reached is carried out. We have expressed
leave immediately. We have been pursuing
our deep regret that it has not been. We
those discussions ever since. We have
are very hopeful that the interested govern-
reached no agreement. One day you see
ments will take the appropriate action to see
speculation that an agreement is imminent.
that the agreement is carried out.
The next day you see speculation that we
[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have said re-
are very pessimistic. I think both reports
peatedly that peace is the paramount issue
have been wrong.
on your mind. I wonder, sir, if during your
There has been no meeting of the minds.
first hundred days in the White House you
We realize that treaties were written in 1903
have seen any encouraging signs along this
and modified from time to time-that prob-
road and, specifically, do you think a trend
lems are involved that need to be dealt with
of the modern world is towards coexistence
and perhaps would require adjustment in
and conciliation rather than to strife.
the treaty in 1963 or 1964.
THE PRESIDENT. We must be concerned not
So we are not refusing to discuss and
just with our foreign policy in the twentieth
evolve a program that will be fair and just
century but with the foreign policy of IIO
to all concerned. But we are not going to
or I20 other nations. We are today dealing
make any precommitments, before we sit
with serious problems in many places in the
down, on what we are going to do in the way
world that seriously affect the peace. When
of rewriting new treaties with a nation that
we solve these problems I have no doubt but
we do not have diplomatic relations with.
what there will be others that arise that have
Once those relations are restored, we will be
been in existence for centuries.
glad, as I said the first day, and as we have
It is going to be the course of this Gov-
repeated every day since, to discuss anything,
ernment to do everything that we can to
any time, anywhere, and do what is just and
resolve these differences peacefully, even
what is fair and what is right. Just because
though they are not of our own making.
Panama happens to be a small nation, maybe
There are few of these situations which have
no larger than the city of St. Louis, is no rea-
been brought about by anything that we
son why we shouldn't try in every way to be
have done, but they are age-old differences
equitable and fair and just. We are going
that have existed for centuries.
to insist on that. But we are going to be
I am an optimist. I spent 35 days in
equally insistent on no preconditions.
meetings with the Security Council in the
[7.] Q. Mr. President, returning to
Cuban missile crisis. I saw the alternatives
southeast Asia, the Pathet Lao in Laos has
presented there. I realized that we can,
been stepping up its military activities in
with the great power we have, perhaps de-
violation of the '62 Geneva agreement. Is
stroy 100 million people in a matter of min-
the United States willing to concede that neu-
utes, and our adversaries can do likewise.
tralization is not the answer to Laos today?
I don't think that the people of the world
THE PRESIDENT. The United States has
want that to happen and I think we are
made the proper protestations and is doing
going to do everything that we can to avoid
everything we can to see that that agreement
its happening. Now there are going
3 Thomas C. Mann, Assistant Secretary of State for
to be some very serious problems that
Inter-American Affairs.
we have to resolve before we achieve peace
325
[182] Feb. II
1964
Public Papers of the Presidents
no one was in here, they were all used, but
standing. There are only six of them that
when people got economy conscious and
have a per capita income of as much as
just started watching things like we used
$80 a month. Yours has over $200 a month.
to on the REA line when we had a minimum
How long this Nation will endure and
bill of $2.50 a month and we never wanted
survive and meet the trials of leadership
to go over the minimum. Things can be
will depend largely on the quality of its
reduced.
public servants, their dedication, their hon-
It has not all been due to our efforts.
esty, their integrity, their enlightenment,
Some of it came about for other reasons,
their selflessness, their willingness to do
but we hope that next month it will come
unto others as you would have them do unto
down another $500 a month. The people
us.
of the country, I think, will really appreciate
We have problems in the world. We are
when they realize you are saving $2500 a
living in a frustrating period, an exciting
month on electricity in the house in which
period, a developmental period. I have seen
you live. You go back home and see how
times when the skies were grayer. But we
much electricity you can save in the build-
don't have on our hands this morning a mis-
ing in which you work. See how many
sile crisis in Cuba. We don't have Laos; we
lights you leave on when you go out at night.
don't have the conference in Vienna that we
See how many people you have that are
faced the first few months of President Ken-
not living up to the most rigid standards.
nedy's administration-the Bay of Pigs-all
I have always said and thought that if I
of those were major problems.
could have a son I would like for him to be
Relatively speaking, we don't have the
a' preacher or a teacher or a public servant
problem that Mr. Khrushchev has with Com-
because I have observed that there comes to
munist China, 800 million people there and
those professions a sense of satisfaction out
they are saying ugly things about each other.
of doing a job that you never get from a
And 800 million is a sizable number. When
paycheck. Most of you men would in pri-
they fall out among themselves it is some-
vate life draw several times the salary that
thing that must concern both of them.
you draw now.
We are concerned about Panama-that we
Here is Secretary Dillon who has every-
should have a dispute with any of our neigh-
thing in the world that a man could want.
bors. Our school children made a mistake
He has wealth, he has prestige and he has
in raising the United States flag without
a lovely wife and a wonderful reputation,
raising the Panamanian flag, but that does
but his great satisfaction comes from work-
not warrant or justify shooting our soldiers
ing here in Washington and leading a group
or invading the zone.
like you, and spending several times more
Our plane was off course over Berlin and
per year than he earns in his salary, trying
lost its communications system very like-
to help other people. You are very for-
ly, and was shot down. It should not have
tunate to be one of those men who is not
been in that territory. It would not have
a preacher or teacher but a public servant,
been if it had been able to follow our radar
because you serve the greatest government
instructions but it lost its communications;
in the world. You serve the leader of the
but we don't think that they were justified
world, the 113 nations, and yours is out-
in shooting it down.
288
Remarks
Key Officials of the
Internal Revenue Service
Transcript of T.U. And Radio Interview
Representatives of Major
Brond east
Services
[218] Mar. 15
Public Papers of the Presidents
1064
and arrest an American chargé d'affaires.
THE PRESIDENT. We have been very close
But that does happen, and we have to be
to agreement several times. I have no doubt
prepared for those developments and try to
but what agreement will be reached that
understand them and try to provide leader-
will, in effect, provide for sitting down with
ship that will keep us from getting in deeper
the Panamanian authorities and discussing
water or more trouble, and that is what we
the problems that exist between us and be-
are doing. Sometimes our people become
ing guided only by what is fair and what is
very impatient. They cut the water off on us
right and what is just, and trying to resolve
in Cuba, and I got a good many recommen-
those problems. Now, when that will come
dations from all over the country as to how to
about, I don't know. We are anxious and
act very quickly. Some of them said-some
willing and eager to do it any time it suits
of the men wanted me to run in the Marines,
their convenience.
send them in immediately.
Mr. Lawrence: What is the hitch right
Well, upon reflection and evaluation and
now, Mr. President?
study, realizing not many people want more
THE PRESIDENT. I think first, they have an
war, and none of them really want more
election on, and I think translating our
appeasement, you have to find a course that
language into their language, that some of
you can chart that will preserve your dignity
the agreements that we have to discuss these
and self-respect, and still bring about the ac-
matters, they perhaps feel that they would
tion that is necessary. So instead of sending
want stronger language than we are willing
in the Marines to turn the water on, we
to agree to, and we want a different expres-
sent one admiral in to cut it off and arrange
sion from what they want. It is largely a
to make our own water, and we think things
matter of trying to agree on the kind of
worked out as best they could under those
language that will meet their problems, and
circumstances.
that we can honestly, sincerely agree to.
But there are going to be these demands
We are not going to agree to any precondi-
from time to time, from people who feel
tions to negotiate a new treaty without know-
that all we need to do is mash a button and
ing what it is going to be in that treaty
determine everybody's foreign policy. But
and without sitting down and working it
we are not living in that kind of a world any
out on the basis of equity. We think that
more. They are going to determine it for
that language can be resolved and will be
themselves, and that is the way it should
resolved in due time.
be. And we are going to have to come and
[31.] Mr. Brinkley: Mr. President, what
reason with them and try to lead them in-
is your assessment now of General de
stead of force them. And I think, I have no
Gaulle's behavior in the last year or two?
doubt but what for centuries to come that we
What do you think about it?
will be a leading force in molding opinion of
THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is not for me to
the world, and I think the better they know
pass judgment on
us the more they will like us.
Mr. Brinkley: In relation to us, sir?
[30.] Mr. Lawrence: Is there any prog-
THE PRESIDENT.
on General de Gaulle's
ress, Mr. President, in the deadlock over
conduct. My conversations with him have
Panama and the absence of diplomatic rela-
been very pleasant. I would like to see him
tions with that country?
more in agreement on matters with us than
372
Remarks
Third Anniversary
of the Alliance for
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Mar.
I6
[220]
Progress
self-help. Progress cannot be created by
increased opportunity for us all. They 1964 are
forming international organizations. Prog-
the means for each to contribute his best tal-
ress cannot be imposed by foreign countries.
ents and each to contribute his best desires.
Progress cannot be purchased with large
They are the means to the full dignity of
amounts of money or even with large
man, for the Alliance for Progress is a recog-
amounts of good will.
nition that the claims of the poor and the
Progress in each country depends upon the
oppressed are just claims. It is an effort to
willingness of that country to mobilize its
fulfill those claims while at the same time
own resources, to inspire its own people, to
strengthening democratic society and main-
create the conditions in which growth can
taining the liberty of man.
and will flourish, for although help can
So, no matter how great our progress, it
come from without, success must come only
will lack meaning unless every American
from within. Those who are not willing to
from the Indian of the Andes to the im-
do that which is unpopular and that which
poverished farmer of Appalachia can share
is difficult will not achieve that which is
in the fruits of change and growth. Land
needed or that which will be lasting. This
reform, tax changes, educational expansion,
is as true of my own country's fight against
the fight against disease-all contribute to
poverty and racial injustice as it is of the
this end. Everything else that we must do
fight of others against hunger and disease
must be shaped by these guiding principles.
and illiteracy-the ancient enemies of all
In these areas-cooperation and self-help and
mankind.
social justice-new emphasis can bring us
By broadening education we can liberate
closer to success.
new talents and energies, freeing millions
At the same time, we must protect the .
from the bonds of illiteracy. Through land
Alliance against the efforts of communism
reform aimed at increased production, tak-
to tear down all that we are building. The
ing different forms in each country, we can
recent proof of Cuban aggression in Ven-
provide those who till the soil with self-
ezuela is only the latest evidence of those
respect and increased income, and each
intentions. We will soon discuss how best
country with increased production to feed
we can meet these threats to the independ-
the hungry and to strengthen their economy.
ence of us all.
Fair and progressive taxes, effectively col-
But I now, today, assure you that the full
lected, can provide the resources that are
power of the United States is ready to assist
needed to improve education and public
any country whose freedom is threatened by
health conditions and the social structure
forces dictated from beyond the shores of
that is needed for economic growth. Meas-
this continent.
ures ranging from control of inflation and
[Let me now depart for a moment from my
encouragement of exports to the elimination
main theme to speak of the differences that
of deficits in public enterprises can help
have developed between Panama and the
provide the basis of economic stability and
United States.
growth on which our Alliance can flourish.
Our own position is clear, and it has been
The third area of emphasis is the pursuit
from the first hour that we learned of the
of social justice. Development and material
disturbances. The United States will meet
progress are not ends in themselves. They
with Panama any time, anywhere, to discuss
are means to a better life and means to an
anything, to work together, to cooperate with
383
[220] Mar. 16
Public Papers of the Presidents
each other, to reason with one another, to
pirations of millions of farmers and workers,
review and to consider all of our problems
of men without education, of men without
together, to tell each other all our opinions,
hope, of poverty-stricken families whose
all our desires, and all our concerns, and to
homes are the villages and the cities of an
aim at solutions and answers that are fair
entire continent.
and just and equitable without regard to
They ask simply the opportunity to enter
the size or the strength or the wealth of
into the world of progress and to share in
either nation.
the growth of the land. From their leaders,
We don't ask Panama to make any pre-
from us, they demand concern and compas-
commitments before we meet, and we in-
sion and dedicated leadership and dedicated
tend to make none. Of course, we cannot
labor.
begin on this work until diplomatic rela-
I am confident that in the days to come we
tions are resumed, but the United States is
will be able to meet those needs. It will not
ready today, if Panama is ready. As of this
be an easy task. The barriers are huge.
moment, I do not believe that there has been
The enemies of our freedom seek to harass
a genuine meeting of the minds between the
us at every turn. We are engaged in a
two Presidents of the two countries involved.
struggle for the destiny of the American Re-
Press reports indicate that the Govern-
publics, but it was a great poet, William
ment of Panama feels that the language
Butler Yeats, who reminded us that there
which has been under consideration for
was doubt if any nation can become pros-
many days commits the United States to a
perous unless it has national faith. Our
rewriting and to a revision of the 1903 treaty.
Alliance will prosper because I believe we
We have made no such commitment and
do have that faith. It is not idle hope but
we would not think of doing so before
the same faith that enabled us to nourish a
diplomatic relations are resumed and unless
new civilization in these spacious continents,
a fair and satisfactory adjustment is agreed
and in that new world we will carry forward
upon.
our Alliance for Progress in such a way that
Those of us who have gathered here today
men in all lands will marvel at the power
must realize that we are the principal
of freedom to achieve the betterment of man.
guardians of the Alliance for Progress. But
Thank you)
the Alliance is not here, and it is not in
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:50 p.m. at the Pan
office buildings and it is not in meeting
American Union. His opening words "Mr. Chair-
rooms in Presidential mansions throughout
man" referred to Carlos Sanz de Santamaría, Chair-
man of the Inter-American Committee on the Al-
the hemisphere. The Alliance is in the as-
liance for Progress.
22I Remarks to the Labor Advisory Council to the President's
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.
March 16, 1964
I AM glad to meet with you gentlemen and
years ago, just after President Kennedy
to express our pleasure over your agreement
created the President's Committee which I
to serve on this newly created Labor Ad-
chaired. I said then that there was no more
visory Council. Most of you met with us 3
important job in the world than the one we
384
[231]
Mar.
20
Public Papers of the Presidents
Council for Science and Technology will
and best timing for efficient use in agriculture. It
continue to give this area the attention re-
assigned high priorities to research in ground water,
including an infiltration process and soil-plant-
quired to achieve and maintain effective in-
water relationships; to socio-economic research; and
teragency planning and coordination and an
to research in water quality.
adequate effort in water resources research.
Dr. Donald F. Hornig served as Chairman of the
Federal Council for Science and Technology, and
Sincerely,
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
William C. Ackermann as Chairman of the Com-
mittee on Water Resources.
NOTE: This is the text of identical letters addressed
On August I the White House announced a
to the Honorable Carl Hayden, President pro
further step in the field of water resources research.
tempore of the Senate, and to the Honorable John W.
A White House release of that date stated that the
McCormack, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
President met with his Science Adviser to discuss
The letter was made public as part of a White
plans for U.S. participation in the International
House release announcing the transmittal to the
Hydrological Decade-a worldwide effort to ad-
Congress of the first progress report of the Com-
vance knowledge of water. The program, beginning
mittee on Water Resources Research of the Federal
in 1965, would involve the establishment of stations
Council for Science and Technology (Feb. 1964,
and networks throughout the world to measure and
65 PP., Government Printing Office).
track water in the hydrologic cycle from rain to the
The report proposed an increase in expenditures
underground water table and eventually back to the
for water research from $71,473,000 in fiscal year
atmosphere. The release stated that the President
1964 to $72,464,000 in 1965. It recommended
pledged support of the International Hydrological
studies ranging from highly theoretical research on
Decade studies by Government agencies and that he
the energy status of water molecules to such directly
urged cooperation on the part of the universities and
applicable matters as the amount of irrigation water
scientific societies.
232 The President's News Conference of
March 21, 1964
THE PRESIDENT. Is it all right with you folks
and respect for the sovereignty of each, to
if I monitor your press conference? 1
provide for the betterment of all.'
[1.] I am sending this afternoon a state-
"Under the many treaties and declarations
ment to the President of the OAS which may
which form the fabric of that system, we
be of some interest to you. I will have copies
have long been allies in the struggle to
made of it as soon as we can complete them.
strengthen democracy and enhance the wel-
The statement reads:
fare of our people.
"The present inability to resolve our differ-
"Our history is witness to this essential
ences with Panama is the source of deep
unity of interest and belief. Panama has
regret.
unhesitatingly come to our side, twice in this
[At this point the President presented background
century, when we were threatened by ag-
material. He then resumed reading the statement.]
gression. On December 7, 1941, Panama
"Our two countries are not linked by only
declared war on our attackers even before
a single agreement or a single interest. We
our own Congress had time to act. Since
are bound together in an Inter-American
that war, Panama has wholeheartedly joined
System whose objective is, in the words of.
with us, and our sister republics, in shaping
the charter, 'through mutual understanding
the agreements and goals of this continent.
"We have also had a special relationship
1The President appeared unexpectedly during a
with Panama, for they have shared with us
news conference held at the White House by his
Press Secretary, George E. Reedy.
the benefits, the burden, and trust of main-
404
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Mar. 21 [232]
taining the Panama Canal as a lifeline of
shares this hope. For, despite today's dis-
defense and a keystone of hemispheric pros-
agreements, the common values and interests
perity. All free nations are grateful for the
which unite us are far stronger and more
effort they have given to that task.
enduring than the differences which now
"As circumstances change, as history
divide us."
shapes new attitudes and expectations, we
A copy of that statement will be sent to
have reviewed periodically this special
His Excellency Juan Bautista de Lavalle,
relationship.
Chairman of the Council of the Organiza-
"We are well aware that the claims of the
tion of American States.
Government of Panama, and of the majority
I will be glad to have any questions, if you
of the Panamanian people, do not spring
have any.
from malice or hatred of America. They
Q. Mr. President, sir, do you feel that the
are based on a deeply felt sense of the honest
American people outside the Washington
and fair needs of Panama. It is, therefore,
area back up your stand on-
our obligation as allies and partners to review
THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to make
these claims and to meet them, when meet-
any evaluation of the American people out-
ing them is both just and possible.
side the Washington area. I haven't con-
"We are ready to do this.
ducted any polls on it, and I don't know
"We are prepared to review every issue
what their opinion might be on any specific
which now divides us, and every problem
subject.
which the Panamanian Government wishes
Q. Mr. President, when you say his in-
to raise.
structions will not bar any solution which is
"We are prepared to do this at any time
fair, would that include, sir, a renegotiation
and at any place.
of the 1903 treaty?
"As soon as he is invited by the Govern-
THE PRESIDENT. This would mean just
ment of Panama, our Ambassador will be on
what the statement says. We will discuss
his way. We shall also designate a special
any problem that divides us in any way, and
representative. He will arrive with full
then we will come up with a solution that is
authority to discuss every difficulty. He will
fair.
be charged with the responsibility of seeking
Q. Has the Ambassador been chosen, Mr.
a solution which recognizes the fair claims
President or would that be Ambassador
of Panama and protects the interest of all the
Mann?
American nations in the Canal. We cannot
THE PRESIDENT. No, we would select a spe-
determine, even before our meetings, what
cial representative.
form that solution might best take. But his
Q. Mr. President, before you get around to
instructions will not prohibit any solution
issuing the statement, could we have that-
which is fair, and subject to the appropriate
to put it up on the bulletin board so we can
constitutional processes of both our govern-
dictate from it?
ments.
THE PRESIDENT. I may want to use it to
"I hope that on this basis we can begin to
answer any questions.
resolve our problems and move ahead to con-
Q. I mean when the conference is over.
front the real enemies of this hemisphere-
THE PRESIDENT. Surely.
the enemies of hunger and ignorance, disease
Q. Mr. President, I understood you to say,
and injustice. I know President Chiari
sir, that our position now is just where it was
405
[232]
Mar.
2I
Public Papers of the Presidents
when you first talked to the President of
Q. Mr. President, would you think that
Panama. This is no new position?
this statement might clear up any difference
THE PRESIDENT. That is correct. Very
of interpretation they have-
shortly after the flag was not flown, and there
THE PRESIDENT. I would not speculate on
was a march on the zone, and some of our
that. I am just making a statement and
soldiers were killed, I called the President of
sending it over to the President of the OAS.
Panama and said that we have difficulties and
What happens there, events will determine.
problems, disagreements, obviously, and we
I, of course, am hopeful that we can always
are prepared to discuss those disagreements
reason out differences together, and that is
any time, anywhere, anyplace.
one of the purposes of my expression.
He said, "When would your people be
Q. Mr. President, don't formal diplomatic
prepared to meet with mine?"
relations have to precede a discussion like
I said, "They will leave here in 3°
this?
minutes."
THE PRESIDENT. Obviously.
He said, "Very well."
[2.] Q. Mr. President, on another sub-
Since that time, although we have made
ject, can you give us your reaction to the
very few public statements on it and we have
release by the Russians today of one of
tried and hoped that the OAS could work
the American fliers shot down over East
this out, and there have been a great many
Germany?
leaks back and forth, some of the stuff
THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I have any
you call news interpretation, news analysis,
comment on that. Talk to the Department
and various things, some of which really
about that.
took place and some of which was specula-
[3.] Q. Mr. President, can you enlighten
tion, I think it is very important that the
us on what did go on last weekend involv-
people of this hemisphere know that from
ing the Panamanian negotiations? There
the beginning, and now, just what this
have been a lot of conflicting reports, as
statement says: that we are willing and
you mentioned earlier.
ready to discuss at any time, with any of
THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not sure that I
their representatives, any problem, any dif-
know all that went on regarding it. So
ficulty, in a reasonable way, and to let only
far as I know, our position at the beginning
equity and justice determine what course
was what I just stated, and it still is. Up to
we would take, subject to the constitutional
this point there has been no meeting of the
processes.
minds.
Q. Mr. President, what is the reason for
[4.] Q. Mr. President, were you at all
issuing the statement today?
disturbed, sir, that Mr. Salinger only gave
THE PRESIDENT. No reason. I am sending
you a few hours' notice of his resignation?
it over there. I didn't think you would
Second, do you agree with some-
object to hearing it.
THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer one at a
Q. No, I meant-I mean to the OAS.
time.
What is the reason for sending the statement
Q. I am sorry.
to them now?
THE PRESIDENT. No. The answer is no.
THE PRESIDENT. So that we may reiterate
That is, to the first question. What is the
our viewpoint and in some detail.
next one? I was not disturbed.
406
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964
Mar. 2I [232]
Q. Some of the newspapers have inter-
This is a statement to the President that he
preted this as another sign that supporters of
can use in his deliberations. I would hope
John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy are
that all of us realized from the beginning
anxious to leave your administration. Do
that the United States position was that we
you agree with that, or have you seen any
were willing to talk to anybody that they
signs of that?
designated at any time, anyplace, and review
THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no to that
all problems and all difficulties.
question.
I don't say discuss, because that is a sticky
[5.] Q. Mr. President, can we have the
word. Some of them do not quite under-
Warren Commission open to the American
stand what it means. But I say review. We
public? Is there any reason why they
are glad to do that. I made that clear that
cannot be?
day, and I have reiterated it. But I think it
THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter for the
is good that the President of the OAS can
Commission to determine completely.
have the details carried in this statement.
[6.] Q. Mr. President, a rather sticky
[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect any
situation seems to have developed in Cuba
major developments in the field of East-West
over the helicopter flight of the two defectors,
relations in the field of disarmament?
and the slaying in the air. What is the U.S.
THE PRESIDENT. Well, we always hope for
position on that?
the best.
THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter you should
[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you still feel
talk to the Department about. We are now
that there are remaining misinterpretations
looking into it very carefully. I have talked
about the statement last week on Panama?
to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to go into
Defense about it this morning. I have no
that, because
announcement that will be made at this time.
[At this point the President spoke off the record.]
Of course, when there is an announcement,
it will probably come from the Secretary of
[10.] Q. Mr. President, your guidelines
Defense or the Secretary of State.
for holding the wage-price line have been
[7-] Q. Mr. President, you said a mo-
criticized by both labor and management
ment ago, sir, that there was no reason for
recently. Do you still think that these will
the issuance of this statement.
work, in view of this criticism?
THE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't say that.
THE PRESIDENT. We hope very much that
Q. I am sorry.
they will. We believe that both labor and
THE PRESIDENT. I didn't intend to say there
management can best solve their problems
was no reason. I think I would not issue it,
through collective bargaining, and we hope
if there was no reason.- There is a reason,
that that is the way.it will be done. We have
but I thought his question was what was
outlined what course we believe is best for
the reason for giving it to them. I just
America, all the people, and generally the
thought you ought to be kept informed of
criteria of that course is indicated by the
what was happening in this field.
guidelines. But in the wage negotiations
Q. Are you trying to clear the air, sir?
and the working conditions that must from
THE PRESIDENT. No, I want everyone to
time to time be examined, and new agree-
know our position and I think this helps.
ments reached, we hope that that will be
407
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SECRET
June 5, 1970
National Security Decision Memorandum 61
TO:
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of the Army
SUBJECT:
Panama Canal
I have reviewed the paper prepared in response to NSSM 86 and
agency comments on the issues contained therein, and I have de-
cided the following:
J. We should be prepared to discuss with Panama our fundamental
canal relationship and to negotiate new treaty arrangements if
Panama asks US to do so and if there are reasonable prospects for
achieving a satisfactory new treaty arrangement.
2. I authorize the Secretary of State to coordinate exploratory and
preliminary ialks with the Panamanian government designed to
determine Panama's views in more detail and to reach a judgment as
to whether mutually satisfactory new treaty arrangements can be
expected. It should be made clear to the Panamanians that these
talks are preliminary and exploratory and not themselves negotiations.
3. I authorize the Secretary of State and Ambassador Anderson to
coordinate consultations with the US Congress at such time as they
deem advisable on the question of our future canal relationship with
Panama.
4. Inter-agency recommendations should be submitted to me, based
on what is learned as a result of the steps authorized by 2 and 3
above as to a) whether and when to open formal negotiations on new
treatics and b) what our specific negotiating objectives should be.
These recommendations should be coordinated and submitted to me
by the Under Secretaries Committee.
5. If formal negotiations appear desirable, I would prefer, in the
absence of overriding reasons 10 the contrary, that these not begin
SECRET
NSC 80086 DECLASSIFIED 12/30/80
By WHM HARS, Date 12/19/84
SECRET
- 2
until early 1971 to permit receipt and evaluation of the Canal Study
Commission report and soundings with the new Congress. These
reasons may be used to explain to the Panamanian government why
we suggest this time frame.
6. In any new negotiations three points are to be considered non-
negotiable: a) effective US control of canal operations; b) effective
US control of canal defense; and c) continuation of these controls
for an extended period of time preferably open-ended.
7. In the exploratory talks our representatives should be guided by
the following with respect to those issues raised by the NSSM-86
paper:
a) On expanded cana] capacity, Indicate in any new negotia-
tions we would expect to negotiate definitive rights (but with-
out obligation) to build a new sea-level canal and/or enlarge
the present canal. However, our final position in this regard
would be formed after we have evaluated the Canal Study
Commission Report.
b) On control of canal operations. Test first Panamanian recep-
tivity to a continuation of exclusive USG control of canal opera-
tions and whether such a control pattern can be made palatable
to Panama; if it is clear that Panama will not accept this, then
agree to explore a pattern of joint US-Panamanian administra-
tion, with US majority control, along the lines of the 1967 draft
treaties or some similar arrangement.
c) On defense. Indicate that in any new negotiations we would
seck rights for unilateral defense of the canal and canal arcas.
Defer for the time being discussion of the hemisphere defense
issue in view of the pending Defense Department review of
Southern Command status.
d) On sovereignty and inrisdiction. Test first Panamanian recep-
tivity to the idea of a markedly reduced Zone with continuance
of USG control therein, but with negotiation for Panamanian
jurisdiction over commercial and non-essential governmental
functions (Option A of paper). If pursuing this course is clearly
not fruitful, explore joint US-Panamanian jurisdiction along
the 1967 draft treaty model (Option E).
FORD
SECRET
SECRET
- 3 -
d) On duration. Our objective should be an open-ended
arrangement; we should consider specific provision
for periodic review.
:) On economic benefits. Indicate the U.S. is prepared
to seek ways to create substantial additional revenue
for Panama.
cc:
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Ambassador Robert Anderson,
Special Representative for US/Panama Relations
SECRET
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGION
SECRET /EXDIS
June 24, 1971
National Security Decision Memorandum 115
TO:
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
SUBJECT:
Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations
FORD LIBRARY
I have reviewed Ambassador Anderson's letter of April 12, 1971, and the
report of the NSC Under Secretaries Committee dated June 10, 1971, con-
cerning United States goals and objectives for negotiations with Panama
on canal treaty relations. On the basis of that review, I have decided to
authorize Ambassador Anderson to undertake formal negotiations with
Panama with a view to obtaining agreement on the text of a draft treaty
this year. The principles set forth in NSDM 64 will continue to provide
the basis for the United States position in the forthcoming negotiations,
except insofar as they are modified or expanded by the following specific
decisions.
-- Recommendations B-3 through 7 contained in the June 10, 1971
report of the NSC Under Secretaries Committee are approved.
With respect to Recommendation B-1 of the NSC Under Secretaries
Committee report, concerning the duration of the treaty, I have
decided that the United States negotiating objective should continue
to be control of canal operations and defense for an open-ended
period. Provision for review of this arrangement at some specific
future date may be included in the U.S. position. Should Ambas-
sador Anderson conclude, in the course of negotiations, that
achievement of our major negotiating objective will require agree-
ment to a fixed-term treaty, twill be prepared to consider promptly
a revision of this objective.
With respect to Recommendation B-2 of the NSC Under Secretaries
report, concerning jurisdiction over the Canal Zone, I have decided
that the initial United State's negotiating objective should be to per-
mit U.S. jurisdiction to be phased out within a minimum of twenty
years while protecting non-negotiable rights for U.S. control and
SEGRET /EXDIS
NSC 80086, DECLASSIFIED 12/30/80
By WHM NARS, Date 12/19/84
SEGRET/EXDIS
2 -
defense of the canal for the duration of the treaty. However,
Ambassador Anderson is authorized to negotiate a shorter time
period for the phase-out of jurisdiction if, after initial negotia-
tions, he deems such action necessary to achieve our non-
negotiable objectives. Such a fall-back position should be the
maximum that can be successfully negotiated with the Government
of Panama consistent with an orderly transfer of jurisdiction to
Panama, effective U.S. control and defense of the canal after such
jurisdiction is phased out, and Congressional acceptance.
-- Congressional consultations should be initiated as soon as possible
to test support for a treaty along the lines outlined above.
The NSC Under Secretaries Committee should submit to me by July 15,
1971, recommendations and/or options for U.S. policy toward Panama in
the event treaty negotiations reach an impasse or must be broken off.
Ambassador Anderson intends to remain in close consultation with the
Secretaries of State and Defense during the period of negotiations and I
have asked him to keep me closely and periodically informed as to the
status of negotiations and Congressional consultations.
CC: The Chairman, NSC Under Sccretaries Committee
The Secretary of the Army
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Director of Central Intelligence
Special Representative for Interoceanic Canal
Negotiations
SEGRET/EXDIS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASRINCTON
September 13, 1971
Security Recision interendem 131
TO:
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defence
SUBJECT:
Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations
Ihave reviewed Ambassador Anderson's letter of August 20, 1971, 80
well 28 the views of the Departments of State and Defense concerning
modification of Ambassador Anderson's negotiating instructions 022
duration of a new treaty 0.8 set forth in NSDM 115. On the basis of
that review, I have made the following decisions:
-- Ambassador Anderson is authorized at the time he feels most
appropriate to inform Panama that the U.S., while strongly
preferring an opensended treaty, is willing to consider the
possibility of it, termination formula, provided that the dura-
tion negotiated is a long one and that other provisions of the
treaty package are satisfactory to the U.S. If such a formula
appears unobtainable, he is authorized to fall back to consid-
eration of a treaty providing for a fixed date of termination.
In either case, the U.S. negotiating objective should be a
duration of at least fifty years, with provision for an addi-
tional 30-50 years if Canal capacity 10 expanded.
-- In addition, he should seek to obtain, as part of any new
treaty providing a formula or specific date for termination,
8 joint U.S. -Panamanian guarantee that upon termination of
the treaty, the Canal would be open to all world shipping
without discrimination at reasonable to 11c and that Panama
would take no action that would hamper the efficient opera-
tion of the waterway.
SECRET /EXDIS
NSC 80086 DECLASSIFIED 12/30/80
By W HM NARS, Date 12/19/84
notests /ENDIS
10 2 to
Congressional concultations should be continued to test support for is
licaly along the lines outlined above.
CC:
The Chairman, NSC Under Secretaries Committee
The Secretary of the Army
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Director of Central Intelligence
Special Representative for Interoceanic Canal
Negotiations
SECRET/L DIS
Congressional
Digest
ANNUIT COEPTIB
UNUM
INOVUS MDCCLXXVI ORDO CLORUM
(THE THE GREAT SFAL
OFTHF OF THE UNITED UNITED STATES
November, 1972
NOV RESEARCH 11 1974 SERVICE
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
DUPLICATE
Controversy Over Proposed
Revision Of The
Panama Canal Treaty
Pro & Con
Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Digest
Controversy Over Proposed
FOUNDED
AN INDEPENDENT MONTHLY FEATURING CONTROVERSIES IN CONGRESS, PRO & CON
Revision Of The Panama
1921
NOT AN OFFICIAL ORGAN, NOT CONTROLLED BY ANY PARTY, INTEREST, CLASS OR SECT
PUBLISHED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST CORPORATION, 3231 P STREET N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007
Canal Treaty
A. GRAM ROBINSON, President
NORBORNE T. N. ROBINSON 3RD, Publisher
JOHN E. SHIELDS, Editor
He Who Decides a Case Without Hearing the Other Side
NOVEMBER, 1972
VOLUME 51
Tho He Decide Justly, Cannot Be Considered Just-SENECA
NUMBER 11
FOREWORD=
page 264), a development which some ecologists argue
would cause irreparable harm to sea life because of the
CONTENTS =
introduction of destructive marine predators from one
S
INCE June 1971 representatives of the United States
ocean to the other.
THE MONTH IN CONGRESS:
and the Republic of Panama have been engaged in
Meanwhile, close observation of the growing discord
negotiations seeking to reach agreement on one or more
with Panama and of the successive Johnson and Nixon
Note: This section will be resumed with the First Session of the 93rd Congress which will convene in January 1973.
treaties to replace the present basic agreement under
Administration efforts to ameliorate it has been main-
which the United States built and exercises jurisdiction
tained by the U.S. Congress. As will be seen in the article
THIS MONTH'S FEATURE:
over the Panama Canal.
on page 267, hearings before several subcommittees of the
Similar efforts during the mid-1960's resulted in 1967
House of Representatives have been conducted in each of
Controversy Over Proposed Revision Of The Panama Canal Treaty
in agreement by negotiators on three treaties (see pages
the past several Congresses on the subject of treaty nego-
The Foreword
257
258, 265), but the instruments were never signed and
tiations and on other major questions at issue between the
258
have since been declared unsatisfactory by Panama. In-
United States and Panama.
Events Leading to the Present Treaty Negotiations
volved in the controversy which has long existed over
The Panama Canal Zone: Facts & Figures
260
The position of the Nixon Administration-essentialy
proposals to cede significant U.S. jurisdiction over the
the same as that earlier enunciated by the Johnson Admin-
A Profile of the Canal and Its Operation
262
Canal and the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama are
istration-has been to accommodate Panamanian objec-
Present Economic Impact of the Panama Canal
263
a number of basic questions. These include that of basic
tions to the present "perpetuity" provision governing U.S.
Recommendations Concerning A New Sea Level Canal
264
sovereignty, the cession of certain U.S. properties to
tenure in the Canal Zone, and to establish a joint Pana-
Highlights of the Proposed 1967 Treaties With Panama
265
Panama, perpetuity provisions in the present treaty, the
manian-U.S. administration of the Canal and the Zone.
Action re Treaty Negotiations in the 91st & 92nd Congresses
267
U.S. defense role, the level of U.S. payment to Panama
Additionally, plans for a sea level canal have been dis-
(presently $1.9 million annually), and the right to con-
cussed in terms of a definite date by which the United
PRO and CON Discussion =
struct an alternate canal at sea level, among others.
States will turn the present canal completely over to
United States negotiators, headed by former Secretary
Panama.
Should the U.S. Retain Its Present Basic Sovereignty
of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson, have found their
Opposing this position has been an active and influen-
Over the Panama Canal Zone?
negotiating task complicated by the fact that since the
tial bloc in the Congress which opposes what it terms a
1964-67 treaty sessions the elected Panamanian govern-
PRO=
CON=
U.S. "giveaway" of the Canal. Members who oppose the
ment has been ousted in a military coup and replaced by
Administration's approach have succeeded in focusing
U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond
268
U.S. Senator Alan Cranston
269
an administration headed by General Omar Torrijos, the
continuing attention on the progress of U.S.-Panamanian
U.S. Representative Daniel J. Flood
272
Hon. Robert A. Hurwitch
275
nation's present leader. Recent statements by the latter
negotiations and on provisions being advanced by negotia-
U.S. Representative Leonor K. Sullivan
280
Hon. David H. Ward
279
have condemned the U.S. military presence in the Canal
tors for both sides which they hold to be contrary to the
Committee for Continued U.S. Control
284
Ambassador John C. Mundt
283
Zone, have claimed Panamanian sovereignty, and have
long-range U.S. interest.
intimated that outright Panamanian abrogation of the
No predictions are presently being made as to when,
existing basic treaty (see page 258) may be his country's
SUBSCRIPTION RATES: 1 yr., $14.50; 2 yrs., $26; 3 yrs., $34. Foreign 55c extra per yr. Current single copy, $1.50.
if at all, agreement will be reached with Panama on the
CURRENT COPY BULK RATES: 5 @ $1.25 each; 10 @ $1 each; 25 and up @ 75c. Write for back copy information.
response to unresolved U.S.-Panamanian differences over
numerous sensitive subjects under negotiation. With talks
the future status of the Canal.
ADDRESS ORDERS and checks to: CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST CORP., 3231 P St., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20007.
continuing, however, and a new U.S. Congress-the 93rd
Further dimension to the controversy has been lent by
-convening in January 1973, controversy over the ques-
Second Class postage paid at Washington, D. C. and at additional mailing offices. Published monthly except July and August.
simultaneous efforts to negotiate an agreement for U.S.
tion of continued U.S. sovereignty is expected to continue
Yearly index to each volume published with the December issue. Indexed in the Readers Guide and other indexing publications.
Copyright 1972 by The Congressional Digest Corporation, Washington, D. C. Back volumes available in all standard microforms.
rights to construct a sea level canal through Panama (see
and to grow in intensity in the months ahead.
257
United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control
Treaty Revisions of 1936 and 1955
PANAMA CANAL
Events Leading To The Present
of a zone of land and land under water for the construc-
In 1936 the Hull-Alfaro Treaty was signed; after pro-
TREATY
tion, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of
tracted Congressional objection, its ratification was con-
REVISION-
Treaty Negotiations
said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the
sented to by the Senate in 1939. At the request of Panama
distance of five miles on each side of the center line of
-which, after the ratification in 1922 of the U.S.-Colom-
the route of the Canal to be constructed
The
Republic
bia treaty felt that its independence was not endangered—
of Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity
As
S
EARLY as the beginning of the 16th century the
structing a canal in Nicaragua; when the French Canal
Article I of the 1903 treaty, guaranteeing U.S. defense of
the use, occupation and control of any other lands and
world's major maritime nations were giving consid-
Company accepted a U.S. offer of $40 million for its
Panamanian independence, was abolished. The U.S. ceded
waters outside of the zone above described which may be
eration to the possibility of joining the Atlantic and Pa-
rights and properties in Panama, however, the Commis-
back certain rights to Panama in the 1936 treaty, includ-
necessary and convenient for the construction, mainte-
cific Oceans by canal across Central America. In 1523,
sion presented a supplementary report favoring a Pana-
ing that of intercession in Panamanian internal affairs.
nance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said
Charles V of Spain initiated the first investigation into
manian route. On June 28, 1902, the U.S. Congress
The 1903 treaty had provided for a U.S. one-time payment
Canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary
the subject, and in 1534 ordered the Governor of Panama
passed the Spooner Amendment, setting into motion the
of $10 million in cash and for an annual payment for use
and convenient for the construction, maintenance, opera-
to make a formal survey of the route following the
purchase from the French Canal Company and the begin-
of the Canal Zone of $250,000. This amount was raised
tion, sanitation and protection of the said enterprise
Chagres and Rio Grande Rivers, the general course
ning of U.S. canal construction.
to $430,000 by the 1936 treaty.
which the actual Panama Canal takes today.
"Article III. The Republic of Panama grants to the
In the years following World War II the effects of the
Colombian and Panamanian Negotiations
United States all the rights, power and authority within
East-West cold war became manifest in Panama with
Reaction to French Canal Building Efforts
The territory in question was in 1902 a part of the Re-
the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this
"hate America" campaigns reportedly fomented by Pana-
In January 1880 the first actual effort to build an
public of Colombia, and the United States accordingly
agreement and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and
manian communists. In 1951 further efforts to subvert the
isthmian canal was begun in Panama under Count Ferdi-
negotiated a treaty with that nation conveying the needed
waters mentioned and described in said Article II which
loyalty of Panamanians working in the Canal Zone, this
nand de Lesseps-who had successfully completed the
rights to construct an isthmian canal and setting forth
the United States would possess and exercise if it were
time allegedly by President Juan Peron of Argentina,
Suez Canal eleven years earlier-for the French Canal
guarantees pledged by each nation to the other relative
the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and
prompted Panamanian efforts to secure further revision
Company. Reflecting American views toward foreign en-
to such a canal.
waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise
of the basic canal treaty. The Eisenhower-Remon Treaty
terprises in the Western Hemisphere, shaped by the Mon-
A fast-moving series of events followed. The Colombian
by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights,
of 1955 which ensued transferred certain additional U.S.
roe Doctrine, President Rutherford B. Hayes stated in
power or authority."
Senate refused to ratify the Hay-Herran Treaty, as it was
rights and properties to Panama and increased the canal
1880:
termed, whereupon separatist political forces in Panama-
In 1914, the year in which the Canal was completed,
annuity from $430,000 to $1.93 million.
"The policy of this government is a canal under Amer-
who favored the construction of a canal-revolted, assist-
the United States negotiated a treaty with Colombia-
ican control. The United States cannot consent to the sur-
ed (it was later acknowledged) by the United States. On
the Thomson-Urrutia Treaty-under which the U.S. of-
Background of Latest Treaty Talks
render of this control to any European power or to any
November 3, 1903, creation of the independent Republic
fered Colombia $25 million as compensation for this coun-
Under the reported leadership of the Communist Party
combination of European powers.
Our merely com-
of Panama was proclaimed. Three days later the United
try's collusion in the Panamanian revolution. In return,
of Panama, a series of disorders and attempted disrup-
States recognized the new Republica, and within two
Colombia recognized that title to the Panama Canal was
mercial interest [in the Canal] is greater than that of all
tions took place, beginning in 1958 with "Operation Sov-
other countries
weeks a basic treaty concerning the construction of a
"now vested entirely and absolutely in the United States
ereignty," a student-executed attempt to fly the Pana-
The French effort failed, however, and nine years later
canal-the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty-was signed with
of America." Former President Theodore Roosevelt de-
manian flag over the U.S. Canal Zone. The program was
the company was dissolved. A new French Canal Com-
the new Panamanian Government.
nounced the treaty, however, and succeeded in blocking
successful in winning support of Panamanian President
it in the U.S. Senate. It was not until 1922 that it finally
pany was formed in 1894, but little work was accom-
Ernesto de la Guardia. Destructive riots and other disrup-
Major Treaties Involved
received ratification.
plished.
tions, particularly in 1958 and 1964, led to successful
Several years earlier the United States and Great Britain
moves by Panama to make the U.S. role in that nation a
Initial U.S. Canal Moves
had negotiated the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 which
Construction of the Canal
subject of discussion before the Organization of American
Notwithstanding intermittent expressions of U.S. inter-
recognized the exclusive right of the United States to con-
After the United States secured the rights and proper-
States, the United Nations, and other international forums.
est in the idea of a canal during the closing years of the
struct and deepen an isthmian canal.
ties of the French Canal Company for $40 million, con-
In 1964, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson agreed to
19th century, no official action was taken to assert an
The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty with Panama, which
struction of the Panama Canal began and extended over
begin negotiations for a new treaty. These resulted in three
actual U.S. role. This passivity was shaken, however, by
despite amendment on several occasions over the years
the ten-year period from 1904 to 1914. Initially it was
draft treaties initialed in 1967 (see page 265). The Presi-
events arising from the Spanish-American War-in partic-
remains the basic instrument of agreement defining the
essentially a civilian undertaking. In the face of immense
dent of Panama did not act to have these treaties ratified,
ular, the two months required for the battleship Oregon
U.S. and Panamanian roles, includes the following major
problems-logistics, rampant disease, the sheer magnitude
however, and no action was taken on them by the United
to make the long voyage to Cuba from the Pacific by way
provisions:
of the "ditch-digging" and lock-building tasks-and, par-
States.
of Cape Horn at a time of military need.
"Article I. The United States guarantees and will
ticularly, of difficulties retaining key personnel, President
After almost four years during which the proposed
President William McKinley pointed out the necessity
maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.
Roosevelt turned the project over to the U.S. Army in
treaties were in limbo, and in which period the elected
for a canal and, after Congress had passed enabling legis-
[This article has been superseded by the 1936 treaty-see
1907. Under the direction of Col. George W. Goethals,
Government of Panama was overthrown by a military
lation, in 1899 appointed the first Isthmian Canal Com-
below.]
chief engineer, the Canal was finished and opened to traf-
coup, the United States and Panama resumed negotiations
fic on August 15, 1914. Total construction costs were
mission. Initially, the Commission recommended con-
"Article II. The Republic of Panama grants to the
in June 1971 for a new treaty regarding the Panama Canal.
$380 million.
These continue at the present time.
258
NOVEMBER
1972
259
ABOG
PANAMA CANAL
The Panama Canal Zone:
PANAMA
OF
BAY
TREATY
REVISION
Facts Figures
PANAMA VIEJO
PANAMA
T
HE Panama Canal Zone is a strip of land extending
capital stock were acquired in 1881 by the French in
TOCUMEN
(AIRPORT)
NATIONAL
CANAL ZONE AND VICINITY
SCALE
across the Isthmus of Panama from the Atlantic to
conjunction with their attempt to construct a canal. The
the Pacific Ocean, ten miles in width (five miles on each
Isthmian Canal Commission acquired the shares owned by
JUAN DIAZ
HOWARD
VERACRUZ
side of the axis of the Panama Canal), and under juris-
the French Canal Company for the United States as part
diction of the United States by treaty with the Republic
of the French assets purchased in 1904, and in 1905 pur-
ARRAIJAN
of Panama. Its area is 553 square miles, of which 371
chased the remaining outstanding shares from private
are land.
owners. Thus, since 1905 the Company has been wholly
ALCALDE DIAZ
owned by the United States Government.
CUMBRES
Population
PANAMA
ZONE
CHORRERA
NATIONAL
In 1945 Congress enacted the Government Corpora-
The population of the Canal Zone is approximately
tion Control Act which prohibited the continued existence
47,500. About 39,400 of these are U.S. citizens, and most
of any wholly owned Federal Government corporation
PANAMA
of the rest are Panamanians. Of the total population,
created by or under the laws of any State. Accordingly,
about 26,500 are military or civilian personnel of the
in 1948 the Panama Railroad Company was reincorpo-
BUENOS AIRES
U.S. armed forces and their families, and about 10,400
rated under a Federal charter with authority to continue
are employees of the Panama Canal Company and the
its operations as before.
Canal Zone Government and their families. Of the 11,000
non-U.S. citizens employed by the Company and the Gov-
The 1950 Reorganization
ernment, less than 2,000 (plus their families) live in the
Under legislation enacted in 1950, a basic change in the
SANTA
Zone; the remainder live in the Republic of Panama.
organizational structure of the canal enterprise became
effective on July 1, 1951. One purpose of the reorganiza-
Administration of the Zone
tion was to separate the business operations of the canal
CEMENTO
Construction of the Canal was performed by the Isth-
enterprise, including operation of the waterway, from
mian Canal Commission (see page 258) under the pro-
those functions normally associated with civil government.
visions of the Spooner Act of June 28, 1902. As con-
Thus, all the functions of the agency previously known
struction approached completion, the President issued an
as The Panama Canal except those relating to civil gov-
BUENA VISTA
Executive Order providing a permanent organization for
ernment, health, and sanitation were transferred to the
the completion, maintenance, operation, government and
Panama Railroad Company which was renamed the Pan-
The Panama Canal and Canal Zone, administered by the U.S. under terms of the
1903 treaty with Panama (as amended in 1936 and 1955). Map courtesy of The
Panama Canal Company. For a profile view of the Canal showing locations and
comparative elevations of its systems of locks, see diagram at bottom of page 262.
sanitation of the Panama Canal and its adjunets and the
ama Canal Company. The Panama Canal agency retained
government of the Canal Zone pursuant to authority pro-
its governmental functions and was renamed the Canal
w
vided by the Panama Canal Act of August 24, 1912. The
Zone Government. These two instrumentalities comprise
effect of the Panama Canal Act and the Executive Order
today the basic agencies operative in the Canal Zone,
was to establish The Panama Canal as an independent
functioning as an integrated enterprise, but each an inde-
government agency for operation and maintenance of the
pendent agency of the United States.
waterway and civil government of the Canal Zone.
The Panama Canal Company
The Panama Railroad Company
The Panama Canal Company is "a body corporate
REANURE
E
During the existence of The Panama Canal agency,
and an agency of the United States for the purpose of
many of the quasi-business enterprises relating to the
maintaining and operating the Panama Canal and con-
Canal operation (railroad, steamship line, commissaries,
ducting business enterprises incident thereto and incident
etc.) were conducted by the Panama Railroad Company.
to the civil government of the Canal Zone."
The Company was originally created in 1849 under the
The United States, in its capacity as owner of the cor-
laws of New York as a private corporation for the pur-
poration, is represented by the President or such officer
pose of constructing and maintaining a railroad across the
as he designates, called the "stockholder." The President
SEA
CARIBBEAN
Isthmus of Panama. Most of the shares of the Company's
(Continued on page 288)
260
NOVEMBER
1972
261
PANAMA CANAL
A Profile Of The Canal
PANAMA CANAL
Present Economic Impact
TREATY
TREATY
REVISION-
And Its Operation
REVISION-
Of The Panama Canal
F
IRST opened to world navigation in 1914, the Panama
located in the center and side walls of the locks. From
these, the water flows through smaller culverts which open
T
HE economic impact of the Panama Canal-both
machinery and equipment, and chemicals and petrochem-
Canal is approximately 51 miles in length, Atlantic
worldwide and in terms of Canal Zone and Republic
icals.
deep water to Pacific deep water. Minimum width of the
into the floor of the lock chambers.
of Panama economies-is measurable in a number of
navigable channel is 500 feet. From Cristobal to Balboa,
To empty the locks, water is permitted to flow in the
ways: tolls collected, cargo tonnage passing through the
Republic of Panama
the two terminal cities, airline distance is 36 miles. The
opposite direction-through the openings in the floor of
Canal, effect on the Panamanian gross national product,
With 11,000 of the 15,000 persons employed by the
Canal reduces the distance traveled by ships going from
the chamber, into the lateral culverts, back into the main
as well as others.
Canal organization citizens of the Republic of Panama,
New York to San Francisco by 7,873 miles.
culverts, and down to the level below.
with the volume of Canal-related services and products
Canal Tolls
Operation of the Locks: The Canal contains six double
purchased in the Republic, and with the purchasing power
Dimensions and Numbers: Each lock chamber is 1,000
locks which act as stairsteps to raise and lower ships over
Tolls have been virtually unchanged since the Canal
of the $120 million annual payroll (not including the U.S.
fect in length, 110 feet wide, and 70 feet deep, with a
the Continental Divide. Gatun Locks (see diagram below)
opened on August 15, 1914. Levied on a net tonnage
military establishment in the Canal Zone), the impact of
minimum water depth in each lock of 40 feet. Fifty-seven
on the Atlantic side form one continuous flight in three
basis, and based on each 100 cubic feet of space usable
the Canal on the nearby Republic of Panama is of major
55-ton locomotives (or "mules"), with four to eight used
steps which raise and lower ships 85 feet. Miraflores
for revenue purposes, the rates for merchant vessels are 90
proportions.
on each ship, running on trackage beside the Canal, move
Locks, nearest the Pacific entrance, have two steps and
cents a ton for laden ships and 72 cents a ton for ships
In 1970, of Panama's gross national product of ap-
transiting vessels through the locks and their approaches.
lift or lower ships 54 feet. Pedro Miguel Locks, also on
in ballast. Ships of war and other floating craft pay at the
proximately $992 million, nearly one-third was directly
the Pacific side, raise or lower vessels 31 feet in one step.
Gates of the locks require two minutes to open or close,
rate of 50 cents a displacement ton. These tolls cover all
or indirectly attributable to the Canal and its military
Water required to operate the Panama Canal is stored
and it requires eight minutes to fill or empty one lock
normal transit charges, including pilot service, which is
bases. Of Panama's total foreign exchange earnings from
chamber. Approximately 30 minutes are required for
in Gatun and Madden Lakes during the long rainy sea-
required for all but small craft. U.S. Government ships
export of goods and services in 1970 of $367 million,
passage through the Pedro Miguel Locks, 45 through the
are assessed tolls on the same basis as other vessels.
sons. (The main channel of the Canal passes through
$162 million (45 per cent) comprised direct payments
Gatun Lake; Madden Lake lies to the northeast, and is
Miraflores, and 60 through the Gatun. Average total tran-
In Fiscal 1971 there were 15,348 transits of the Canal,
from the Canal and its military bases.
sit time through the Canal is seven to eight hours.
connected to the Canal by separate channel.) These two
producing a revenue from tolls of approximately $100
Of Panama's employment nationwide, nearly one-third
water sources are also used for the generation of hydro-
Water Consumption: Each lock chamber holds about
million. Total transit revenues for the year, including tolls,
is directly or indirectly due to the presence of the Canal.
electric power and for municipal uses.
credit for tolls of U.S. Government vessels, and harbor
Within 30 miles of the Canal Zone, more than two-thirds
8,800,000 cubic feet of water and about 26 million gal-
No pumps are used in filling or emptying the lock
lons, a one-day supply for a large city, are used in each
pilotage, tug, launch, and other services, was $114,421,-
of the employment is Canal-oriented. Panama's per capita
chambers. The principle involved is simply that of letting
lockage. About twice this amount, or 52 million gallons,
519. The average vessel passing through the Canal pays
income of $693 (in 1970) is the highest in Central
water run downhill in either direction, since Gatun Lake
is expended in one Canal transit. A total of 90.8 billion
a toll of approximately $6,500.
America and more than twice the average. It is the fourth
is 85 feet above sea level. The water flows from one level
cubic feet of water is used for Canal traffic in an average
From 1914 through June 30, 1971, a total of 449,428
highest in Latin America as a whole, exceeded only by
to another through large tunnels, 18 feet in diameter,
year (based on recent averages of 38.5 transits per day).
vessels of all types have transited, with 362,280-or 80.6
that of Argentina, Venezuela, and Uruguay.
per cent of the total-being of the oceangoing commercial
Additionally, Panama is paid an annual sum of ap-
class.
proximately $2 million for the canal-a form of compen-
554
GOLD
sation established by the 1903 treaty (see page 258) and
500
HILL
Cargo Tonnage
increased to its present level over the intervening years.
400
In 1972 more than 116 million tons of cargo passed
312
300
through the Panama Canal. Principal user nations were,
Impact of Canal Zone Internal Operations
ELEVATION FEET
GAMBOA
GATUN
200
in descending order: Liberia (a maritime "flag of con-
The payroll of approximately $120 million annually for
venience" nation), Japan, United Kingdom, Norway,
employees of the Panama Canal Company and the Canal
100
BALBOA
CRISTOBAL
85
United States, West Germany, Panama (also a "flag of
Zone Government is divided almost evenly between U.S.
0
convenience" nation), and Greece.
and Panamanian personnel.
For fiscal 1971, ranked by tonnages, the major com-
During Fiscal 1971, the various consumer-oriented
100
modity groupings of Canal-transiting cargoes were, in
facilities operated by the Panama Canal Company had
NAOS
PACIFIC
MIRAFLORES
PEDRO MIGUEL
GAILLARD
GATUN
GATUN
ATLANTIC
BREAK-
ISL.
OCEAN
LOCKS LAKE
LOCKS
CUT
LAKE
LOCKS
OCEAN
WATER
descending order: coal and coke, petroleum and products,
total sales of $31.4 million. Included on the Company
grains, ores and metals, miscellaneous agricultural com-
payroll, in addition to personnel concerned directly with
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
MILES
modities, nitrogenous products, manufactures of iron and
Canal operations, are employees of such service establish-
HIGH TIDE +11.54
HIGH TIDE + 1.8
LOW TIDE -11.16
LOW TIDE -1.25
steel, lumber and products, canned and refrigerated food,
ments.
262
NOVEMBER
1972
263
PANAMA CANAL
Recommendations Concerning
PANAMA CANAL
Highlights Of The Proposed
TREATY
TREATY
REVISION-
A New Sea Level Canal
REVISION-
1967 Treaties With Panama
AT
THE time the Panama Canal was built there was
In the early 1960's, legislation adopted by the Congress
authorized a new study of means for increasing the capac-
T
HREE proposed and interrelated treaties between the
Defense and Status of Forces
intense controversy over the questions of whether
United States and the Republic of Panama were the
A second draft treaty, consisting of 20 articles and
to build a sea level or a lock canal and whether it should
ity of the Panama Canal or construction of a new canal,
subject of negotiations between the two nations over the
two annexes, treats with the defense, security, continuity
be located in Panama or Nicaragua. A sea level canal
and provided specifically for a study of the feasibility of
period of 1964-67. Copies of the draft treaties were not
of operation, and neutrality of the Panama Canal; with
had been recommended by the original Isthmian Canal
a sea level canal to be conducted by an Interoceanic Canal
officially released by the Executive Branch of the U.S.
the status of U.S. armed forces and dependents; and with
Commission, but-as will be seen in the article on page
Study Commission.
Government, but when ultimately made public in the press
their use of designated facilities and areas utilized in Canal
258-the Congress ultimately enacted legislation express-
and through publication by a committee of the Congress
defense. The treaty would, among other provisions, end
ly providing for the construction of a lock canal in
Findings of the ICSC Study
they provoked major controversy.
the exclusive defense role of the U.S. in the Canal Zone
Panama.
On December 1, 1970, the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic
In October 1968 the Panama National Guard staged a
and would establish a joint Panamanian-U.S. security
Nonetheless, the United States and Nicaragua in 1914
Canal Study Commission submitted its final report, which
military coup to oust President Arnulfo Arias who had
and defense force, although the U.S. would continue to
concluded a treaty in which Nicaragua granted the U.S.
included the following conclusions and recommendations:
been inaugurated on October 1 following his election to
act to ensure the defense of the Canal itself. Article II
exclusive rights to construct a canal across its territory.
"The United States should retain an absolute right to
the Presidency. A military junta took over the Govern-
of the draft treaty states:
The rights were granted in perpetuity, but were finally
defend the present canal and any new Isthmian canal sys-
ment of Panama and has remained in control since that
"(1) The Republic of Panama and the United States
renounced by the United States in a convention signed in
tem for the foreseeable future
time. None of the treaties has been signed to date by
of America shall provide jointly for the defense, security
July 1970 which became effective early in 1971.
"Constructing a third lane of locks for the present
either nation, and the present Panamanian Government
and continuity of operation of the Panama Canal and its
canal
would be a temporary solution without signifi-
has indicated that it does not consider the negotiated draft
appurtenant and supporting facilities and services and of
Canal Enlargement Studies
cant military advantages, and it would not relieve the
treaties acceptable.
the Canal Area.
To this end and for its part, the
Over the years, deliberations on whether to expand the
problems in United States-Panamanian relations that
Sea Level Canal
Republic of Panama hereby makes available to the United
capacity of the present canal by constructing a third set
derive from personnel and defense requirements of the
In a 17-article draft treaty with three annexes (explana-
States of America the use of Defense Areas
for Canal
of locks have regularly revived the controversy over
lock canal
tory addenda) the Government of Panama would provide
Defense and related security purposes. Pursuant to this
whether a second canal should be built. Among earlier
"A sea-level canal would provide a significant improve-
the United States with the right to build a further canal,
Treaty, the United States of America shall have the right
studies of the feasibility of either of the above courses of
ment in the ability of an Isthmian waterway to support
as follows:
to act to ensure Canal Defense.
action have been those authorized by the Congress in
military operations both in its lessened vulnerability to
1929, 1936, and 1945.
Article II. "The Republic of Panama grants to the
interruption by hostile action and in its ability to transit
United States of America the right to construct in the
Basic Canal Treaty
In a 1947 report, the Governor of the Panama Canal
large aircraft carriers that cannot now pass through the
territory of the Republic of Panama a sea level canal
By far the most controversial of the three proposed
concluded that construction of additional locks to the
Panama Canal. These military advantages of a sea-level
connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In the event
treaties is that which would abrogate and replace the
existing Panama Canal would meet anticipated require-
canal, together with its capacity to meet the potential
that the United States of America notifies the Republic of
treaties of 1903, 1936, and 1955 (see page 258) with a
ments of commercial traffic, but recommended construc-
demand for transits over a much longer period, and its
Panama within twenty years of the entry into force of the
revised treaty setting forth a greatly modified basis for
tion of a sea level canal because of security considerations.
lesser operating costs, would more than counter-balance
Treaty, of its intention to construct such a canal, the
U.S.-Panamanian relationship with regard to the Canal
Some 30 possible canal routes were identified, but it was
the lower construction cost of augmenting the existing
financing, construction, operation, maintenance and im-
and the Canal Zone. The proposed treaty would transfer
concluded that the most practicable solution was conver-
canal with larger locks.
provement of the sea level canal shall be carried out in
from exclusive U.S. jurisdiction to joint or Panamanian
sion of the existing canal to sea level.
"The technical feasibility of the use of nuclear explo-
accordance with the provisions of this Treaty."
control a number of functions and activities performed
Studies during the 1950's, after the reorganization of
sives for sea-level canal excavation has not been estab-
Further provisions of the draft treaty treat with details
within the Canal Zone, and would remove significant ele-
the Canal's administrative structure, resulted in 1960 in
lished. Whether the technology can be perfected and the
of construction, financing, location, conditions under
ments of the Panama Canal organization and operations
a report recommending improvements to the existing canal
international treaty obstacles to its use removed are not
which such a canal would be operated, U.S.-Panamanian
from the purview of the U.S. Congress.
and calling for planning leading to construction of a sea
now predictable
cooperation in its construction and operation, tolls and
Consisting of 41 articles, the draft treaty includes the
level canal using nuclear excavation methods. A board of
"A sea-level canal in Panama constructed by conven-
compensation, defense, neutrality of the canal, and estab-
following provisions:
independent consultants employed by the Congress subse-
tional excavation is technically feasible. Route 10 is the
lishment of a U.S.-Panamanian "Panama Interoceanic
Article II. "1. The Republic of Panama and the
quently recommended against undertaking a sea level
most advantageous sea-level canal route. [Route 10, one
Canal Commission" to oversee operation of the canal.
United States of America hereby establish an international
canal project in the near future, called for early comple-
of a number considered, runs approximately parallel to
The proposed treaty would continue in force for a
juridical entity to be known as the joint administration
tion of pending canal improvement projects, and advised
the present canal, almost entirely out of the present Canal
period of 60 years from the date the sea level canal is
of the Panama canal [hereinafter referred to as the
further studies concerning both nuclear and conventional
Zone, lying about ten miles to the west of the present
opened to traffic, provided that such period shall not
"administration"] to operate the Panama canal and its ap-
excavation methods.
Panama Canal toward the Republic of Costa Rica.]"
extend beyond December 31, 2067.
purtenant and supporting facilities and services, maintain
264
NOVEMBER
1972
265
the Panama canal and such facilities and services, make
"7. The director general shall be the chief executive
improvements and additions thereto, and administer the
officer of the administration
PANAMA CANAL
Action Re Treaty Negotiations
canal area
for the purposes of this treaty.
Article V. "For the purposes of this treaty, the admin-
TREATY
"3. The Republic of Panama as sovereign over the
istration shall have the right and power to:
REVISION-
In The ST 92ND Congresses
canal area, guarantees to the administration the peaceful
"1. Operate and maintain the Panama canal and its
use and enjoyment of the canal area, consistent with this
appurtenant and supporting facilities and services and
treaty and the continuity of operation of the Panama canal.
make improvements and additions thereto, and control
Article III. "1. The Republic of Panama and the
navigation in canal area waters
U
NDER normal circumstances negotiation involved in
also with regard to findings of the Interocean Canal Com-
the U.S. treaty-making process with another nation
mission (see page 264) concerning possible routes for a
United States of America, each to the extent of its inter-
Article XV.
"1.
the administration shall, within
is carried out exclusively by the Executive Branch. While
new canal. Under the chairmanship of Rep. Leonor K.
ests, grant to the administration, effective upon the date
five years following its assumption of its full responsibili-
the Legislative Branch, specifically the U.S. Senate which
Sullivan, Mo., D., the Subcommittee additionally held
the administration assumes its full responsibilities and
ties and functions under this treaty, discontinue its opera-
must consent to ratification before a treaty enters into
hearings in 1970 on questions of Canal traffic projections,
functions under this treaty, the use of the Panama canal
tion of food stores; department stores; milk product plants;
force, is frequently briefed on treaty provisions while nego-
capacity, tolls, feasibility of a sea level canal, and issues
and its appurtenant and supporting facilities and services
bakeries; pastry shops; cafeterias or luncheonettes; thea-
tiations are in progress, legislative hearings on the merits
arising from the 1964-67 treaty negotiations.
and the use of the areas of land and water
which shall
ters; bowling alleys and other recreational facilities for
of such a treaty are generally restricted to those conducted
In the 92nd Congress, with the Subcommittee under
be known as the 'canal area.'
the use of which a charge is payable; optical shops; such
after a signed convention is presented for ratification.
chairmanship of Rep. John Murphy, N.Y., D., hearings
"2. The administration shall have and enjoy, subject
hotels, laundries, dry cleaning plants, printing plants,
The three proposed treaties with Panama negotiated
have been held intermittently since November 29, 1971,
to the terms of this treaty, the use of the Panama canal,
automobile repair services, tire recapping services and
over the period of 1964-67, revising U.S.-Panamanian
on the treaty negotiations and general U.S.-Panamanian
of the canal area and of all of the property which, on
gasoline stations as are operated for the public; and
relationships concerning the Panama Canal (see pages
relations.
the date the administration assumes its full responsibilities
any other similar facilities or services.
258, 265), have given rise in the 91st and 92nd Con-
A second House panel, the Subcommittee on Inter-
and functions under this treaty, is being administered or
Article XVIII.
the administration shall have
gresses to significant departure from this customary pro-
American Affairs (chaired by Rep. Dante Fascell, Fla.,
used by the United States of America thru its agencies,
the right and power to authorize the establishment of
cedure.
D.) of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, has cognizance
the Panama Canal company or the Canal Zone govern-
private business enterprises of all kinds in the canal area
over treaties and other matters affecting relations between
ment.
and adopt, issue, and enforce regulations relating to their
Role of the Senate
the two nations. In the First Session of the 92nd Congress,
"3. The administration shall assume, as of the date it
establishment, conduct and discontinuance.
In the U.S. Senate, matters affecting the Panama Canal
on September 22 and 23, 1971, the Subcommittee held
assumes its full responsibilities and functions under this
Article XX. "1. The Republic of Panama grants to
fall principally within the jurisdiction of two committees.
hearings on several pending resolutions calling for reten-
treaty, all of the assets, liabilities and commitments of
the administration the right and power to provide for the
Those relating to maintenance and operation of the Canal
tion of full U.S. sovereignty over the Panama Canal and
the Panama Canal company and Canal Zone government
protection of persons and property in the canal area
and defense of the Canal Zone come under purview of
the Canal Zone. Advisory rather than legislative in nature
as reflected in the final financial statements for the Panama
"2. The administration shall provide for the protection
the Committee on Armed Services. Those relating to
because of the exclusive treaty responsibility assigned by
Canal company and Canal Zone government. The unrecov-
of the Panama Canal, the shipping therein, and its appur-
broader questions of U.S.-Panamanian relations and treaty
the Constitution to the U.S. Senate, the resolutions have
ered investment of the United States of America in the
tenant and supporting facilities and services.
matters are the concern of the Committee on Foreign Rela-
received no action to date by the full House of Represen-
Panama Canal shall not be included in the liabilities
"3. The administration may, if necessary, call upon the
tions, and of its Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere
tatives.
assumed by the administration under this paragraph.
armed forces of the Republic of Panama or of the United
Affairs, chaired by Sen. Frank Church, Idaho, D.
Among those resolutions under consideration, perhaps
Article IV. "1. The governing body of the adminis-
States of America for military assistance whenever it
While the 1967 initialing of the three treaties has
most representative was H. Res. 154, introduced early in
tration shall be a board consisting of nine members; four
deems such military assistance to be necessary in carrying
received discussion on the Senate floor over the past sev-
1971 by Rep. Daniel Flood, Pa., D., who for many years
of whom shall be appointed by the president of the Repub-
out its responsibilities under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this
eral Congresses, no formal hearings have taken place in
has been an active champion of continued U.S. sovereignty
lic of Panama and five by the President of the United
article.
the Senate on the substantive questions which the recently-
in the Canal Zone. The operative portion of the Flood
States. The members of the board shall be appointed for
Article XXIII. "The Republic of Panama grants to
renewed treaty negotiations have raised.
resolution reads as follows:
terms of six years, subject to removal for cause by the
the administration the right and power to establish and
House of Representatives Moves
"Resolved by the House of Representatives, That it is
President of the country by whom appointed
maintain a police force, which shall have exclusive police
the sense of the House of Representatives that the Gov-
"3. The board shall elect a chairman, from among its
authority in the canal area. Consistent therewith, officials
In the House of Representatives the situation has been
ernment of the United States should maintain and pro-
members, who shall serve for one year.
The chair-
of the Republic of Panama shall have the right to exercise
quite different, with proceedings undertaken by both of
tect its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over said Canal
manship shall alternate annually between a member ap-
in the canal area functions authorized by laws of the
the subcommittees principally concerned with Panama
Zone and Panama Canal and that the United States Gov-
Republic of Panama applicable in the canal area
Canal matters.
pointed by the president of the Republic of Panama and
ernment should in no way forfeit, cede, negotiate, or trans-
a member appointed by the President of the United States
Article XXIV. "1. The laws of the Republic of Pana-
The Subcommittee on the Panama Canal of the Com-
fer any of these sovereign rights, jurisdiction, territory or
of America.
ma shall
be applicable in the canal area except with
mittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries is the body with
property to any other sovereign nation or to any interna-
"5. There shall be a director general and a deputy
respect to those subject matters enumerated or referred
oversight responsibility for the operation and administra-
tional organization which rights, sovereignty and jurisdic-
to
director general of the administration, one of whom shall
[and] otherwise provided in this treaty.
tion of the Canal and Canal Zone. In the 91st Congress
tion are indispensably necessary for the protection and
be a national of the United States of America and the
"2.(a) The Republic of Panama grants to the admin-
it received briefings in 1969 from State Department offi-
security of the entire Western Hemisphere including the
cials on problems arising from the treaty negotiations and
canal and Panama."
other a national of the Republic of Panama.
(Continued on page 288)
1972
267
266
NOVEMBER
PRO
THURMOND, continued from page 268
CON
CRANSTON, continued from page 269
As an artery of marine transportation, the Panama Canal enterprise became,
Canal in 1903, that justification hardly remains in 1971. There is no question as
and still is, a part of the coastline of the United States. As such its exclusive
to the legality of our presence in Panama. It was fully agreed to by the Pana-
control by the United States is just as necessary for national defense as the control
manian government. For ten million dollars and $250,000 a year the United
of the Chesapeake Bay or New York Harbor.
States was leased the Canal Zone in perpetuity. It was a contract that fit perfectly
In 1967, after three years of diplomatic discussion, the Presidents of the
well into our quest for territorial expansion and influence at the turn of the
United States and Panama announced the completion of negotiation of three new
century. But one wonders if Panama, in its zeal for independence, struck a bargain
I became convinced
Canal treaties. As the negotiations drew to a close, I was alarmed by reports of
with the United States which it probably never would have agreed to under
one wonders if
that continued U.S. control
the forthcoming treaties and applied myself to a close study of the situation and
quieter times.
Panama
struck a bar-
depended upon maintain-
the Canal problem. It was at this time that I became convinced that continued
Secretary of State John Hay wrote, in a letter to a leading Senator of the
gain
which it probably
ing our sovereignty in the
U.S. control depended upon maintaining our sovereignty in the Canal Zone and
time: "As it stands now, as soon as the Senate votes we shall have a treaty in
never would have agreed
Canal Zone
modernizing the present works.
the main very satisfactory to the United States, and we must confess
not so
to under quieter times."
Frankly, I was amazed when I actually obtained copies of the treaties. Those
advantageous to Panama. You and I know too well how many points there
treaties would have surrendered U.S. sovereignty, control, and ownership of the
are in this treaty to which a Panamanian patriot could object."
Canal Zone and the Panama Canal, as well as any new canal built by our tax-
In the years since John Hay wrote that letter, the United States has built what
payers. The treaties provided for a nationalization by Panama of the Zone territory
has become a colony of mostly white Americans who reside in the Canal Zone
and for internationalization of the Canal itself under a bi-national canal author-
year after year, and some, generation after generation. Most of the Americans
ity. In the background, but not in the public discussions, was the objective of
who live in the Canal Zone do not have any occupational association with the
ultimate control of the Panama Canal through a multi-national agency, perhaps
Canal itself. In fact, of the 15,000 workers employed in the Canal Zone, only
under the authority of the U.N.
4,000 are Americans, and of that figure, only 1,289 work on the Canal. The other
Such treaties were totally unacceptable according to the thinking of scores
Americans are employed in support services which perpetuate community life
of U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators. The reaction, both in the U.S. and
such as schools, movie theatres, bowling alleys, commissaries, golf courses and a
Panama, was so hostile that those treaties were never signed and never submitted
zoo.
to the Senate.
The Zone has nicely paved roads, lovely suburban homes, and 15 per cent
It is discouraging, therefore, to see that negotiations are once again underway
differential on top of an inflated pay scale to entice people to come down from
with Panama, even though the present Government is a revolutionary regime
the States. The Canal Zone is a far cry from the jungle swampland that Walter
the State Department
with little prospect of stability and with no procedures for ratifying a new treaty.
Reed and his associates found in attempting to clear the land in the early part
openly acknowledges that
More discouraging still is the fact that the State Department openly acknowledges
of this century. It is a haven of segregated little communities, with whites pretty
the basis for negotiation is
that the basis for negotiation is the surrender of U.S. sovereignty and the giving
much having exclusive domicile of the towns of Balboa and Diablo Heights, and
the surrender of U.S.
up of our jurisdiction throughout most of the Zone.
non-US Panamanians and Jamaicans living in the Latin communities of Pedro
sovereignty
In my judgment, it is a semantic trick to maintain that the U.S. can keep
Miguel and Paraiso. It is nonsense for this Nation to perpetuate such an obvious
control of the Canal and the capability to defend it if ever we give up our sovereign
affront to the host country on the excuse that we are thereby better protecting the
rights. The duration of a treaty is not the key issue when the treaty itself gives
canal.
up our basic rights. Such a surrender document would last too long if it lasted
The fact is that the Canal Zone has little to do with protecting the canal from
only one day. I believe that if a new treaty is necessary-and I am not yet con-
invasion. According to Major General Donnelly P. Bolton of the Office of the
the Canal Zone has
vinced of that-then at a minimum we must maintain our sovereignty in the Zone,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations, Department of the Army, "no
little to do with protecting
with the physical control which that implies; and we must maintain U.S. citizens
significant Navy or Air Force high performance combat units are based in the
the canal from invasion."
in the policy-making and strategic areas of the Canal operation. It is a fallacy to
Zone. Most Air Force activity is oriented toward supporting such activities as
believe that we can control the Canal or keep our obligation to keep the Canal
disaster relief or military assistance. Navy elements are engaged primarily in
running if we allow foreign nationals to be in substantial control of the decision-
administrative and strategic support activities." The Army forces in the Canal
making and highly technical posts connected with the operation of the Canal.
Zone consist of one infantry battalion on the Atlantic end of Zone, and one
It is possible that certain disagreements and irritations can be solved through
mechanized infantry battalion on the Pacific side. General Bolton continues, "Army
negotiations with the Republic of Panama, but we can never agree to a treaty
units located in the Zone can be broken down to 46 per cent in combat and
which does not allow us to have the physical and actual capability of keeping
combat support, and 54 per cent in combat service support, headquarters, or
the Canal secure. It is for this reason that the sovereignty of the Canal Zone is
military assistance activities."
the key issue which must never be compromised.
It is important to note that in case of an attack on the Canal Zone, General
(PROS, continued on page 272)
(Continued on page 273)
270
NOVEMBER
1972
271
PRO
PROS, continued from page 270
CON
CRANSTON, continued from page 271
by HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD
Bolton says, "Reinforcement for the Zone would come from the pool of Army and
United States Representative, Pennsylvania, Democrat
Air Force units assigned to the U.S. Strike Command, MacDill AFB, Florida,
and Marine and Naval elements assigned to the CINC, Atlantic Command in
From testimony given on September 22, 1971, before the Subcommittee on Inter-
Norfolk, Virginia."
American Affairs of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in the course of
Clearly, the Canal Zone, and the forces residing there, do not provide signifi-
hearings on resolutions concerning Panama Canal sovereignty and jurisdiction.
cant protection for the Canal. The real muscle comes from forces based within the
A ranking authority on matters affecting the Panama Canal, Rep. Flood has long
continental United States. The Canal Zone-based forces provide little more than
been a spokesman for the retention of full U.S. Canal Zone sovereignty.
police protection in case of an invasion from within the Republic of Panama.
How then can we justify our grand presence in Panama? How does the pres-
.T
HE Panama Canal enterprise consists of two inseparable parts: (1) the Canal
ence of a colony of civilians help contribute to the stabilization of this area of the
itself, and (2) its absolutely necessary protective frame of the Canal Zone
world? Very little. On the contrary, it is my firm belief that the continuing exist-
territory. The two great canal issues now before the Nation are: (1) the transcen-
ence of the Canal Zone provides much fuel to the militant factions in Panama and
now before the Nation
dent key issue of retaining United States undiluted sovereignty over the Canal
elsewhere in Latin America who point to the Canal Zone as a colonialistic out-
the continuing exist-
is the key issue of retaining
Zone and (2) the important project of modernizing the existing Panama Canal
rage, fenced apart from the horrible slums which neighbor alongside.
ence of the Canal Zone
United States undiluted
by the construction of a third set of larger locks.
provides much fuel to the
I believe the United States should now relinquish its jurisdiction over the Zone.
sovereignty over the Canal
Unfortunately, the handling of the two principal issues has been greatly com-
militant factions in
The State Department and the President of the United States have recognized
Zone
plicated by radical Panamanian attacks on U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone
Panama and elsewbere in
that a new arrangement must be effected between our two governments-an
Latin America
"
and the exhumation of the corpse of the old controversy over types of canal
arrangement which is fair and equitable, and which does not jeopardize our secu-
high level lake-lock versus sea level tidal lock.
rity or commercial interests. I support these efforts for a new treaty, but I feel
In the convention of November 18, 1903, Panama granted to the United
that the negotiating team is not seeking to go as far as is necessary to eliminate
States in perpetuity the "use, occupation and control" of the Canal Zone terri-
the wrongful situation which continues to fester like an uncared-for wound. The
tory for the "construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection"
U.S. negotiating team now believes that the Canal Zone should be vastly reduced
of the Panama Canal with full "sovereign rights, power and authority" within
in size, with commercial interests in the Zone assigned to Panama. It does not
the Zone to the "entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of
propose, as has been alleged, to turn over the entire Canal Zone, including the
any such sovereign rights, power or authority." This was the indispensable agree-
Panama Canal, to Panama-nor do I propose such a step. The team has also
ment under which the United States undertook the great task of completing the
called for a gradual phase-out of American legal jurisdiction over cases involving
construction of the Panama Canal and its subsequent operation and defense, which
Americans in the area.
is binding on the United States as fully as on Panama.
The idea seems to be that more and more Americans will leave as Pana-
The terms of this treaty were not accidental. Our leaders at that time had
manians assume more jurisdictional control. I question the need for any continued
studied the history of the Isthmus and understood the problems that would be
American control over the affairs of civilian Americans in the Republic of Panama.
"
the United States
involved in such undertaking in a land of frightful disease and endemic revolution.
Does the United States exercise control of this nature in any other area of the
could not accept responsi-
They realized that the United States could not accept responsibility without
world where Americans choose to work and reside? The answer-except in diplo-
bility without complete
complete authority.
matic missions and on military bases-is no, not even within the Republic of
authority."
In addition to the grant of full sovereign rights, power and authority over the
Panama. Why should Americans living in the Canal Zone and working on the
Canal Zone, the United States obtained title by purchase of all privately owned
Panama Canal be treated any differently? If an American chooses to work abroad
land and property in the territory from individual property owners, making the
elsewhere, he does so knowing that he must abide by the laws and live according
Canal Zone the most costly territorial acquisition in the history of the United
to the rules of the host country.
States.
The United States does not need the Canal Zone in order to operate the
"The United States does
Because of the economic support of the Panama Canal, the full effects of the
Panama Canal. Because we permit unrestricted passage to countries of all political
not need the Canal Zone in
Great Depression of 1929 were not felt in Panama until 1932 when they stimu-
allegiances, including North Korea and Communist China, it cannot be said of us,
order to operate the
lated agitations for a new treaty. With the change of administrations in the United
as has been said of Egypt in the case of Suez, that we exclude our enemies.
Panama Canal."
States in 1933 our Government weakened as to the earlier official positions taken
We should make clear to Panama that in giving up jurisdiction over the Zone
by President Theodore Roosevelt, Secretaries Hay and Hughes, and negotiated
we are not giving up our military bases, nor the right to defend the Canal from
the Hull-Alfaro Treaty of 1936 with Panama.
alien aggressors or from aggressors within the Republic of Panama, even if our
Because of a strong opposition in the Senate it was not ratified until 1939
forces must cross over Panamanian soil to do so. Those rights should be an
(Continued on page 274)
(Continued on page 275)
272
NOVEMBER
1972
273
PRO
FLOOD, continued from page 272
CON
CRANSTON, continued from page 273
just before the start of World War II. In this treaty, the United States made
inherent part of the new treaty, and it is a small price for Panama to pay. It
important concessions to Panama, which included the construction of a Trans-
will also assuage the fears of those who feel the United States will lose the Panama
Canal by making such concessions.
Isthmian highway in Panama extending through the Canal Zone to Colón,
giving Panama jurisdiction over that highway in the Zone, renunciation of the
In summary, I believe the United States should return all aspects of sovereignty
right of eminent domain in the Republic of Panama for Canal purposes, and
in the Canal Zone back to the Republic of Panama, and that the United States
"I believe the United
surrender of U.S. authority to maintain public order in the cities of Panama and
should continue to own and operate the Canal as a world utility, retaining all
States should return all
Colón and adjacent areas. In a realistic sense this treaty was the start of our great
rights to defend the Canal, even to the point of moving our armed forces into
aspects of sovereignty in
the Treaty of 1936
giveaway programs, causing serious difficulties in obtaining military bases in
the Republic of Panama to do so.
the Canal Zone back to the
was the start of our great
Panama for defending the Panama Canal in World War II and creating dangerous
We in the United States might look toward our own country to seek an analogy
Republic of Panama
giveaway programs
precedents.
to the Panama Canal Zone situation. What if the British had built the Erie Canal
By 1953 agitations were well underway in Panama for the Chapin-Fábrega
in the early 1800's and set up a Zone of their own to run it? How then would the
Treaty, which without adequate understanding or debate, was ratified in 1955.
Americans of today feel toward a British Colony living alongside of Buffalo,
The 1955 Treaty completed the withdrawal of the United States from Panama to
New York, and Cleveland? Is the only difference really the fact that we Americans
the boundaries of the Canal Zone but did not alter the basic sovereignty and
are a vast world power, capable of removing such unwanted colonies, while the
perpetuity provisions of the 1903 Treaty as regards United States exclusive sov-
Panamanians are helpless to do anything about their own situation except make
ereign control in perpetuity of the Canal enterprise, which includes the Zone.
noises which are faint on the world scene?
On May 2, 1958, there was an organized mob invasion into the Canal Zone
If we are to behave as the greatest nation in the world-and we must-then
called Operation Sovereignty. Red-led Panamanian University students planted
we must set a proper example for nations large and small, rich and poor, around
72 Panama flags at various spots in the Zone, including some squarely in front
the world. We must solve such frictions before they become major confrontations.
of the Canal Administration Building. Instead of acting promptly to arrest and
We must in effect initiate solutions before the guns are fired, and blood is drawn.
punish the trespassers, our responsible authorities naively ignored the incidents
Too often, we have been a Nation of reactors. Let us act in a preventive way,
as youthful pranks. Instead of pranks they were probes of our Government's
and gain friends who will know that it was the United States that took the first
will power to stand up for the just and indispensable rights of the United States
step forward-not a step backward in retreat.
at Panama.
On September 17, 1960, soon after adjournment of the Congress, President
Eisenhower, without Congressional sanction and using emergency funds from the
by HON. ROBERT A. HURWITCH
Department of State, in a mistaken gesture of friendship, naively authorized the
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs
formal display of the Panama flag in one place in the Canal Zone at Shaler's
From testimony given on November 29, 1971, before the Subcommitte on the
Triangle as "visual evidence" of Panama's titular sovereignty over the Zone but
Panama Canal of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the
did not define the term, which is of purely reversionary character. Also as pre-
course of hearings on the subject of Panama Canal treaty negotiations.
dicted, Panamanians took this display not as evidence of titular sovereignty, but
as an official admission by the United States of its recognition of Panama's full
sovereignty over the Zone Territory.
T
HE 1903 Convention and the agreements associated with it have formed the
central core of our unique relationship with Panama ever since its founding
The Panama flag display was extended by President Eisenhower's successors,
and have constituted a built-in source of friction. The Canal Zone cuts through
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. They culminated in a massive Red led mob
the center of Panama. On the Pacific side, Panama City, the capital, adjoins the
a massive Red-led
invasion of the Canal Zone during January 9-12, 1964, again requiring the use
Zone, while the major city on the Caribbean is surrounded by the Zone. One
mob invasion of the Canal
of our armed forces to protect the lives of our citizens and the Canal itself. In
cannot cross from the eastern to the western half of the country without transiting
Zone in 1964
required
retaliation, Panama broke diplomatic relations with the United States and brought
the 10-mile-wide strip under U.S. jurisdiction.
"One cannot cross from the
the use of our armed
charges against the United States of "aggression" against Panama.
A host of specific issues relating to the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone
eastern to the western half
forces
Here I would like to stress that not one United States soldier left the Canal
have troubled U.S. relations through the years. In 1936 and 1955 we entered
of Panama without transit-
Zone but simply defended the lives of our citizens and the Canal with the result
into supplementary treaties designed to resolve some of them, but many continued
ing the 10-mile-wide strip
that there was no interruption of transit despite the magnitude of the disorders.
to rankle. Chief among these have been the U.S. treaty right to act as if sovereign
under U.S. jurisdiction."
This was the highest tribute to the wisdom of our policy of having United States
in perpetuity, the amount (now $1.93 million) of annual direct compensation,
citizens in security positions, and having a protective strip framing the Canal.
and our possession of certain areas of land which Panama urgently desires for
After President Johnson had an opportunity to get the necessary facts about
economic expansion and does not consider essential to the operation and defense
(Continued on page 276)
(Continued on page 277)
274
NOVEMBER
1972
275
PRO
FLOOD, continued from page 274
CON
HURWITCH, continued from page 275
the Panamanian mob attack, on January 14, 1964, he took a strong initial stand
of the canal. During 1962-63, representatives of Presidents Kennedy and Chiari
for exercising United States sovereignty over the Canal Zone stating that our
discussed points of dissatisfaction, but growing frustration and emotional national-
country had a "recognized treaty obligation to operate the Canal efficiently and
ism among Panamanians erupted in January 1964 in a four-day riot on the Canal
growing frustration
securely, and (that) we intend to honor that obligation in the interest of all who
Zone borders in which 18 Panamanians and 4 American soldiers were killed,
and emotional nationalism
depend upon it."
hundreds injured, and millions of dollars worth of property destroyed. Panama
among Panamanians
Unfortunately, after this initial policy statement he apparently fell into the
broke off diplomatic relations with the United States, charging us with acts of
erupted in 1964 in a four-
clutches of Department of State miners and sappers and reversed his original
aggression, and took her case to the United Nations and the Organization of
day riot on the Canal Zone
position. Consequently, on December 18, 1964, after restoration of normal rela-
American States. In April 1964, the OAS announced that an agreement had been
borders
tions with Panama, President Johnson announced that the U.S. Government had
reached between the United States and Panama to re-establish diplomatic rela-
completed an intensive policy review with respect to the present and future of
tions and to designate special Ambassadors with sufficient powers to seek the
"President Johnson an-
nounced that the U.S. had
the Panama Canal and that he had reached two decisions:
prompt elimination of points of dissatisfaction, without limitations or precondi-
completed an intensive
First, to press forward with Panama and other interested governments for a
tions of any kind. President Johnson appointed the distinguished former Secretary
policy review
with
sea level canal; and second, to negotiate an entirely new canal treaty for the
of the Treasury and Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Robert B. Anderson, as the Spe-
respect to the Canal
existing Panama Canal.
cal U.S. Representative, and three draft treaties resulted from the 1964-67 nego-
tiations.
In June 1967, President Johnson and President Marco A. Robles of Panama
jointly announced that agreement had been reached on three proposed new canal
During the years 1965-1970, Ambassador Anderson also headed the Atlantic-
treaties as follows:
Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission. After more than five years of
study and investigation, the Commission concluded, inter alia, that current U.S.
The first, covering the operation of the present canal, would have (1) abro-
canal policy should not be made in the expectation that nuclear excavation tech-
gated the Treaty of 1903, (2) recognized Panamanian sovereignty over the Canal
nology would be available for canal construction; that the construction of a sea-
Zone, (3) made Panama an active partner in the management and defense of the
level canal by conventional means is physically feasible; that the most suitable
Canal, (4) increased toll royalties to Panama, and (5) eventually given to
site for such a canal is on Route 10 in Panama a few miles west of the present
Panama exclusive possession in 1999 if no new canal were constructed at U.S.
canal; that its construction cost would be about $2.8 billion in 1970 prices; and
expense or soon after opening of a sea level canal but not later than 2009 if a
that amortization might or might not be possible from tolls, depending on a
new canal were built.
number of future factors.
The second treaty for a canal of sea level design would have given the United
The President of Panama did not act to have the 1967 draft treaties ratified,
States an option for 20 years after ratification to start construction, 15 more years
for construction and a majority membership in the canal authority for 60 years
and no action was taken on them by our Government. Panamanian attention was
after opening or until 2067, whichever was earlier. Additional agreements to fix
largely concentrated on domestic developments for a few years. After a long and
the specific conditions for its combinations would have to be negotiated when the
bitter political campaign, Dr. Arnulfo Arias was elected President in May 1968
United States should decide to execute its option.
and inaugurated on October 1st. On October 11, Dr. Arias was ousted by a coup
-a fate he had also suffered during his two previous presidential terms-and a
The third treaty for defense would have provided for the continued use of
military junta took over the Government of Panama. Following a period of some
military bases by U.S. Forces in Panama for 5 years beyond the termination date
initial instability, the Provisional Junta Government established itself firmly in
of the proposed treaty for the operation of the existing canal. If a new canal in
power under the leadership of Brigadier General Omar Torrijos, Commandant of
Panama were constructed the military base rights treaty would have to be
the National Guard. After a study of the 1967 drafts, the Provisional Junta
extended for the duration of the treaty for the new canal.
Government rejected them and asked us to renew discussions for a new canal
Although President Johnson did make a press release outlining the general
treaty.
aims of the treaties, the governments of both the United States and Panama
The United States had no realistic choice but to agree to the renewal of nego-
the proposed treaties
withheld publication of the proposed treaties apparently with the hope that they
tiations. The canal issue in Panama is just as emotional and nationalistic an issue
aroused a storm of
would be ratified by our Senate without adequate debate.
Panama has some
now as it ever was. In all fairness, it must be admitted that Panama has some
protests
Ferreted out through journalistic initiative, published, and later quoted in
reasonable grievances in
reasonable grievances in connection with the present situation. This Administration
connection with the
addresses to the U.S. Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, they
firmly believes that differences should be settled at the negotiating table if mutually
aroused a storm of protests in both Panama and the United States as well as in
present situation."
satisfactory agreements can be reached. We fully recognize that the conditions
Great Britain and Japan, which are large users of the Panama Canal. So strong
which existed in 1903-and Panamanians were dissatisfied with some aspects of
were these protests that the proposed 1967 treaties were never signed.
the treaty even then-no longer exist in 1971, and that treaty provisions appro-
One of the great purposes of United States policy of exclusive sovereign con-
priate then may no longer be appropriate now. Treaties after all must bear a
(Continued on page 278)
(Continued on page 279)
276
NOVEMBER
1972
277
PRO
FLOOD, continued from page 276
CON
HURWITCH, continued from page 277
trol over the Canal Zone was the avoidance of the never ending conflicts and
reasonable relationship to the environment in which they exist. It is our firm
recriminations that always accompany extra-territorial rights. To speak so bluntly
intention to secure essential U.S. objectives with respect to the right to operate
as the gravity of the situation at Panama demands, the State Department in recent
and defend the present canal and to provide additional capacity when needed
years has been dominated by those who timidly accept as valid every major claim
either by a third set of locks or by building a sea-level canal. At the same time,
of Panamanian radicals for the surrender by the United States of its sovereignty
it is our earnest desire to meet certain reasonable Panamanian aspirations with
over the canal enterprise and its transfer to Panama. Such action would undoubt-
the objective of contributing to a more enduring relationship between Panama and
edly result in the immediate dominance of the Isthmus including the Canal Zone
the United States and a more secure environment for the canal. In the modern
by Soviet powers against which Panama could not cope.
world, we can no longer look upon a sovereign enclave in the territory of another
we can no longer look
the State Department
Though averring that the United States has "no intention of yielding control
country in perpetuity as a secure environment in which to operate a canal, a canal
upon a sovereign enclave
view is that it is in U.S.
and defense of the Canal to the threat of violence," the State Department view
which is of incalculable value to our own security and commerce and a tremen-
in the territory of another
interest to demonstrate
is that it is in United States interest to demonstrate again as in 1967 our "willing-
dous service to world trade.
country in perpetuity as a
our willingness to make
ness to make adjustments" which do not significantly weaken our rights to control
In this connection, it should be noted that the Panama Canal is of great
secure environment in
adjustments'
and defend the canal and that it would be difficult for the United States to "justify
economic importance to many Latin American countries. More than 50 per cent
which to operate a canal
itself in world forums" in the event it is again forced to "commit" its armed
of the total ocean-borne trade of three of them transits the canal, as does more
"
forces against "Panamanian incursion into the Canal Zone." Could there be any
than 30 per cent of another five and over 20 per cent of one more. Those nations
more obvious double talk? The United States did not commit its Armed Forces
obviously have high stakes in the continuance of an efficient canal charging reason-
against anybody.
able tolls. At the same time, we believe they would like to see those conditions
Such statements of policy are an expression of willingness to surrender in
prevail under the aegis of a modern treaty mutually considered by the U.S. and
advance. What could be more pusillanimous or unrealistic than this State Depart-
Panama to be just and fair. We believe that such a treaty would be a contribu-
ment pronouncement! No wonder the eyes of the world are watching us at
tion to the peace of the hemisphere and would also enhance our position within
Panama, for upon what we do there could well depend the freedom or the slavery
the hemisphere.
of the world. Shabby sentimentality has no place in the consideration of the
problems of the Canal Zone and Panama Canal.
As foreseen by the formulators of our major Isthmian Canal policies of site,
by HON. DAVID H. WARD
type and control, the Panama Canal is a part of the coastline of the United States.
U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for International Affairs
Its protection is just as vital to national defense as the protection of Delaware
From testimony given on December 1, 1971, before the Subcommittee on the
Bay or San Francisco Harbor.
Panama Canal of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the
General plans for the major increase of capacity and operational improve-
protection of the
course of hearings on the subject of Panama Canal treaty negotiations.
ments of the existing canal have been developed and are covered in pending legis-
Panama Canal is just as
lation but cannot proceed until the sovereignty issue is clarified and our undiluted
vital as the protection of
control and ownership of the canal and the Canal Zone fully understood and
F
UNDAMENTALLY, the United States is in Panama because of the Panama Canal.
Delaware Bay or San
The prime interest of the Department of Defense, and indeed of the United
recognized, for the Canal can no more be separated from the Zone than boilers
Francisco Harbor."
States, is that the Panama Canal remain open to shipping bound to and from
from a steam power plant.
United States ports and to United States and allied naval shipping. In order to
The present task before the House of Representatives is the transcendent one
preserve this interest we must be concerned with the following means to that end:
of clarification and reaffirmation of our sovereign control of the Panama Canal
First, the Canal organization-this means the American and Panamanian
enterprise. The resolutions now pending reflect the views of our best informed
people who do the job of running the Canal, and the machinery and facilities
Congressional leaders and specially qualified citizens from various parts of the
which they employ in this task.
Nation. Their adoption will serve notice in the world, especially to Soviet rulers,
Second, our defense forces which defend the Canal, and the bases and military
that the United States has the will to meet its treaty obligations at Panama and
rights of these forces.
that it will continue to do so and thus serve to regain the public image that our
Third, our relationship with Panama whose territory is traversed by the Canal,
great country has lost through weak and timid policies in recent years. It will
many of whose citizens are employed in its operations and whose two principal
open the way for the next great step by the Congress in the evolution of our
"Panama is discontented
cities border on ours at the two ends of the Canal.
Isthmian Canal policy-the major modernization of the existing Panama Canal.
with our treaty relation-
These two steps together, sovereignty reaffirmation and modernization, should
As is well known, Panama is discontented with our treaty relationship. An
ship. An adjustment of this
meet the canal situation for many years into the future.
adjustment of this relationship is desirable, provided that it can be done without
relationship is desirable
weakening the organization by which we operate the Canal and without jeopardiz-
(PROS, continued on page 280)
(Continued on page 281)
278
NOVEMBER
1972
279
PRO
PROS, continued from page 278
CON
WARD, continued from page 279
ing our defense interests in the Canal Zone. It is also important that the United
by HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN
United States Representative, Missouri, Democrat
States gain the right to build a sea-level canal so that that option will be available
to us in the future. We are hopeful that an adjustment can be made which meets
From a statement issued on July 15, 1971. For fourteen years Rep. Sullivan
the most important concerns of both nations and it is to that end that negotiations
served as chairman of the Panama Canal Subcommittee of the House Committee
are being conducted.
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Over a period of years Panama will assume responsibility for some of the
governmental functions now carried out by the Canal Zone Government but it is
"Over a period of years
I
AM gravely concerned over reports to the effect that the Administration is
our particular care that this gradual evolution occur in a way consistent with the
Panama will assume re-
"I am gravely concerned
taking active steps which may result in the reopening of treaty negotiations
just expectations and concerns of our employees. We will negotiate ample treaty
reopening of
sponsibility for some of the
over
with the Republic of Panama.
rights to cover our employees, facilities and operational prerogatives.
treaty negotiations with
governmental functions
I have been associated with affairs in the Republic of Panama, and more
the Republic of Panama."
Defense interests are of course of vital importance to us in these negotiations.
now carried out by the
particularly in the Canal Zone, since the mid-1930's and officially since 1953. As
As you will recognize, the Canal itself is a valuable defense asset and the bases
Canal Zone Government
past Chairman of the Subcommittee on Panama Canal, I have worked closely
located in the Canal Zone play a significant role in our defense posture. At present
with the Panama Canal Company, the people of Panama, and the people of the
we have approximately 12,000 military personnel in the Canal Zone. We also
Canal Zone. In light of this long association with the affairs of Panama and the
have an extensive base structure.
Canal Zone, I was amazed and dismayed to learn that the Administration has
For the foreseeable future the United States must have unilateral rights to take
sent Ambassador Robert B. Anderson to discuss the reopening of negotiations
whatever action is necessary to defend the Canal and not be obliged to depend
for new treaties with the Provisional Government of General Torrijos. Ambassa-
upon the consent of any other nation to keep it in operation. This is fundamental.
dor Anderson, of course, was the Special Representative who headed the team
But this is not to say that Panama and its forces will not play an important role
which negotiated the three treaties with the Republic of Panama between 1964
in keeping the Canal open. Since the Canal and our employees are not isolated
and 1967.
from Panamanian population centers we rely upon Panama to deal with civil
It is a fact that the abortive 1967 treaties never came to fruition and ended
disturbances in its own territory that may spill over into the Zone and in the
on a very negative note. For example, copies of these draft treaties were never
unlikely event of an attack by a third party, Panama would undoubtedly become
made available to the Congress of the United States but apparently were being
involved in common cause with us.
circulated on the streets of Panama back in 1967. In addition, these proposed
Although the negotiations will result in some land concessions to Panama we
treaties evoked loud protest from the people of the United States and, more particu-
fully intend that bases necessary for our vital defense interests be retained. This
these proposed treat-
larly, from the Congress. Indeed, the House of Representatives in the Ninety-first
is one of the non-negotiable parts of our position.
ies evoked loud protest
Congress expressed itself as to the 1967 treaties blunder through the introduction
In addition to the Canal defense mission, there are certain collateral military
from the Congress."
of some 105 resolutions declaring it to be the policy of the House of Representa-
activities carried on in the Canal Zone which will continue. These benefit not only
tives and the desire of the people that the United States should maintain its
the United States but also Panama and its other Rio Pact allies. One example is
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone. In fact, since 1967,
the military schools in the Zone which give extensive training to officers from
the Provisional Government of Panama itself has made known its objections to
Latin American military establishments. Over 1,300 members of the Panamanian
the 1967 draft treaties in unmistakable terms.
military have received training at these schools. Another example of activities
From the standpoint of the U.S., there were a number of disabilities inherent
unrelated to Canal defense is that of humanitarian assistance. Our military forces
in those treaties. They would have, for example, resulted in the United States
in Panama have on many occasions assisted Latin American nations, and Panama
relinquishing its powers of sovereignty over the Canal and would have operated
in particular, in times of natural disaster.
in such a way that the United States would not be able to control effectively the
It will be necessary for us to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement for our
Panama Canal or provide for its defense in a satisfactory manner. In addition,
"It will be necessary for us
forces in Panama. There is very substantial precedent for agreements of this type
those treaties contemplated an unrealistic and unreasonable increase in tolls,
to negotiate a Status of
and our experience throughout the world is useful in developing the provisions
rates and revenues and did not take into account the constitutional authority of
Forces Agreement for our
that must be included. Such an agreement would of course have to include appro-
Congress over the disposal of United States property. Also, those treaties would
forces in Panama."
priate provisions regarding our Canal defense rights, freedom of access and move-
have removed the Canal from the authority of the United States Congress. In this
ment for our forces, and protection for the rights of individual members of the
connection, it should be noted that under the 1967 draft treaty relating to the
service in Panama. In our view it will be possible for us to fulfill our mission in
present locks canal, control of the Canal would have passed from the Congress
Panama while operating under a Status of Forces Agreement, as we do in other
to the nine-man governing authority and the five American members would be
parts of the world.
appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and responsible
(Continued on page 282)
(Continued on page 283)
1972
NOVEMBER
281
280
PRO
SULLIVAN, continued from page 280
CON
WARD, continued from page 281
to the Executive, not to the Congress. This arrangement alone would tend to cast
The question of expansion of Canal capacity is a major one in the treaty
the treaties in an unfavorable light with respect to the Congress.
negotiations. The logistical importance of the Canal is well known to this Com-
Aside from the disabilities inherent in these treaties, they are based on a
mittee, as is its usefulness for the transit of combat ships. The day can be expected
number of erroneous premises. For example, at the time the 1967 treaties were
to come when this same interest in the lock canal will dictate an expansion of
these treaties
are
based on a number of erro-
drafted and negotiated, it was thought that a sea-level canal was economically
Canal capacity. The Interoceanic Canal Study Commission set up a National
neous premises."
feasible and could be built by nuclear excavation. It is clear from the Atlantic-
Defense Study Group of which I was the Chairman at the time of issuance of
Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission Report that nuclear excavation has
its report. The study group concluded, and the Department of Defense and the
been eliminated for the foreseeable future. Absent nuclear excavation, it would
Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed, that a new sea-level canal would represent a major
cost approximately $2.5 to $3 billion (at 1970 estimate cost figures) to construct
defense asset for the United States. Our conclusion was heavily based upon the
a new sea-level canal on Route 10, as recommended by the Interoceanic Canal
fact that a sea-level canal is less vulnerable to attack than a lock canal and that
Study Commission. Testimony before our Committee has shown that based on
such a canal would be wide enough to permit the passage of our aircraft carriers,
traffic forecasts and the Canal Improvement program, the existing Canal should
some of which are too wide for the present canal. Although the decision as to
be able to handle the traffic to the end of the century. At the present time, it seems
the construction of a sea-level canal or a third set of locks will probably not be
clear that the Republic of Panama, or anyone else for that matter, cannot premise
made for some time, the Department of Defense strongly supports the objective
treaty negotiations on the assumption that Congress will authorize the construction
of gaining definitive options to expand Canal capacity.
of a new sea-level canal or enact legislation to transfer the existing Canal to any
In conclusion, the Department of Defense is interested in an adjustment of
"Department of Defense is
other country.
our treaty relationship with Panama which will remove at least some of the major
interested in an adjustment
If the 1967 proposals were unacceptable to the American people and to the
causes of friction that might threaten the peaceful operation of the lock canal
of our treaty relationship
Congress, how much more unacceptable will new treaties be which go even
and foreclose to us the option of building a sea-level canal. Our mission of defend-
with Panama which will
further than the last round of treaties in ceding American jurisdiction and sov-
ing the lock canal, with its locks and dams and 52 miles of bank largely covered
remove at least some of the
ereignty in the Canal Zone? For the Government of Panama expressed its dis-
with jungle, will be facilitated by good relations with the people of Panama. But
major causes of friction
satisfaction with the 1967 treaties in an August 5, 1970 letter to our Secretary of
we must ensure that a new treaty fully protects our vital defense interests. It
State and simultaneously released a 32-page document explaining the reasons for
must also fully protect our interest in operating the Canal. And, finally, it is
rejecting the 1967 draft treaties. In general, this document took an extreme posi-
important that Canal expansion be clearly permitted by a new treaty.
tion which, in effect, rejected U.S. control of the Canal, the right of the U.S. to
maintain military forces on the Isthmus, and rejected the management of the
Canal for the benefit of shipping rather than the enrichment of Panama.
by AMBASSADOR JOHN C. MUNDT
It seems to me that it is entirely improper and incorrect when so many priority
Special Representative of the United States for Panama Treaty Negotiations
problems are facing the country at this time, that we should be pressured into
From testimony given on November 29, 1971, before the Subcommittee on the
opening up negotiations on new treaties that will once again engender enormous
Panama Canal of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the
reopening negotia-
controversy and opposition. Undoubtedly, reopening negotiations on the type of
course of hearings on the subject of Panama Canal treaty negotiations.
tions on the type of treaties
treaties anticipated will result in protest by the American people when they learn
anticipated will result in
the facts.
P
ANAMA has been discontented with the Treaty of 1903 since its inception and
protest by the American
The possibility of new treaty negotiations raises several basic questions in my
"The United States ac-
has pressed for more favorable terms with increasing intensity in recent years.
people when they learn the
mind:
The United States acknowledged as early as 1905 that under the 1903 Treaty
knowledged as early as
1. Why must we enter into treaty negotiations which give every indication
1905 that under the 1903
facts."
Panama retained titular sovereignty over the Canal Zone. Treaty revisions were
of being contrary to the best interests of the United States?
made in 1936 and 1955. However, the most objectionable feature from Panama's
Treaty Panama retained
2. Must we enter into treaty negotiations at this time which can only cause
viewpoint-United States exercise of rights as if sovereign in the Canal Zone in
titular sovereignty over
the Canal Zone."
further unrest in both the United States and Panama?
perpetuity-remained unchanged. Neither did the increases in payments and other
3. Where has the United States failed in living up to its duties, obligations and
economic benefits for Panama in the two revisions provide what Panama consid-
commitments as set out in the basic 1903 treaty and its revisions of 1936 and
ered a fair sharing of the benefits of the canal. Panama's discontent led to destruc-
1955?
tive riots along the Canal Zone border in 1958 and 1964.
I would be at least a little less apprehensive if someone in the Administration
Following discussion of the Panama situation in the OAS, the UN, and in other
could answer these questions for me.
international forums, President Johnson agreed in 1964 to begin negotiations for
a new treaty relationship. In reaching this decision, President Johnson had con-
(Pros, continued on page 284)
(Continued on page 285)
282
NOVEMBER
1972
283
PRO
PROS, continued from page 282
CON
MUNDT, continued from page 283
sulted with and obtained the support of Presidents Hoover, Truman and Eisen-
by COMMITTEE FOR CONTINUED U.S. CONTROL OF PANAMA CANAL
hower.
From a memorial addressed to the 92nd Congress late in 1971. The Committee
Three draft treaties were negotiated by the United States and Panama between
was organized by Prof. Richard B. O'Keefe of George Mason College, the Uni-
1964 and 1967. The President of Panama did not act to have these treaties
versity of Virginia, research consultant on the Panama Canal.
ratified. Consequently, no action was taken on them by the United States.
"The construction
of
The Government of Panama has changed twice since 1967, and the Govern-
T
HE construction by the United States of the Panama Canal (1904-1914) was
the Panama Canal was the
ment now in power is entering upon its fourth year. It is recognized by the United
the greatest industrial enterprise in history. Undertaken as a long-range com-
"President Nixon
has
greatest industrial enter-
States. President Nixon agreed more than one year ago to renew treaty negotia-
mitment by the United States, in fulfillment of solemn treaty obligations (Hay-
tions and has established negotiating objectives similar to those set by President
established negotiating ob-
prise in bistory."
Pauncefote Treaty of 1901) as a "mandate for civilization" in an area notorious
Johnson in 1964, modified by developments since that time. United States objec-
jectives similar to those set
as the pest hole of the world and as a land of endemic revolution, endless intrigue
tives and positions thus reflect a bipartisan approach toward treaty negotiations
by President Johnson in
and governmental instability, the task was accomplished in spite of physical and
1964
with Panama.
health conditions that seemed insuperable. Its subsequent management and opera-
The United States has three essential objectives:
tion on terms of "entire equality" with tolls that are "just and equitable" have
won the praise of the world, particularly countries that use the Canal.
1. That the U.S. control canal operations for a very long period to ensure
that the canal remains available to our and the world's vessels on a non-discrimina-
Full sovereign rights, power and authority of the United States over the Canal
tory basis at reasonable tolls.
Zone territory and Canal were acquired by treaty grant in perpetuity from Panama
(Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903). In addition to the indemnity paid by the
2. That the United States have unimpaired rights to defend the canal from any
United States to Panama for the necessary sovereignty and jurisdiction, all pri-
threat, and to maintain its uninterrupted operation in peace or war.
vately owned land and property in the Zone were purchased by the United States
3. That the United States have the right to expand canal capacity, either by
from individual owners; and Colombia, the sovereign of the Isthmus before
adding an additional lane of locks or by building a sea-level canal.
Panama's independence, has recognized the title to the Panama Canal and Rail-
The Government of Panama has indicated that it is willing to grant these
road as vested "entirely and absolutely" in the United States (Thomson-Urrutia
rights to the United States in a new treaty, but wishes to eliminate the causes of
Treaty of 1914-22). The cost of acquiring the Canal Zone, as of March 31, 1964,
conflict with the U.S. in Panama.
totaled $144,568,571, making it the most expensive territorial extension in the
There are many things that I could cite that are irritants to our relations
history of the United States. Because of the vast protective obligations of the
with Panama-U.S. occupation of land needed by Panama (that we do not need),
United States, the perpetuity provisions in the 1903 treaty assure that Panama
the presence of a U.S. Canal Zone Government in Panama, and the contrast in
"The cost of acquiring the
will remain a free and independent country in perpetuity, for these provisions bind
Canal Zone
made it the
living standards between the Zone and nearby Panamanian communities. Suffice
the United States as well as Panama.
it to say that Panamanian resentments are sufficient that they have boiled over in
most expensive territorial
Starting with the 1936-39 Treaty with Panama, there has been a sustained
extension in the history of
destructive and bloody riots twice in recent years. It is in our interest to develop
the United States."
erosion of United States rights, powers and authority on the Isthmus, culminating
in place of this a relationship that is based upon mutual needs and benefits and
in the completion, in 1967, of negotiations for three proposed canal treaties that
that is adhered to willingly on both sides.
"It is in our interest to
would:
As I have already mentioned, a primary United States objective is the right
develop
a
relationship
1. Surrender United States sovereignty over the Canal Zone to Panama;
to administer, operate and defend the canal for an extended period of time. We
that is based on mutual
2. Make that weak, technologically primitive and unstable country a senior
are confident this can be negotiated.
needs and benefits
partner in the management and defense of the Canal;
The United States seeks clear provisions which would permit the expansion
3. Ultimately give to Panama not only the existing Canal, but also any new one
of canal capacity to meet world shipping needs by the construction of either a
constructed in Panama to replace it, all without any compensation whatever and
sea-level canal or third locks for the present canal. The Atlantic-Pacific Inter-
all in derogation of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This
oceanic Canal Study Commission reported that greater canal capacity will prob-
Clause vests the power to dispose of territory and other property of the United
ably be needed before the end of the century. A new treaty is needed to permit
States in the entire Congress (House and Senate) and not in the treaty-making
the construction of a sea-level canal and to ensure Panamanian acceptance of a
power of our Government (President and Senate)-a Constitutional provision
United States decision to expand the existing lock canal by addition of a third
observed in the 1955 Treaty with Panama.
set of locks. No decision has yet been made as to which alternative will be
It is clear from the conduct of our Panama Canal policy over many years that
adopted, and a decision is not likely until well after a new treaty has been ratified.
policy-making elements within the Department of State, in direct violation of
It is estimated that a sea-level canal, which would be less vulnerable to attack or
(Continued on page 286)
(Continued on page 287)
284
NOVEMBER
1972
285
PRO
CFCUSC, continued from page 284
CON
MUNDT, continued from page 285
sabotage, would cost about $2.8 billion to build and that a third set of locks
the indicated Constitutional provision, have been, and are yet, engaged in efforts
would cost about $1.5 billion.
which will have the effect of diluting or even repudiating entirely the sovereign
rights, power and authority of the United States with respect to the Canal and of
Panama seeks the application of its laws to various activities in the present
"Certain jurisdictional
dissipating the vast investment of the United States in the Panama Canal project.
Canal Zone. Certain jurisdictional rights and activities, including commercial
rights and activities
Such actions would eventually and inevitably permit the domination of this stra-
operations, not necessary for the administration, operation and defense of the
can be transferred to
tegic waterway by a potentially hostile power that now indirectly controls the
canal, can be transferred to Panama without adversely affecting the United States
Panama without adversely
Suez Canal. That canal, under such domination, ceased to operate in 1967 with
interests. Panama today can provide nearly all the commercial services essential
affecting the United States
vast consequences of evil to world trade.
to the health and welfare of the personnel who operate the Canal. Right now
interests."
some 5,000 U.S. citizens live in the Republic of Panama. Some are engaged in a
"[These] efforts
will
Extensive debates in the Congress over the past decade have clarified and
have the effect of diluting
narrowed the key canal issues to the following:
wide variety of private business activities and others commute daily to jobs in
the Canal Zone. They are fully subject to Panamanian law and police jurisdiction
or repudiating the sov-
1. Retention by the United States of its undiluted and indispensable sovereign
and have experienced no significant difficulties. Throughout the world tens of
ereign rights of the United
rights, power and authority over the Canal Zone territory and Canal as provided
thousands of U.S. Government employees live and work satisfactorily under the
States with respect to the
by existing treaties;
legal jurisdiction of foreign governments. The United States will continue to have
Canal
2. The major modernization of the existing Panama Canal as provided for in
adequate protection of the rights of its canal employees under a new treaty, and
the Terminal Lake Proposal.
I assure you that we will not negotiate away legal rights essential to the operation
Unfortunately, these efforts have been complicated by the agitation of Pana-
and protection of the canal. Our military personnel will be protected by a Status
manian extremists, aided and abetted by irresponsible elements in the United
of Forces Agreement comparable with other such agreements elsewhere in the
States, aimed at ceding to Panama complete sovereignty over the Canal Zone and,
world.
eventually, the ownership of the existing Canal and any future canal in the Zone
Commercial activities currently conducted by the Panama Canal Company will
or in Panama that might be built by the United States to replace it.
gradually be phased into private operation as arrangements can be worked out
In the 1st Session of the 92d Congress identical bills were introduced in both
for their satisfactory conduct under Panamanian law. The U.S. will reserve the
House and Senate to provide for the major increase of capacity and operational
right to continue to conduct essential commercial services where satisfactory
improvement of the existing Panama Canal by modifying the authorized Third
private operation cannot be arranged. Military commissaries and post exchanges
Locks Project to embody the principles of the previously mentioned Terminal
will not be affected by the proposed changes. Some piers we plan to turn over to
Lake solution, which competent authorities consider would supply the best opera-
Panama outright as proposed in 1967, inasmuch as the U.S. now controls all
tional canal practicable of achievement, and at least cost without treaty involve-
deep-water port capacity in the Republic of Panama, and the U.S. needs for such
ment.
capacity will be greatly reduced with the termination of Canal Company commer-
Starting on January 26, 1971, many Members of Congress have sponsored
cial activities. Pier capacity for military and Canal Administration requirements
resolutions expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United
will be retained under U.S. control.
States should maintain and protect its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the
The economies of many Central and South American countries are closely
Panama Canal enterprise, including the Canal Zone, and not surrender any of its
tied to the uninterrupted operation of the Panama Canal at reasonable tolls.
powers to any other nation or to any international organization in derogation of
There is considerable fear among canal users in Latin America and worldwide
present treaty provisions.
that, without continued U.S. control, the Canal might be operated to produce
The Panama Canal is a priceless asset of the United States, essential for
maximum revenues rather than as a utility serving world trade at reasonable tolls.
interoceanic commerce and hemispheric security. The recent efforts to wrest its
On the other hand, there is widespread support in Latin America for Panama's
control from the United States trace back to the 1917 Communist Revolution and
efforts to obtain greater practical exercise of its sovereignty and to terminate the
conform to long-range Soviet policy of gaining domination over key water routes
objectionable aspects of the U.S. presence in the Canal Zone, which is exactly
the real issue at
as in Cuba, which flanks the Atlantic approach to the Panama Canal, and as was
one of the U.S. objectives in the current negotiations.
Panama
is United
accomplished in the case of the Suez Canal, which the Soviet Union now wishes
U.S. control and defense of a canal in Panama well into the next century is
States control versus Soviet
opened in connection with its naval buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean and
not at stake in the current negotiations. We are seeking a treaty arrangement with
"We can afford to make
control."
Indian Ocean. Thus, the real issue at Panama, dramatized by the Communist take-
Panama that will ensure the continuation of the U.S. presence in tranquillity. This
adjustments in our treaty
over of strategically located Cuba and Chile, is not United States control versus
means that this presence must not be imposed on an unwilling partner. It must be
relations with Panama."
Panamanian but United States control versus Soviet control. This is the issue that
established on a mutually acceptable basis. We can afford to make adjustments
should be debated in the Congress.
in our treaty relations with Panama.
1972
287
286
NOVEMBER
THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE
HIGHLIGHTS OF PROPOSED TREATIES
From page 260
From page 266
Organization of the Current, the 92nd Congress
has designated the Secretary of the Army to act as stock-
istration the right and power to adopt, by an absolute
holder, specifying that in so doing he shall act as the direct
majority vote of the board, statutes with respect to [spe-
Duration: January 3, 1971-January 3, 1973. First Session convened Jan. 21, 1971; adjourned Dec. 17, 1971.
representative of the President and not in his capacity as
cified] subject matters, which shall comprise the statute
Second Session convened Jan. 18, 1972; adjourned Oct. 18, 1972.
head of the Department of the Army.
for the canal area and shall be the applicable law
in
Management of the Company is vested in a board of
the canal area, to the exclusion of any other statutory law.
THE U. S. SENATE
THE U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
directors, consisting of not less than nine nor more than
Article XXXIII. "1. The administration shall operate
Total Membership, 100: 54 Dem., 44 Rep., 1 Cons., 1 Ind.
Total Membership, 435: 255 Dem., 177 Rep., 3 Vacancies
thirteen members, including the Governor of the Canal
the Panama canal both to provide the Republic of Panama
PRESIDING OFFICER: The Vice President of the U.S.
PRESIDING OFFICER: The Speaker of the House
Zone and the stockholder, if he elects to serve. The other
and the United States of America a fair return in the
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE: Spiro T. Agnew, Maryland, R.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Carl B. Albert, Oklahoma, D.
members of the board are appointed by and serve at the
light of their contributions to the creation and mainte-
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: James O. Eastland, Miss., D.
pleasure of the stockholder. The directors receive no
nance of this interoceanic waterway and in the interest of
salary but are paid a per diem allowance and transporta-
FLOOR LEADERS: Majority Leader-Mike Mansfield, Mon-
FLOOR LEADERS: Majority Leader-Hale Boggs, Louisiana,
world commerce.
tana, D.; Minority Leader-Hugh Scott, Pennsylvania, R.
D.; Minority Leader-Gerald R. Ford, Michigan, R.
tion expenses for travel in connection with their services
"2. The administration may establish and apply new
to the Company.
rates of tolls and related charges for the transit of the
PARTY WHIPS: Majority Whip-Robert C. Byrd, W. Va.,
PARTY WHIPS: Majority Whip-Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
The powers of the Company, enumerated in its charter,
D.; Minority Whip-Robert P. Griffin, Michigan, R.
Mass., D.; Minority Whip-Leslie C. Arends, Illinois, R.
canal by vessels and cargoes, in conformity with [speci-
in general extend to operations directly involved in the
fied] provisions
movement of ships through the Canal and supporting
Article XXXIV. "1. The Republic of Panama de-
services. The latter include vessel repairs, harbor ter-
clares the Panama canal to be neutral.
minals, a railroad across the Isthmus, a supply ship oper-
"2. The Republic of Panama and the United States of
Recent Issues of The Congressional Digest
ating between the United States and the Canal Zone, motor
America agree that the neutrality of the canal, the en-
1972 Presidential Election Issues-Oct. '72
A Six-Year Presidential Term-Mar. '72
transportation facilities, storehouses, an electric power
trances thereto, and the territorial seas adjacent thereto,
system, a communications system, a water system, and
Financing Public Education-Aug.-Sept. '72
National Health Insurance Proposals-Feb. '72
shall be maintained in accordance with the principles
service activities essential to meeting the needs of em-
which have governed since the canal was opened.
The Future U.S. Space Program-Je.-Jy. '72
Federal Voter Registration by Mail-Jan. '72
ployees, such as living quarters, retail stores, etc.
Article XXXVIII. "1. Upon the entry into force of
Federal Role in Day-Care-May '72
U.S. Adoption of Metric System-Dec. '71
Under its charter the Company is required to be self-
this treaty, all rights of the United States of America to
sustaining, although appropriations are authorized to
Expanding the Minimum Wage Law-Apr. '72
"Equal Employment" Enforcement-Nov. '71
real property in the territory which constituted the Canal
cover any operating losses or for capital improvements.
Zone but which is not included in the canal area and in
Appropriations for operating losses are required to be
the areas described [in the proposed Panama Canal de-
repaid. Since the 1950 reorganization, all operating ex-
fense treaty]
shall become the exclusive rights of the
Congressional Digest in Microform: 1921-1971
penses and capital costs have been met from revenues.
Republic of Panama, without cost.
Tolls for the use of the Canal are established by the
Complete annual volumes of the Congressional Digest since
annual volumes or the complete set (priced at a discount)
"3. Any rights of the United States of America and
1921 are available in three standard microforms-16 and
may be ordered. Standing orders accepted. Annual index
Company, subject to approval by the President of the
of the administration to real property within the canal
35mm reels and microfiche. All film is positive. Individual
set also available, 1921 to date.
United States. The law requires that tolls be maintained
area shall, upon the termination of this treaty, become
Microfiche:
1
to
4
volumes
@$7
each.
at rates calculated to recover all costs of maintenance
5 or more, $6.50 each.
50-vol. set (1921-1971), $295.
Index set, $4.
the exclusive rights of the Republic of Panama, free of
16mm reels: 1 to 4 volumes $8 each.
5 or more, $7.50 each.
50-vol. set (1921-1971), $345.
Index reel, $5.
and operation of the Canal, including interest, deprecia-
cost
35mm reels: 1 to 4 volumes $9 each.
5 or more, $8.50 each.
50-vol. set (1921-1971), $395.
Index reel, $6.
tion, and an appropriate share of the net cost of the
Article XXXIX. "1. Upon termination of this treaty:
Canal Zone Government. The remaining financial obliga-
(a) The Panama Canal shall come under the exclusive
tions of the Company are met through revenues derived
operational control of the Republic of Panama and all
Subscription Order Form
from operation of the supporting activities.
its appurtenant facilities and services and all property of
THE CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST, Congressional Digest Building, 3231 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007
the administration shall be the property of the Republic
Canal Zone Government
Please enter subscription for
years beginning with
issue. Payment enclosed
Send bill
of Panama; and (b) all rights to property granted to the
The Canal Zone Government is an independent agency
administration pursuant to the provisions of this treaty
NAME
of the United States charged with the performance of the
shall be enjoyed exclusively by the Republic of Panama.
various duties connected with the civil government of the
No compensation shall be owed by the Republic of Panama
ADDRESS
ZIP
Canal Zone. It is administered by a Governor of the
because of the provisions of this paragraph.
Canal Zone, who serves also in a dual role as President
Article XLI. "1. This treaty shall enter into force
SIGNATURE
of the Panama Canal Company. He is appointed by the
upon the exchange of instruments of ratification and shall
RATES: 1 yr., $14.50; 2 yrs., $26; 3 yrs., $34; Current single copies $1.50 ea.; 5 @$1.25; 10 @$1; 25 and up @75c.
President for a term of four years.
remain in force until December 31, 1999."
288
Coming
The Federal Spending
Ceiling Controversy
Pro & Con
PRO
The Congressional Digest
&con
FOUNDED 1921-PUBLISHED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST CORPORATION
$14.50 per year. $1.50 per copy.
CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST BUILDING, 3231 P STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007
Richard Nixon, 1973
May 3 [141]
this kind of dispute enjoys any real bene-
phasized my concern by sending two
rit. Indeed, both suffer because of the
personal representatives, former Secretary
resulting exacerbation of political, eco-
of the Treasury Connally and Federal
nomic, and security relations.
Reserve Chairman Burns, to a number of
The real point is not fishing rights or
countries in Latin America. The detailed
retaliation. Rather it is: what rules shall
and perceptive reports I received from
govern the use of the oceans? If countries
these special envoys helped to keep me
make unilateral claims over ocean space
abreast of current problems and develop-
without international agreement, conflict
ments. This year, I will be consulting with
over uses of the area and its resources are
my fellow presidents in the hemisphere
inevitable. We believe that the Law of the
and with other knowledgeable Latin
Sea Conference provides the appropriate
Americans on our future course. I have
forum for resolving outstanding law of the
asked Secretary of State Rogers to visit
ча problems. We intend to work with the
Latin America to convey our intention to
Latin Americans and all other nations to-
continue to work closely with our neigh-
ward achieving a timely and successful
bors. And I plan to make at least one visit
conference.
to Latin America this year.
[Another important unresolved problem
At the same time, I hope Members of
concerns the Panama Canal and the sur-
the Congress will travel to the area and
rounding Zone. U.S. operation of the
see what is happening in this part of the
Canal and our presence in Panama are
world. Such visits could produce new in-
governed by the terms of a treaty drafted
sights into the complex problems we and
in 1903. The world has changed radically
our neighbors confront. They would pro-
during the 70 years this treaty has been in
vide an awareness of what able and dedi-
effect. Latin America has changed.
cated Americans are doing in those coun-
Panama has changed. And the terms of
tries. And it would create a base of knowl-
our relationship should reflect those
edge from which understanding legislative
changes in a reasonable way.
action might come.
For the past nine years, efforts to work
I urge the Congress to take a new and
out a new treaty acceptable to both parties
thorough look at existing legislation that
have failed. That failure has put con-
affects our relations with Latin America.
siderable strain on our realtions with
We need to study, for example, whether
Panama. It is time for both parties to take
various legislative restrictions serve the
a fresh look at this problem and to develop
purposes for which they were designed.
a new relationship between us-one that
Do they deter other governments from
will guarantee continued effective opera-
various actions, such as seizing fishing
tion of the Canal while meeting Panama's
boats? Or do they merely make the solu-
legitimate aspirations.
tion of such problems more difficult? I
believe some current restrictions are en-
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
tirely too rigid and deprive us of the
flexibility we need to work out mutually
I intend to underscore our deep interest
beneficial solutions.
in Latin America through expanded per-
Similarly, we should inquire whether
sonal involvement. Last year, I em-
current limitations on military equipment
443
Transmitting Fourth Annual Report
Message to Congress
on United states Foreign Policy
Third Annual Report
to the Caugress
Third Transmitting Annual
[56] Feb. 9
Public Papers of the Presidents
Report on US Foreign Policy
generates into hostile confrontation, which
discussion and fair settlements between
tinued
would be an obstacle to achievement, and
sovereign nations are inconsistent with
the fish
thus self-defeating.
national dignity.
Peni and
Our especially close relationship with
The
COMMUNITY, DIVERSITY, AND
Mexico provides striking examples of
legal de
NATIONALISM
problems resolved systematically by self-
central
respecting states who feel a preeminent in-
conflict
The hemisphere community took shape
terest in good relations. The closeness
which
historically as an association of free repub-
reflected in my several meetings in 1969
tions a
lics joining together against domination
and 1970 with Presidents Diaz Ordaz and
mental
and interference from tyrannies across the
Echeverria resulted in specific agreements
States
ocean. This sense of unity was reinforced
on such matters as narcotics control,
that
by the Second World War and was em-
boundaries, civil air routes, agricultural
sanction
bodied in the new institutions and instru-
imports, Colorado River salinity, joint
therefo
ments of the inter-American system.
flood control projects, and the return of
at least
Our cohesion has served many other
archaeological treasures.
seizure
common purposes since then. It has pro-
In addition, in 1971 the United States
the jur
vided forums for multilateral considera-
and Nicaragua abrogated the Bryan-
the '97
tion of issues facing us all. It has afforded
Chamorro Treaty, relinquishing canal-
the Se
mechanisms for peaceful settlement of dis-
construction rights in Nicaragua which we
interna
putes within the hemisphere. It has en-
no longer require. Presidential Counsellor
reopen
abled Latin Americans to express a
Finch, visiting six Latin American nations
Ecuado
collective voice in discussions with the
on my behalf in November 1971, signed
cussed
United States and the rest of the world.
an agreement recognizing Honduran
Majo
In the 1970's, this cohesion is being
sovereignty over the Swan Islands. We
the pas
tested by rapid and turbulent change-
have entered new negotiations with
States
more intense nationalism, accelerating ex-
Panama to achieve a mutually acceptable
over
pectations, new ideologies and political
basis for the continuing efficient operation
investm
movements, a new diversity of political
and defense of the Panama Canal.
Inter
systems and expanding ties between Latin
Our mutual interest also requires that
inatory
American countries and the rest of the
we and our neighbors address in this same
public
world. These new conditions are bound to
cooperative spirit the two significant dis-
able pr
transform our political relationships.
putes which flared up last year in our rela-
effective
Our task is to respond constructively
tions with Latin America-the fisheries
tually
with a realistic set of objectives and princi-
dispute and the problem of expropriation
ments
ples for United States policy. We have
Let me state frankly the United States
instand
done so.
view on these unsettled questions.
been
There are hemispheric questions on
In 1971, Ecuador seized and fined a
mate
which our judgments differ from those of
great number of U.S.-owned tuna boats
been
some of our partners. As I said in Octo-
fishing within its claimed 200-mile terri-
In
ber 1969: "partnership-mutuality-
torial sea. United States law required me
achieve
these do not flow naturally. We have to
to suspend new military sales and credits
these
work at them." I do not believe that frank
to Ecuador as a result; seizures have con-
needs
savings
262
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 8d5c3092ada18a81
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 1554453
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "1554453",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554453",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations: 1959-1974",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554453",
"collections": [
"White House Special Files Unit Files",
"Issue Decision Papers for the President"
],
"subjects": [
"Panama Canal (Panama)",
"Treaties"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/53/5544/1554453/content/library/document/0010/1554453.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/53/5544/1554453/content/library/document/0010/1554453.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/53/5544/1554453/content/library/document/0010/1554453.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "1554453",
"label": "Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations: 1959-1974",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554453"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "1554453",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554453",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations: 1959-1974",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554453",
"collections": [
"White House Special Files Unit Files",
"Issue Decision Papers for the President"
],
"subjects": [
"Panama Canal (Panama)",
"Treaties"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/53/5544/1554453/content/library/document/0010/1554453.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/53/5544/1554453/content/library/document/0010/1554453.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/53/5544/1554453/content/library/document/0010/1554453.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554453",
"naId": 1554453,
"coverageEndDate": {
"day": 16,
"logicalDate": "1976-05-16",
"month": 5,
"year": 1976
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1970-06-01",
"month": 6,
"year": 1970
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/53/5544/1554453/content/library/document/0010/1554453.pdf",
"mediaId": "8d5c3092ada18a81",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 6, folder \"Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations:\n1959-1974\" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 6 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nPANAMA CANAL MATERIAL\nOn June 3, 1976 Jim Connor\nsaid to hold here until further notice.\nTrudy Fry\nThe President's News Con ference\nDecember 2, 1959\nq\n288\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\nQ. Marianne Means, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, in the in-\nterest of Latin American relations, is it possible that the United States\nwill let Panama's flag fly beside the United States flag in the Canal Zone?\nTHE PRESIDENT. This is one of the points that's been talked about for\nmany years, since for 50 years the United States has recognized the\ntitular sovereignty of Panama. There have been numbers of problems\nover the years that have come about because, first, of what the Pana-\nmanians felt were injustices to them in the original treaties; and secondly,\nby the interpretations of treaties as revised in later years.\nThese last problems of the differences were under study for the last\nfew months, and we had already agreed with the Panamanians for\nmethods of taking another look at them and trying to see whether we\ncouldn't meet their requirements in this matter. So there has been a\nvery conciliatory attitude toward governments, as far as I have known,\nand the one question of the flag has never been specifically placed before\nme, no decision has ever been made about it; but I do in some form or\nother believe we should have visual evidence that Panama does have\ntitular sovereignty over the region.\nMerriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr.\nPresident.\nNOTE: President Eisenhower's one hun-\nfrom 10:32 to 11:02 o'clock on Wednes-\ndred and seventy-sixth news conference\nday morning, December 2, 1959. In at-\nwas held in the Executive Office Building\ntendance: 261.\n289 У Statement by the President Concerning\nTreaty Negotiations Between the United States and\nJapan. December 2, 1959\nDURING the past months, we have been negotiating a new treaty and\nother security arrangements with Japan. We attach the greatest impor-\ntance to this new treaty with Japan which is being negotiated between\nequals for the mutual benefit and enlightened self-interest of both countries\nand is therefore in keeping with the new era in our relations with Japan\nenunciated following my talks with Prime Minister Kishi here in Washing-\nton in June 1957. The timing of this new treaty with Japan is particularly\nopportune since I feel it is most essential at the present juncture in inter-\nnational affairs for the free world to maintain its unity and strength.\n794\nI\n277\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\nbetween missiles, by which we normally mean weapons, and space and\nthe rocketry that will be useful in exploring the space.\nI cannot, for the life of me, see any reason why we should be using or\nmisusing military talent to explore the moon. This is something that\ndeals in the scientific field, and to give this to the Air Force or Army or\nNavy, it just seems to me is denying what really is a sort of a doctrine in\nAmerica. You have given to the military only what is their problem\nand not anything else; the rest of it stays under civilian control. That is\nthe reason for having this agency.\nQ. Warren Rogers, New York Herald Tribune: Last week, Dr. von\nBraun and Roy W. Johnson said that the Saturn project should be de-\nveloped on a crash basis to beat the Russians in space explorations. They\nsaid $140 million for fiscal '61 was not enough; it should be $100 million\nmore. What do you think of that, sir?\nTHE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, I haven't had the studies placed\nbefore me yet as to what our people believe to be the proper thing, but\nI will say this: I have never seen any specialist of any kind that was\nbashful in asking for Federal money. [Laughter]\nQ. Stewart Hensley, United Press International: You were speaking\na moment ago about Cuba, and yesterday we had an attack on our\nEmbassy in Panama.\nNow, so many of these nationalist eruptions that keep coming over the\nlandscape down there take on an anti-American tinge. Do you have any\nidea of anything new the United States can do to try to rectify the\nsituation?\nTHE PRESIDENT. I think that no administration, supported by the Con-\ngress, I should say, has ever made more effort to develop better under-\nstanding between all of the countries below the Rio Grande than this one;\nand I think by and large there has been a very great measure of success\nachieved.\nBut there are in many of these countries an excitable group; people\nthat are extremists and they start sometimes a mob action.\nNow, as you know, or I think you know-I think the State Department\ngave you the statement, the protest, that our Ambassador made to the\ngovernment of Panama-so you know exactly what our feelings are with\nrespect to that, and that we confidently hope that every, not only in Pan-\nama, but every civilized government will make certain that law and order\nare preserved.\n772\nPresident's News uference\nNovember 4. 1959\nDwight D. Eisenhower, 1959\n277\nIn a way it's a little bit puzzling to me. We have had some problems\nwith Panama, and the treaty by which the canal was first built has been\nmodified and revised a couple of times, each time giving a greater liberty\nor a greater degree or level of rights to the Panamanians.\nRight today, we have been for, oh, a good time, several months, work-\ning with the Panamanians about the interpretations of the latest treaty,\nso that many problems that have come up to which they think they\nhave not quite acquired all of the rights and privileges that they feel they\nshould have, they have been studied in the effort to ameliorate all of\nthe causes of these difficulties.\nI do not know why this fact has not been brought out more, so that\nthe feeling that causes such extraordinary performances would not be\nso acute.\nQ. Paul Martin, Gannett Newspapers: Mr. President, I think you\ntalked with Governor Rockefeller of New York for an hour and ten\nminutes last week and I believe that is the longest time you have spent\nin conversation with anyone since Khrushchev. [Laughter]\nThe Governor said you talked about some politics. Could you tell\nus anything about it?\nTHE PRESIDENT. Well, I would say this: this was a personal conversa-\ntion and this is the first time that I knew that anyone was keeping a\nstop watch on me whenever I had a visitor.\nIt happens that I like Mr. Rockefeller. He served in my adminis-\ntration for a considerable time. And I will say this: I believe that a\ngood portion of the time, I don't know whether more or most of it,\nbut a good portion was about civil defense. It is a subject in which\nhe and I have both been interested for a long time; and he, as Chairman\nof the Governors' Conference in this particular problem, wanted to talk\nto me about it.\nNow we talked politics all across the board. You couldn't expect any\ntwo people that have political office to avoid that subject completely, and\nI could not possibly now remember any kind of conclusion we reached.\nWe just found it interesting, that's all.\nQ. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, in discussions about\na date for an East-West summit conference, the point has sometimes\nbeen made about the need to preserve the momentum resulting from\nyour talks with Mr. Khrushchev.\nThe Russians talk about the need to preserve the spirit of Camp David.\n773\nCont\nNov 4, 1959\nCooler\nMostly cloudy and rather cool with\nhigh is the low 70g today. Northeast\nMust winds 10 to 18 mph.\nThe Miami\nHerald\nTwin Double\nNets $53,220\n******\nsee story on Page\nSaturday, January 11, 1964\nNo. 41 Florida's Most Complete Newspaper\n54th\nYear\n58\nPages\n10 Cents\nMidnight\nA Latin American Edition to Published Daily\nCITY EDITION\n73:\nRainfall\n.00.\nPanama Moves to Evict U.S.\nAfter Bloody\nStreet-Fighting\nU.N. Plea\n3 GIs Among\nPlan OKd\nBy Panama\n27 Fatalities;\nHandling of Crisis\nBy OAS Accepted\nCanal Open\nUNITED NATIONS, N.Y.\nShowing of the flag leads to death\n(UPI) Panama early today\naccepted a Brazilian suggestion\n# ho is sovereign in Canal Zone?\nfor a U.N. appeal for an end to\nProfile of President Roberto Chiari\nthe fighting in the Canal Zone\nRundown on facts on Panama\nin order to leave the crisis to\nthe Organization of American\nBy Herald Wire Services\nStates\nPANAMA CITY Panama formally severed\nBut Panamanian Ambassador\nmatic relations with the United States Friday night\nAquilino Boyd accused the\nopened a campaign to drive It out of the Panama 0\nUnited States of unprovoked.\nZone after two days of bloody fighting between U.S. to\narmed aggression and demand-\ned that the Panama Canal be\nand Panamanian civilians.\nationalized or inter-\nPresident Roberto F. C\nnationalized\nalready had ordered Am\nsador Augusto Guille\nU.S. Ambassador Addat E.\nArango home from Wash\nStevenson categorically de-\nton in preparation for\nnied the aggression charge\nleveled by Boyd during an\nformal rupture. Arango\nemergency night session of\nreported standing by in W\nthe Security Council.\nington awaiting \"the\nplane out.\"\nBoyd later accepted a Bra-\nThe announcement of\nzillan suggestion that Couneil\nformal break was made by\nPresident Renan Castrillo Jus.\n1964\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nSept. 28 [607]\ncher friends took\nand it takes determination, and it takes a\nso\nCity to sell, and\nsearch for areas of common interest.\none\ne\nstockyards said\nIn the IO months since that fateful day\nto 1\nwaiting for the\nlast November when tragedy cut our Presi-\nbidde\nell me what is\ndent down, and on a moment's notice, I had\nreally\nThe ,\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\na Sheriff and\nto step in and pick up and try to carry on\na Texa\nfor him, first, if you will remember, some of\nmany years,\nour soldiers were fired upon and killed in\nran his\nand delib-\nPanama, and there were those that shouted\nerated, an\nger is one\n\"Move in with the paratroopers.\"\nthat when\nhit him,\nWell, we went over to the Peace Corps\nhe just kee\nmust let\nand got one of our most skilled diplomats\nthe rest of L\ne speak\nwho had lived in Panama for years. We said\nsoftly, we can\nve the\nto them, \"We will not negotiate with a gun\nwill and the de\never\nat our temple. We will not sign a blank\nhit us it is not &\njust\ncheck to a treaty, but we will treat you fairly\ngoing to keep CO1\nand justly. We are a big Nation and you are\nOur military S\nse-\na small one, and we are not going to take\ncurity and it is V\nto our in-\nadvantage of you. But you are not going to\nfluence. But it cai and it must not be\ntake advantage of us.\"\nused to compel and to frighten all others\nAnd we were criticized for weeks. But\ninto following our command and our every\nultimately we reached an agreement on\nwish. Nor can it build the lasting frame-\nexactly the terms that I proposed the first day~\nwork of an enduring peace, because peace\nby telephone to the President of Panama.\ndoes not come from threats or intimidations,\nA few days later Mr. Castro decided to\nor humiliations, or overpowering. The only\ncut our water off at our military base at\nconsequence of such a policy would be con-\nGuantanamo. We were paying him for that\nstant conflict, rising hostility, and deepening\nwater, and we were employing some 3,000\ntension.\nCubans to do our work there. We were\nForce could not rebuild Europe. It took\nspending about $5 to $6 million a year with\nthe vision and the statesmanship of the Mar-\nthem. Suddenly and impetuously and im-\nshall plan, and the patient molding of the\npulsively, and I think irrationally, he cut our\nNATO Alliances.\nwater off. The shout went up, \"Send in the\nForce will not bring democratic progress\nMarines.\"\nto Latin America. It will take many years\nI don't want the newspapermen to think\nof the Alliance for Progress to create free-\nI am quoting anybody now. But we let our\ndom's answer to false Communist promises.\ncoffee cool a little bit and we decided, for\nThe ancient enemies of mankind thrive\nbetter or for worse, that it was wiser to send\nin that area of this hemisphere-disease, il-\nin one admiral to cut the water off than it\nliteracy, and ignorance.\nwas to send in a regiment of Marines to turn\nForce will not bring an end to the arms\nit on.\nrace. We cannot coerce others to negotiate.\nSo we told Mr. Castro that we will make\nWe can't even compel them to be reasonable\nthis base self-sufficient; we will make our\nand wise. It takes skill and it takes patience,\nown water. We cut off about $5 million\nRemarks in Manchester\n1163\nMembers of the New Hampshire\nWeekly Newspaper Editors ASSOCIATION\n[544] Aug. 29\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\nI seek it all the time. I am very happy that\nthan to lose 200,000. For that reason we\nthe men on this platform with me tonight\nhave tried very carefully to restrain ourselves\nare the kind of men that I can counsel with\nand not to enlarge the war. We have had\nand I can trust. I have had advice to load\na good many difficulties that could have\nour planes with bombs and to drop them on\nsprung into major events. We had four of\ncertain areas that I think would enlarge the\nour soldiers killed in Panama, and some of\nwar and escalate the war, and result in our\nour people thought I ought to send in para-\ncommitting a good many American boys\ntroopers, and that we ought to launch a\nto fighting a war that I think ought to be\nstrong force against the small group of folks\nfought by the boys of Asia to help protect\nthat live in Panama.\ntheir own land.\nBut we told them that they couldn't be-\nAnd for that reason, I haven't chosen to\nhave this way, and that they would have to\nenlarge the war. Nor have I chosen to re-\nsit down and reason with us across the\ntreat and turn it over to the Communists.\ntable, that we could not make any precom-\nThose are two alternatives that we have\nmitments and we wouldn't sign a blank\nto face up to. The third alternative is\ncheck to a treaty that we didn't know what\nneutralization in Viet-Nam. We have said\nwas in it, but that we would do what was\nthat if anyone was willing to come forward\nfair, what was right, and what was just.\nand guarantee neutralization, in other words\nIt took us 60 days to work out an agree-\nguarantee the independence of these free\nment with them, but they finally came to us\npeople and guarantee them security from\nand said, \"We think that is fair enough,\"\ntheir neighbors who are trying to envelop\nand so we worked out an agreement. Now\nthem, we would be the first to stand up to\nwe have rather peaceful relations and we\nthe table and say to them, \"Show us that you\nare on the way to making amendments and\ncan guarantee their independence and we\nmodifications in the arrangements between\nwill salute you and we will be very proud of\nthe two nations that will be satisfactory.\nyou.\"\nMr. Castro sought to cut our water off at\nBut there is no country that is willing to\nGuantanamo. He notified us in a hasty\ndo that, that we know of, so neutralization\nmoment in his own impulsive way that he\nis not very practical at this stage of the game.\nwould not supply water to our base. I had\nThere are three alternatives we considered.\nsome military experts, some generals here\nThe fourth alternative is to do what we\nand there, that hollered at me right loudly\nare doing, to furnish advice, give counsel, ex-\nand said, \"Please send in the Marines im-\npress good judgment, give them trained\nmediately.\"\ncounselors, and help them with equipment\nI didn't see any reason to send in the\nto help themselves. We are doing that.\nMarines to cut the water off. I just sent in\nWe have lost less than 200 men in the last\none admiral to turn it off and kept the\nseveral years, but to each one of those 200\nMarines at home. I didn't start any war,\nmen-and we lose about that many in Texas\nalthough I would like very much to see the\nin accidents on the 4th of July-to each one'\nfree people of Cuba be able to govern them-\nof those 200 men who have given their life\nselves without the dictations of Mr. Castro.\nto preserve freedom, it is a war and a big\nWe are going to do everything that we\nwar and we recognize it.\nconsistently can in our policies to see that\nBut we think that it is better to lose 200\nthe people of Cuba are free people, and\nI022\nRemarks:\nBArbacue\nin\nStonewall, TeyAs\nRemarks Louisville, Ky,\nBreaksenst for\nIndinna And\nKrutucky State lenders Party\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nOct. 9 [643]\n1964\nPresident Eisenhower came along, and\nmonths. We have had several test tubes\nduring the period he was President I was\nrun on us. They have put a thermometer\nDemocratic leader. I looked at the record\nin my mouth several times.\nthe other day, the last year of our service.\nOne of the first experiences was that they\nI supported the Republican President more\nshot four of our men, our soldiers, in Pan-\nthan 90 percent of the time in the field of\nama, and they demanded we negotiate an\nforeign policy, and that was about four times\nagreement and sign a blank check. Well,\nas much as the Republican leader supported\nwe didn't do it. We said we would make no\nhim. He supported him about 25 percent\nprecommitments; we would sit down and\nof the time.\ndo what was right and just. In a period of\nThen after President Eisenhower came\n2 months, they finally agreed to the terms we\nPresident Kennedy, and we had the Cuban\nsubmitted the first day of the meeting.\nmissile crisis, and men like Senator Hicken-\nWe had a little flare-up at Guantanamo,\nlooper and others stood up with a Demo-\nat our base in Cuba. The bearded dictator\ncratic President and they presented a united\nwent out one day and decided to cut the\nfront. Khrushchev had to take his missiles\nwater off for that base. I got a lot of advice,\nand load them on his boats and take them\nfree advice, from specialized quarters, and\nout of the country, very much to his humilia-\nsome of them said, \"Rush in the Marines.\ntion.\nSend in the Marines.\" It is mighty easy to\nI am very sorry and I am saddened at what\nstart a fight, get into a war mighty quick.\nhas been said about that in recent days. I\nWe got the recommendation of the Ma-\nsat in every one of those meetings on the\nrines, the Army, Navy, and the Air Force,\nCuban missile crisis, 37. I never left home\nthe Secretary of Defense and the Secretary\nin the morning that I was sure I would see\nof State, and we unanimously concluded\nmy wife and babies when I got back that\nthat instead of acting impulsively and send-\nevening. It was as tense a situation as I have\ning in the Marines to turn the water on, it\never been in-I have been scared a lot of\nwould be wiser to send in one little admiral\ntimes, from the time they took me snipe\nto turn it off, and to tell them we were going\nhunting on down.\nto make that base self-sufficient where we\nBut through all that rather terrifying ex-\nwouldn't have to depend on them any more,\nperience, the coolest man that sat at either\nthat we would make our own water.\nend of that table was our late beloved Presi-\nA lot of new nations have been born in\ndent John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And now\nthis world. There are more than I20 of\nwhen he is not here to answer for himself,\nthem now, and a lot of them are going\nand he can't speak up as he did so effectively\nthrough a perilous period. They are like\nin every State of the Union when he was\nchildren learning to walk.\nhere, to have it said of him, your President\nSome of the nations, Khrushchev says,\nand your leader, that he manufactured all\nhave grown up like children and now they\nthis for political purposes, is sufficient in-\nare too big to spank. So he has a lot of\ndictment of the author of that statement to\nproblems with some of his satellites.\nlet everyone know who they ought to vote\nBut we have a varying situation all over\nfor for President.\nthe world. During this period we have\nI have been in office a little less than II\ndone our best to advance the cause of free-\n1263\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nOct. 27 [726]\nAt the end of the fiscal year, all the money\n[ We have had a good many momentary\nthat had been appropriated had been allo-\ndifficulties. We had our water cut off at\ncated. Red tape had been cut. Decisions\nGuantanamo, but we solved that without a\nwere no longer being delayed. The watch-\nmajor debacle. We had some difficulties in\nword of the Administrator, Mr. Mann, who\nPanama, but with patience and judgment we\nhad the authority of the White House and\nsolved that without a major catastrophe.\nthe State Department and the Alliance for\nWe had problems in Brazil and now we are\nProgress all wrapped up under one hat, was\nworking very closely with them to give them\nsuch that he could make a decision, and did.\nmajor assists. We had an election in Chile\nSo we got out our allocations and made\nand that has been decided. Nowhere, really,\nour decisions. We proceeded on the premise\nhave the Communists taken over any govern-\nthat we could not really have a successful\nments, or have any governments gone com-\nrelationship that we could take great pride\nmunistic since Cuba in 1959.\nin, unless we successfully attacked the ancient\nIn retrospect, as we look over the I2\nenemies of mankind in this hemisphere-\nmonths of our relations with our neighbors\npoverty, disease, ignorance, illiteracy, ill\nin this hemisphere, we can look at them with\nhealth, and so forth; that we must have land\nconfidence, with respect, and with pride.\nreform; that we must have fiscal reform; we\nAnd now I am going to ask Mr. Mann to\nmust have tax reform; we must have budget\nmake a full and detailed report on these\nreform.\ndevelopments to me quickly, shortly.\nWe have watched with great interest the\nI am going to ask Dr. Sanz here with\nimprovement that has been made in these\nCIAP to realize that we maintain an open\nvarious fields. But I also concluded-and\ndoor policy and that that door there to the\nmy view, I think, was shared by Secretary\nPresident's office is always open to him and\nRusk and Mr. Mann-that you could take all\nto his group for suggestions, for criticisms,\nthe gold in Fort Knox and it would just go\nfor ideas. Because we do have a very genu-\ndown the drain in Latin America, unless the\nine respect not only for the independence of\nprivate investor, upon which our whole\nour fellow men in this hemisphere but for\nsystem is based, free enterprise, could have\ntheir lofty and worthy desires to achieve for\nsome confidence that he could make his\ntheir people a better standard of living and\ninvestment and it would not be confiscated\na better way of life.\nand that he would have an opportunity to\nAnd because so many people helped us\nmake a fair and a reasonable return.\ndevelop our economy and to become a strong\nSo we worked very closely with a number\nand mighty nation politically and economi-\nof leading businessmen and we worked very\ncally and educationally, we feel a debt of\nclosely with some of the great thinkers, some\ngratitude and we want to, in part, repay it\nof whom are represented here this morning,\nby working with our other neighbors. Be-\nin trying to make it possible to make private\ncause the stronger they are, the stronger\ninvestment increase and also make it safer.\nAmerica is.\nIn 1963 we made investments of around $60\nThank you very much.\nmillion in other countries. In 1964, at the\nNOTE: The President spoke about 2:15 p.m. in the\nrate we are going, it will be over $100\nRose Garden at the White House. During his re-\nmillion, almost twice as much. So, progress\nmarks he referred to Thomas C. Mann, Assistant\nSecretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, United\nis being made.\nStates Coordinator for the Alliance for Progress, and\n1465\nRemarks members of the\nCommittee on the Alliance for\nProgress, oct 27,\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nJan. 23 [143]\nNow if I may have your attention, I am\nKennedy and other members of the family, thanked\ngoing to ask the very able junior Senator\nthe President and the Members of Congress for\n\"making this day possible,\" adding that the Cul-\nfrom Massachusetts to make a brief response.\ntural Center was \"something extremely close to\nNOTE: The signing ceremony was held in the Cab-\nthe President's heart and to Jackie's heart as well.\"\ninet Room at the White House at IO a.m. Senator\nThe bill (S.J. Res. 136) as enacted is Public Law\nEdward M. Kennedy, on behalf of Mrs. John F.\n88-260 (78 Stat. 4).\n143 The President's News Conference of\nJanuary 23, 1964\nTHE PRESIDENT. [1.] I want to take this\nlic of Panama. Both of these objectives can\nopportunity to restate our position on Pan-\nand should be assured by the actions and the\nama and the Canal Zone. No purpose is\nagreement of Panama and the United States.\nserved by rehashing either recent or ancient\nThis Government has long recognized that\nevents. There have been excesses and\nour operation of the Canal across Panama\nerrors on the part of both Americans and\nposes special problems for both countries.\nPanamanians. Earlier this month, actions\nIt is necessary, therefore, that our relations\nof imprudent students from both countries\nbe given constant attention.\nplayed into the hands of agitators seeking\nOver the past few years we have taken a\nto divide us. What followed was a need-\nnumber of actions to remove inequities and\nless and tragic loss of life on both sides.¹\nirritants. We recognize that there are things\nOur own forces were confronted with\nto be done and we are prepared to talk about\nsniper fire and mob attack. Their role was\nthe ways and means of doing them. But\none of resisting aggression and not commit-\nviolence is never justified and is never a\nting it. At all times they remained inside\nbasis for talks. Consequently, the first item\nthe Canal Zone and they took only those\nof business has been the restoration of public\ndefensive actions required to maintain law\norder. The Inter-American Peace Commit-\nand order and to protect lives and property\ntee, which I met this morning, deserves the\nand the Canal itself. Our obligation to\nthanks of us all, not only for helping to\nsafeguard the Canal against riots and van-\nrestore order, but for its good offices.' For\ndals and sabotage and other interference\nthe future, we have stated our willingness to\nrests on the precepts of international law,\nengage without limitation or delay in a full\nthe requirements of international commerce,\nand frank review and reconsideration of all\nand the needs of free world security.\nissues between our two countries.\nThese obligations cannot be abandoned.\nWe have set no preconditions to the re-\nBut the security of the Panama Canal is not\nsumption of peaceful discussions. We are\ninconsistent with the interests of the Repub-\n2 The Inter-American Peace Committee of the\n1 In defiance of an order of the Governor of Pan-\nOrganization of American States, composed of Ar-\nama to eliminate the flying of flags at schools, Amer-\ngentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, the\nican students on January 7 hoisted their own flag at\nUnited States (in connection with this matter the\nBalboa High School. Two days later Panamanian\nOAS Council elected Chile to serve in place of the\nstudents attempted to display their flag and disorder\nUnited States), and Venezuela, was called upon\nfollowed. On January IO Panama broke diplomatic\njointly by the two countries to study the U.S.-\nrelations with the United States. (See also Items\nPanamanian dispute and to recommend measures\n95, 104, II4.\nfor its settlement.\n219\n[143] Jan. 23\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\nbound by no preconceptions of what they\nmillion in the bill by a 9 to 8 vote and then\ngoin\nwill produce. And we hope that Panama\nreported the bill to the Senate by a vote of\nit I\ncan take the same approach. In the mean-\n12to5.\nabo\ntime, we expect neither country to either\n[3.] You are also writing some other\nN\nfoster or yield to any kind of pressure with\nstories, I think, about an insurance policy\ntion\nrespect to such discussions. We are pre-\nthat was written on my life some 7 years ago,\npared, 30 days after relations are restored, to\nand I am still here.\nissue\nsit in conference with Panamanian officials\nThe company in which Mrs. Johnson and\nIt\nto seek concrete solutions to all problems di-\nmy daughters have a majority interest, along\nviding our countries. Each government will\nwith some other stockholders, were some-\nbe free to raise any issue and to take any\nwhat concerned when I had a heart attack\nposition. And our Government will con-\nin 1955, and in 1957 they purchased insur-\nsider all practical solutions to practical prob-\nance on my life made payable to the com-\nlems that are offered in good faith.\npany. And the insurance premiums were\nCertainly solutions can be found which\nnever included as a business expense, but\nare compatible with the dignity and the se-\nthey thought that was good business practice\ncurity of both countries, as well as the needs\nin case something happened to me, so Mrs.\nof world commerce. And certainly Panama\nJohnson and the children wouldn't have to\nand the United States can remain, as they\nsell their stock on the open market and lose\nshould remain, good friends and good\ncontrol of the company.\nneighbors.\nThat insurance was purchased here in\n[2.] Q. Mr. President, before you go, I\nWashington, and on a portion of the pre-\nwonder if you could entertain another ques-\nmiums paid, Mr. Don Reynolds got a small\ntion or so. For example, how do you think\ncommission. Mr. George Sampson, the gen-\nthings are going up on the Hill?\neral agent for the Manhattan Insurance Com-\nTHE PRESIDENT. Well, we signed the cul-\npany, handled it and we have paid some\ntural bill this morning. We finished up the\n$78,000 in premiums up to date and there is\nappropriation bill before we went home\nanother $11,800 due next month which the\nChristmas. We completed the education\ncompany will probably pay to take care of\nbills that were then in conference, and\nthat insurance.\nsigned them.\n[4.] There is a question also which has\nWe had two big items that are high on the\nbeen raised about a gift of a stereo set that an\nagenda; the civil rights bill.\nemployee of mine made to me and Mrs.\nWe have the feeling and the belief of the\nJohnson. That happened some 2 years later,\nleadership that we will have that bill before\nsome 5 years ago. The Baker family gave\nthe House early in the month and that we\nus a stereo set. We used it for a period, and\nwill have final action on it before they take\nwe had exchanged gifts before. He was an\na holiday for Lincoln's Birthday.\nemployee of the public and had no business\nOn the tax bill, Senator Byrd has called me\npending before me and was asking for noth-\nwithin the hour and told me that they re-\ning, and so far as I knew expected nothing\nversed the decision earlier made and today\nin return any more than I did when I had\nthey took the language out, all repeal lan-\npresented him with gifts.\nguage, dealing with excises and restored $450\nI think that is about all I know that is\n220\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nJan. II [96]\n95 White House Statement on the Events in Panama.\nJanuary 10, 1964\nTHE President has this morning reviewed\nThe President has noted President Chiari's\nthe situation in Panama with his senior ad-\nappeal to the citizens of Panama to join in\nvisers. He has ordered the Assistant Secre-\nthe restoration of peace, and the President is\ntary of State, Mr. Mann, to proceed at once\nmaking a similar appeal to the residents of\nto the Canal Zone. The U.S. Government\nthe Canal Zone. The path to a settlement\ngreatly regrets the tragic loss of life of Pana-\ncan only be through peace and understand-\nmanians and Americans. The President has\ning and not through violence.\ngiven most earnest instructions to General\nNOTE: This statement was read by the Press Secretary\nO'Meara, Commander in Chief, Southern\nto the President, Pierre Salinger, at his news con-\nCommand (CINCSOUTH), to do all that\nference held at the White House on January 10, 1964.\nis within his power to restore and to main-\nSee also Item 104.\ntain peace and safety in the Canal Zone.\n96 Remarks at a Reception for Members of the Democratic\nNational Committee. January II, 1964\nI KNOW that all of you have met her but I\nmatters always on principles and never on\nwant Lady Bird to say a word before I get\npersonalities.\nopened up on a long speech.\nThere are many things that divide our\n[At this point Mrs. Johnson spoke briefly, welcoming\ncountry, but we would do nothing to muffle\nthe Committee members to the White House. She\ndissent. That is one of the great and pre-\nexpressed her pleasure at seeing among them old\nfriends she had met as she traveled \"across the many\ncious things about this land and the freedom\nyears and across the many States.\" The President\nthat we enjoy; but we do think that we can\nthen resumed speaking.]\ndisagree without being disagreeable.\nWe know how much you have sacrificed\nI had the good fortune to serve as leader of\nthrough the years in order that the convic-\nthe Senate for 8 years-the longest period of\ntions that you possessed could be carried into\ntime any leader ever served under the Presi-\nGovernment. We know how sorrowful the\ndent of another party. Although we fre-\nlast 7 weeks have been for all of you. We\nquently did not see eye to eye on matters of\nmeet tonight with heavy hearts because of\ngovernmental policy, we found that it was\nthe loss of a fallen leader, but he left us many\nnot necessary to indulge in personalities.\ngood things to work for. We enumerated\nNot once that I recall did I ever make a\nsome of those things in our State of the\ncaustic personal criticism of President Eisen-\nUnion Message a few days ago.\nhower, his wife, his children or his dogs.\nAbove all, we are Americans before we are\nI think you will find that we will be able\nDemocrats or Republicans. When I was\nto get through this campaign and any others\ntalking to the Congress, I particularly ap-\nin which we may engage with the same\npealed to the members of my own party to\nthought in mind that basically there are so\nput the interests of the country ahead\nmany more things that unite us than divide\nof the interests of the party, to debate\nus. We have faith in this country and we\nI2I\n[113] Jan. 16\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\n113 Memorandum on the Observance of Brotherhood Week.\nJanuary 16, 1964\nMemorandum for the Heads of Executive\nThe Honorable Brooks Hays is on leave\nDepartments and Agencies:\nto serve as the National Brotherhood Week\nI have accepted the Honorary Chairman-\nChairman for 1964. He and the offices of\nship of Brotherhood Week for 1964.\nthe National Conference of Christians and\nDedicated to the principle of \"to bigotry\nJews throughout the country will be glad to\nno sanction, to persecution no assistance,\" as\nassist you and your employees in observing\nexpressed by our first President, Brotherhood\nthis important week of dedication.\nWeek is traditionally held during the week\nI hope that in its own way, each Depart-\nof George Washington's birthday. This\nment and Agency throughout the country\nyear it will be February sixteenth through\nwill find it possible during this week to\nthe twenty-third.\ncommemorate and underscore the impor-\nThis is a time of deep appraisal for all\ntance of implementing the principle of the\nAmericans. In view of our recent national\nBrotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood\ntragedy, no better time exists for the search-\nof God.\ning of our hearts and minds.\nLYNDON B. JOHNSON\nII4 White House Statement Concerning U.S. Readiness To\nCarry On Discussions With Panama. January 16, 1964\nTHE United States Government is ready\nculty between the two countries that it is time\nand willing to discuss all problems affecting\nfor the highest exercise of responsibility by\nthe relationship between the United States\nall those involved.\nand Panama. It was our understanding that\nthe Government of Panama was also willing\nNOTE: This statement was read by the Press Secre-\ntary to the President, Pierre Salinger, at his news\nto undertake these discussions. Our position\nconference held at the White House on January 16,\nis unchanged. We feel in this time of diffi-\n1964.\nII5 Statement by the President in Response to a Report\non Immigration. January 17, 1964\nTHE REPORT of the Immigration and\nversity of its heritage. Its future has always\nNaturalization Service is an example of Gov-\nrested on the hopes of our forebears as they\nernment with a heart.\ncame to seek freedom and abundance.\nBy applying existing immigration laws\nWe can take renewed faith in the eager-\nwith humanity, we are demonstrating that\nness of people throughout the world to be-\ncompassion and efficient administration go\ncome citizens-to share with us in the build-\nhand in hand.\ning of an even stronger country. We can\nAmerica's strength has risen from the di-\nexpress that faith by passing and implement-\n144\n[103] Jan. 14\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\n103 Telegram to Governor Sanford on His Attack on\nPoverty in North Carolina. January 14, 1964\nI WANT to congratulate you on your initia-\npromises to make an exciting and important\ntive in mobilizing for an attack on poverty\ncontribution to this deep-seated problem. I\nin North Carolina. Please convey to those\nwant to assure you of the full cooperation of\nat your conference today my heartfelt wishes\nthe Federal departments whose programs\nfor the success of your efforts. As you know,\ncontribute to the war on poverty.\nmy State of the Union Message proposed an\nLYNDON B. JOHNSON\nall-out war on poverty in America. I am\nconfident that the Congress will respond to\n[The Honorable Terry Sanford, Governor of North\nthis challenge. The North Carolina Fund\nCarolina, Raleigh, North Carolina]\n104 White House Statement Following Receipt of a\nReport on Panama. January 14, 1964\nTHE President received a full report on the\ncannot allow the security of the Panama\nsituation in Panama from Mr. Mann. Mr.\nCanal to be imperiled. We have a recog-\nMann emphasized that U.S. forces have be-\nnized obligation to operate the Canal effi-\nhaved admirably under extreme provocation\nciently and securely, and we intend to honor\nby mobs and snipers attacking the Canal\nthat obligation in the interests of all who de-\nZone. The President continues to believe\npend on it. The United States continues to\nthat the first essential is the maintenance of\nbelieve that when order is fully restored it\npeace. For this reason, the United States\nshould be possible to have direct and can-\nwelcomes the establishment of the Joint Co-\ndid discussions between the two govern-\noperation Committee through the Inter-\nments.\nAmerican Peace Committee.\nNOTE: This statement was read by Andrew T.\nThe United States tries to live by the\nHatcher, Associate Press Secretary to the President,\npolicy of the good neighbor and expects\nat the Press Secretary's news conference held at the\nWhite House on January 14, 1964.\nothers to do the same. The United States\n105 Remarks to Leaders of Organizations Concerned With the\nProblems of Senior Citizens. January 15, 1964\nMr. Celebrezze, ladies and gentlemen:\nPresidency: You have a variety of matters\nI am sorry that I have been delayed a little\nand you never get bored with just handling\nbit in getting in here this morning, but I am\none problem. But I don't know any problem\nhappy that you are here and that you have a\nthat has ever faced all of our people that\nchance to come to this house that belongs to\nshould concern us more than the one about\nall of us.\nwhich we meet this morning.\nThere is one thing you can say about the\nThe 20th century, in which we live, has\n132\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nJan. 25 [150]\nWill you interpret for me?\npaper, dated 1870, founded by Mr. Crespi's family.\nThis is a picture of the Acting Mayor of\nThe President then resumed speaking.]\nWashington welcoming your President to\nIt is a great honor to me and I appreciate\nthe Blair House. Now pick me another.\nthis beyond words, and I will always treas-\nThis is a picture welcoming him at the\nure it and have thoughts of a fine, aggressive\nWhite House. And this is for you.\ngroup of friends from Italy who came here\nNow will you pick me three of the girls.\nthis morning.\nI believe I will give the Ambassador this\nThank you very much.\none.\nNOTE: The President spoke at 10:45 a.m. in the\nYou have one of the finest Ambassadors\nTheater at the White House. In his opening re-\nand one of the loveliest ladies of any embassy\nmarks he referred to Sergio Fenoaltea, Italy's Am-\nbassador to the United States. Later he referred to\nhere in Washington. And tell them I am\nJack Valenti, Special Consultant to the President,\ngoing to send that one to the Ambassador's\nU.S. Senator John O. Pastore of Rhode Island, and\nwife.\nU.S. Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New\nJersey.\n[At this point Mario Crespi Morbio, co-owner of the\nThe group, under the leadership of Mr. Crespi,\nCorriere Della Sera, presented the President with a\nwas sponsored by the Corriere Della Sera.\nsmall bronze facsimile of the first page of the news-\n150 The President's News Conference of\nJanuary 25, 1964\nTHE PRESIDENT. So you know about your\nleaning over backwards to hold the appro-\nweekend plans, I am not going to Camp\npriation and authorization hearings together.\nDavid. I will be here and I will be working\nThe schedule that the chairman of the Ap-\nall day. I may go out a time or two on lit-\npropriations Committee gave out was very\ntle personal matters, but basically I will be\ngood, very orderly, and very well planned.²\nin the office.\nWe are going to meet it.\n[1.] I have been working with McNa-\nI have been talking to Mr. McNamara\nmara some this morning on his presentation\nabout that, as well as some other matters,\nto the committee.¹ We think we are mak-\nthis morning.\ning some real progress up there getting our\n[2.] I have also been talking to Mr.\nauthorization measures up in January so\nMann on the Panamanian situation, and we\nthey can really get their teeth into these\nare working very hard on that along the\nthings. All this delay has not been solely\nlines of my statement the other day.³ That\nattributable to Congress. I have said to\nstatement is basically United States policy.\nthese bureau people and agency and de-\nIt is the same policy we enunciated to the\npartment people to get ready. That is why\nPresident when we first talked to him, and\nyou are going to get your briefing on hous-\nit is the same policy that applies to all na-\ning today. We have that scheduled for\ntions. That is the policy of being fair and\nhearing early in February.\njust and discussing any problem that arises\nPeople like Senator Russell are really\n2 Schedule of the House Appropriations Commit-\ntee, printed in the Congressional Record, January 21,\n1 Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's mil-\n1964, page 688.\nitary posture briefing before the Senate and House\n3 For the President's statement on Panama, see\nArmed Services Committees.\nItem 143.\n227\nRemarks At the St.Louis\nBicentennial\nDinner\n[189] Feb. I4 ,964 Public Papers of the Presidents\nhouses each year, many new schools,\nchildren can have the benefits of a whole-\nlibraries, streets, utility lines, transport sys-\nsome and a vital environment.\ntems, water and sewage facilities, and stores\nBut it is not enough to build healthier\nand churches.\nlocal communities. America's larger task to-\nIf by the year 1970 we are to fulfill the\nnight is to help build a healthier world.\nideals of our free society, we shall have to\nThese objectives are very related: we cannot\nhave ample housing for our low-income\nsecure the success of freedom around the\nfamilies, for our rural families, for our\nworld if it is not secure for all citizens\nelderly families, and for the families of those\nin our cities; and no city in America can be\nwho serve in our Armed Forces.\ncertain of its safety until all the world is\nIf by the year 1970 we are to save the vital-\nmade safe for diversity.\nity of our cities, we must make continued\nIn the past 3 years that safety has steadily\nprogress in eliminating slums, in rehabili-\ngrown, thanks to the leadership of your own\ntating historic neighborhoods, in providing\nSenator Symington, and to Senator Long\nfor the humane relocation of people that are\nand other members of your congressional\ndisplaced by urban renewal, in restoring the\ndelegation. The vast and rapid increase in\neconomic base of our communities, and in\nour nuclear and conventional military\nrevitalizing our central areas.\nstrength has enabled us to meet each new\nThis is an agenda, but only a par-\nconflict and to face each new crisis-from\ntial agenda and only a partial answer.\nWest Berlin to Cuba-with both courage\nIf we of this generation are to do what\nand calm. It has likewise enabled us to\nmust be done to preserve the quality and\nbargain for an end to arms from a position\nthe character and the meaning of American\nof strength and conviction.\nlife, we must, at home and in the world,\nThe very progress we have made, to be\nmake a basic choice. We must choose\nsure, brings problems in its wake. Many\nprogress or we must choose decay.\nnations that are no longer frightened for\nThree weeks ago I sent to the Congress a\ntheir future now feel more free to press their\nMessage on Housing and Community De-\nmore narrow national interests. Disputes\nvelopment,1 proposing a number of specific\nbetween our allies and our friends in Cyprus,\nways in which the National Government can\nin Malaysia, in Africa or Kashmir or the\nwork with citizens in localities throughout\nMiddle East tend to weaken free world coop-\nthe country to meet the crisis of the city.\neration, and tend to invite Communist ex-\nWorking together, strong civic spirit, strong\nploitation. So it is in our interest not only as\nlocal and national leadership can meet these\na world power but as a partisan of peace, to\nproblems.\nwork patiently with our friends on any of\nThe Federal Government cannot act where\nthese disputes where we can be helpful to\nlocal spirit and leadership are absent. But\nachieve a just resolution.\nthe Federal Government tonight stands\nI would remind you that we did not\nready to help every city that is determined to\ncreate these quarrels, but we can, and we\nbecome a place where children can grow up\nmust and we should, help to end them. In\nin decent neighborhoods, where children\nthe Panama Canal Zone we ourselves are\ncan go to decent schools, where children can\nparty to such a dispute and, too, here tonight\nplay in decent parks and playgrounds, where\nwe are working for a peaceful solution. It\n1 Item 152.\nis a solution that is compatible with the inter-\n300\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nFeb. 14 [189]\nests of both nations and with the principles\nby friend and foe, by the great and the small,\nof a good neighbor.\nwill always do its full part to achieve in our\nElsewhere in the world, particularly in\ntime a world without war in a century of\nSoutheast Asia, conflict continues between\npeace.\nthose that are seeking to impose the Com-\nThank you and good night.\nmunist system by direct or indirect aggres-\n[Following applause the President resumed speak-\nsion and those who are seeking to protect\ning.]\ntheir freedom of choice and their freedom\nMany years ago an inquiring friend asked\nof action. The United States is determined\na great member of the Congress why the\nto help those free and peaceful peoples who\ndelegation from his State was the ablest in\nneed and seek our help. It is their land\nthe Congress. He gave him a very fine and\nand their war, but we will never weaken\nfrank answer. I think that I should like for\nour support for their effort, or we will never\nall the people of not just St. Louis and St.\nbetray their trust in us.\nLouis County, but all the people of Missouri,\nAll of these tense and troubled problems\nto hear that answer tonight, and to apply it\nrequire much of the American citizen-a\nto your own great delegation.\nsteadiness of purpose, a sense of perspective\nHe said, \"Why does your State have the\nand, above all, enduring and persevering\ngreatest delegation in Congress?\" The an-\npatience. We cannot expect perfection in\nswer was, \"Because we pick them young and\nan imperfect world, nor can we expect com-\nwe pick them honest. We send them there,\nplete agreement among the world's free men.\nand we keep them there.\"\nFreedom prospers through the fair discus-\nAnd so to the people of Missouri, I must\nsion of honest differences, both at home and\nadmit, with apologies to Congressman\nabroad. We invite and we welcome such\nCurtis, that if I had been picking them in\ndiscussions.\nthe original instance, I might have confined\nBut neither at home nor abroad is there\nthem all to one party. That would have\nany need for twisted arguments that would\nperhaps been a most narrow viewpoint, be-\ndamage the good name of our country. The\ncause we are going to have two parties in\nAmerican people have little sympathy for\nthis country for a long time.\nthose abroad who seek political gain from\nAll I say to you in Missouri is this, that\nbaseless denunciation of the United States\nevery day I sit in the White House and I\nbecause we have helped others and because\nsee the decisions that Harry Truman made\nwe are a leader for peace. And they will\nand didn't make. I see the men that he\nequally reject such tactics if they are em-\nhired and the men he fired. I see the\nployed at home.\nstrokes of genius that came from his pen dur-\nWe are confident that our principles are\ning those few troublesome years. I saw\nsound and that our progress is good; that\nthe injection of new policy known as the\nthose who distort the truth to alarm the peo-\nTruman Doctrine in Europe, and the Mar-\nple, either at home or abroad, about either\nshall plan that saved the world from com-\nAmerica's capacity or America's purpose,\nmunism. I never cease to be grateful to\ndo not serve their children or serve their\nthe State of Missouri for giving us that good\ncountry, or serve freedom in the world.\nand wise man in that troublesome period.\nThis Nation, more respected than ever,\nAlthough some of my party people might\nmore respected than ever respected before\nnot approve of this statement, I would say\n301\nRemarks\n96th Charter DAY Observance\nof the Unio. of Calif.\n[192] Feb. 2I\nAt has Angeles\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\n(964\npeople of the United States, as Governor\npeople who seek only to be left in peace. For\nBrown has told you, are proud of their en-\nIO years our country has been committed\nduring friendship with our neighboring na-\nto the support of their freedom, and that\ntion, Mexico.\ncommitment we will continue to honor.\nIn the winning of our independence, in\nThe contest in which South Viet-Nam is now\nthe strengthening of our institutions, in the\nengaged is first and foremost a contest to be\nrelentless quest of social justice and human\nwon by the government and the people of\nrights, in the pursuit of a better way of life\nthat country for themselves. But those en-\nfor all of our peoplè, Mexico and the United\ngaged in external direction and supply would\nStates have walked a common road. Others\ndo well to be reminded and to remember\nwalk that road today, and our experience,\nthat this type of aggression is a deeply dan-\nMr. President, enables us to understand their\ngerous game.\nhopes, for neither Mexico nor the United\nFor every American it is a source of sad-\nStates leaped into the modern world full\nness that the two communities in Cyprus\ngrown; we are both the products of inspired\nare today set against each other. America's\nmen who built new liberty out of old op-\npartnership with Europe began with Presi-\npression and, Mr. President, neither of our\ndent Truman's brave pledge of assistance\nrevolutions is yet finished.\nto Greece and Turkey. Now the people of\nSo long as there remains a man without\nCyprus, closely tied to these two friends and\na job, a family without a roof, a child with-\nallies, our partners in NATO, stand at the\nout a school, we have much to do. No\nedge of tragedy. Of course, the United\nAmerican can rest while any American is\nStates, though not a party to the issues, will\ndenied his rights because of the color of his\ndo everything we possibly can to find a\nskin. No American conscience can be at\nsolution, a peaceful solution. So I appeal\npeace while any American is jobless, hun-\nfor an end to the bloodshed, before it is too\ngry, uneducated, and ignored.\nlate, to everyone in Cyprus and to all inter-\nOur \"permanent revolution\" is dedicated\nested parties around the world. It is the\nto broadening, for all Americans, the ma-\ntask of statesmanship to prevent the danger\nterial and the spiritual benefits of the demo-\nin Cyprus from exploding into disaster.\ncratic heritage. But while we pursue these\nCloser to home, we ourselves seek a settle-\nunfinished tasks at home, we must look also\nment with our friends in Panama. We\nat the larger scene of world affairs. Our\ngive assurance to the government and to the\nconstant aim, our steadfast purpose, our un-\npeople of Panama that the United States of\ndeviating policy, is to do all that strengthens\nAmerica is determined to be absolutely fair\nthe hope of peace, and nothing will ever\nin all discussions on all our problems. We\nmake us weary in these tasks. In our for-\nare prepared, calmly and without pressure,\neign policy today there is room neither for\nto consider all the problems which exist\ncomplacency nor for alarm. The world has\nbetween us, and to try our dead-level best\nbecome small and turbulent. New chal-\nto find a solution to them promptly. What\nlenges knock daily at the White House,\nis needed now is a covenant of cooperation.\nAmerica's front door.\nAs we are patient in Panama, we are pre-\nIn South Viet-Nam, terror and violence,\npared at Guantanamo. We have dealt with\ndirected and supplied by outside enemies,\nthe latest challenge and provocation from\npress against the lives and the liberties of a\nHavana, without sending the Marines to\n304\n[201] Feb. 29\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\ngreat disservice, but we are keeping in close\nHe served in the United States Army after\ntouch with it daily.\nresigning from the Senate. He had con-\nWe have Ambassador Lodge, who heads\nsiderable military experience there. He\nour forces in that area. He is in constant\nserved his country well at the United Na-\ncommunication with us. He makes recom-\ntions under the administration of President\nmendations from time to time. We act\nEisenhower. He was selected by President\npromptly on those recommendations. We\nKennedy upon the recommendation of Sec-\nfeel that we are follqwing the proper course\nretary Rusk. He has been given full author-\nh\nand that our national interests are being\nity to act as our top adviser in that area. He\nfully protected.\nhad a long conference with me before he re-\nQ. Mr. President, do you see any rea-\nturned to Viet-Nam in November.\nson to fear that an extension of the fighting\nI am unaware of any political inclinations\nin South Viet-Nam might bring Communist\nhe may have. I have seen nothing that he\nChina or even the Soviet Union into the\nhas done that has in any way interfered with\nfight?\nhis work out there. I think that he has\nTHE PRESIDENT. I know of no good pur-\nproperly assessed the situation himself by\npose that would be served by speculating on\nsaying that since he is our Ambassador there\nthe military strategy of the forces of the\nhe cannot personally get involved in the cam-\nSouth Vietnamese. I think that too much\npaign plans that some of his friends may have\nspeculation has already taken place-I think\nfor him.\nthat a good deal of it without justification.\n[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any\nI sometimes wonder if General Eisenhower,\nhope of reaching an agreement in Panama\nbefore the battle of Normandy, had been\nbefore that country's Presidential elections\nconfronted with all the-if the world had all\nin May?\nthe information concerning his plans that\nTHE PRESIDENT. I would hope that we could\nthey seem to have concerning ours in Viet-\nreach an agreement as early as possible. As\nNam, what would have happened on that\nsoon as I learned that the Panamanians had\nfateful day.\nmarched on our zone and we had a disturb-\nSo, I would answer your question merely\nance there, and some of our soldiers had been\nby saying that I do not care to speculate on\nkilled, some of the students had raised the\nwhat might happen. The plans that have\nflag and this disturbance had resulted, I im-\nbeen discussed in the papers are not plans\nmediately called the President of Panama on\nthat have come to my attention, or that I\nthe telephone and said to him in that first\nhave approved.\nexchange, \"I want to do everything I can to\nQ. Mr. President, Henry Cabot Lodge,\nwork this problem out peacefully and\nyour Ambassador to South Viet-Nam, was\nquickly. Therefore our people will meet\nyour opponent for the Vice Presidency in\nwith your people any time, anywhere, to\n1960, and is a very strong potential Repub-\ndiscuss anything that will result in bringing\nlican nominee this time. Doesn't that make\npeace and stopping violence.\"\nconduct of your policy in South Viet-Nam\nThe President asked me how long it\nawkward, if not difficult?\nwould be before those discussions could take\nTHE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. Mr.\nplace, and I said we would have a team in\nLodge had a brilliant career in the Senate.\nthe air within 30 minutes.\n324\nThe President's News Conforence\nof February 29,1964\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nFeb. 29 [201]\nI designated Assistant Secretary Mann 3 to\nreached is carried out. We have expressed\nleave immediately. We have been pursuing\nour deep regret that it has not been. We\nthose discussions ever since. We have\nare very hopeful that the interested govern-\nreached no agreement. One day you see\nments will take the appropriate action to see\nspeculation that an agreement is imminent.\nthat the agreement is carried out.\nThe next day you see speculation that we\n[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have said re-\nare very pessimistic. I think both reports\npeatedly that peace is the paramount issue\nhave been wrong.\non your mind. I wonder, sir, if during your\nThere has been no meeting of the minds.\nfirst hundred days in the White House you\nWe realize that treaties were written in 1903\nhave seen any encouraging signs along this\nand modified from time to time-that prob-\nroad and, specifically, do you think a trend\nlems are involved that need to be dealt with\nof the modern world is towards coexistence\nand perhaps would require adjustment in\nand conciliation rather than to strife.\nthe treaty in 1963 or 1964.\nTHE PRESIDENT. We must be concerned not\nSo we are not refusing to discuss and\njust with our foreign policy in the twentieth\nevolve a program that will be fair and just\ncentury but with the foreign policy of IIO\nto all concerned. But we are not going to\nor I20 other nations. We are today dealing\nmake any precommitments, before we sit\nwith serious problems in many places in the\ndown, on what we are going to do in the way\nworld that seriously affect the peace. When\nof rewriting new treaties with a nation that\nwe solve these problems I have no doubt but\nwe do not have diplomatic relations with.\nwhat there will be others that arise that have\nOnce those relations are restored, we will be\nbeen in existence for centuries.\nglad, as I said the first day, and as we have\nIt is going to be the course of this Gov-\nrepeated every day since, to discuss anything,\nernment to do everything that we can to\nany time, anywhere, and do what is just and\nresolve these differences peacefully, even\nwhat is fair and what is right. Just because\nthough they are not of our own making.\nPanama happens to be a small nation, maybe\nThere are few of these situations which have\nno larger than the city of St. Louis, is no rea-\nbeen brought about by anything that we\nson why we shouldn't try in every way to be\nhave done, but they are age-old differences\nequitable and fair and just. We are going\nthat have existed for centuries.\nto insist on that. But we are going to be\nI am an optimist. I spent 35 days in\nequally insistent on no preconditions.\nmeetings with the Security Council in the\n[7.] Q. Mr. President, returning to\nCuban missile crisis. I saw the alternatives\nsoutheast Asia, the Pathet Lao in Laos has\npresented there. I realized that we can,\nbeen stepping up its military activities in\nwith the great power we have, perhaps de-\nviolation of the '62 Geneva agreement. Is\nstroy 100 million people in a matter of min-\nthe United States willing to concede that neu-\nutes, and our adversaries can do likewise.\ntralization is not the answer to Laos today?\nI don't think that the people of the world\nTHE PRESIDENT. The United States has\nwant that to happen and I think we are\nmade the proper protestations and is doing\ngoing to do everything that we can to avoid\neverything we can to see that that agreement\nits happening. Now there are going\n3 Thomas C. Mann, Assistant Secretary of State for\nto be some very serious problems that\nInter-American Affairs.\nwe have to resolve before we achieve peace\n325\n[182] Feb. II\n1964\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\nno one was in here, they were all used, but\nstanding. There are only six of them that\nwhen people got economy conscious and\nhave a per capita income of as much as\njust started watching things like we used\n$80 a month. Yours has over $200 a month.\nto on the REA line when we had a minimum\nHow long this Nation will endure and\nbill of $2.50 a month and we never wanted\nsurvive and meet the trials of leadership\nto go over the minimum. Things can be\nwill depend largely on the quality of its\nreduced.\npublic servants, their dedication, their hon-\nIt has not all been due to our efforts.\nesty, their integrity, their enlightenment,\nSome of it came about for other reasons,\ntheir selflessness, their willingness to do\nbut we hope that next month it will come\nunto others as you would have them do unto\ndown another $500 a month. The people\nus.\nof the country, I think, will really appreciate\nWe have problems in the world. We are\nwhen they realize you are saving $2500 a\nliving in a frustrating period, an exciting\nmonth on electricity in the house in which\nperiod, a developmental period. I have seen\nyou live. You go back home and see how\ntimes when the skies were grayer. But we\nmuch electricity you can save in the build-\ndon't have on our hands this morning a mis-\ning in which you work. See how many\nsile crisis in Cuba. We don't have Laos; we\nlights you leave on when you go out at night.\ndon't have the conference in Vienna that we\nSee how many people you have that are\nfaced the first few months of President Ken-\nnot living up to the most rigid standards.\nnedy's administration-the Bay of Pigs-all\nI have always said and thought that if I\nof those were major problems.\ncould have a son I would like for him to be\nRelatively speaking, we don't have the\na' preacher or a teacher or a public servant\nproblem that Mr. Khrushchev has with Com-\nbecause I have observed that there comes to\nmunist China, 800 million people there and\nthose professions a sense of satisfaction out\nthey are saying ugly things about each other.\nof doing a job that you never get from a\nAnd 800 million is a sizable number. When\npaycheck. Most of you men would in pri-\nthey fall out among themselves it is some-\nvate life draw several times the salary that\nthing that must concern both of them.\nyou draw now.\nWe are concerned about Panama-that we\nHere is Secretary Dillon who has every-\nshould have a dispute with any of our neigh-\nthing in the world that a man could want.\nbors. Our school children made a mistake\nHe has wealth, he has prestige and he has\nin raising the United States flag without\na lovely wife and a wonderful reputation,\nraising the Panamanian flag, but that does\nbut his great satisfaction comes from work-\nnot warrant or justify shooting our soldiers\ning here in Washington and leading a group\nor invading the zone.\nlike you, and spending several times more\nOur plane was off course over Berlin and\nper year than he earns in his salary, trying\nlost its communications system very like-\nto help other people. You are very for-\nly, and was shot down. It should not have\ntunate to be one of those men who is not\nbeen in that territory. It would not have\na preacher or teacher but a public servant,\nbeen if it had been able to follow our radar\nbecause you serve the greatest government\ninstructions but it lost its communications;\nin the world. You serve the leader of the\nbut we don't think that they were justified\nworld, the 113 nations, and yours is out-\nin shooting it down.\n288\nRemarks\nKey Officials of the\nInternal Revenue Service\nTranscript of T.U. And Radio Interview\nRepresentatives of Major\nBrond east\nServices\n[218] Mar. 15\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\n1064\nand arrest an American chargé d'affaires.\nTHE PRESIDENT. We have been very close\nBut that does happen, and we have to be\nto agreement several times. I have no doubt\nprepared for those developments and try to\nbut what agreement will be reached that\nunderstand them and try to provide leader-\nwill, in effect, provide for sitting down with\nship that will keep us from getting in deeper\nthe Panamanian authorities and discussing\nwater or more trouble, and that is what we\nthe problems that exist between us and be-\nare doing. Sometimes our people become\ning guided only by what is fair and what is\nvery impatient. They cut the water off on us\nright and what is just, and trying to resolve\nin Cuba, and I got a good many recommen-\nthose problems. Now, when that will come\ndations from all over the country as to how to\nabout, I don't know. We are anxious and\nact very quickly. Some of them said-some\nwilling and eager to do it any time it suits\nof the men wanted me to run in the Marines,\ntheir convenience.\nsend them in immediately.\nMr. Lawrence: What is the hitch right\nWell, upon reflection and evaluation and\nnow, Mr. President?\nstudy, realizing not many people want more\nTHE PRESIDENT. I think first, they have an\nwar, and none of them really want more\nelection on, and I think translating our\nappeasement, you have to find a course that\nlanguage into their language, that some of\nyou can chart that will preserve your dignity\nthe agreements that we have to discuss these\nand self-respect, and still bring about the ac-\nmatters, they perhaps feel that they would\ntion that is necessary. So instead of sending\nwant stronger language than we are willing\nin the Marines to turn the water on, we\nto agree to, and we want a different expres-\nsent one admiral in to cut it off and arrange\nsion from what they want. It is largely a\nto make our own water, and we think things\nmatter of trying to agree on the kind of\nworked out as best they could under those\nlanguage that will meet their problems, and\ncircumstances.\nthat we can honestly, sincerely agree to.\nBut there are going to be these demands\nWe are not going to agree to any precondi-\nfrom time to time, from people who feel\ntions to negotiate a new treaty without know-\nthat all we need to do is mash a button and\ning what it is going to be in that treaty\ndetermine everybody's foreign policy. But\nand without sitting down and working it\nwe are not living in that kind of a world any\nout on the basis of equity. We think that\nmore. They are going to determine it for\nthat language can be resolved and will be\nthemselves, and that is the way it should\nresolved in due time.\nbe. And we are going to have to come and\n[31.] Mr. Brinkley: Mr. President, what\nreason with them and try to lead them in-\nis your assessment now of General de\nstead of force them. And I think, I have no\nGaulle's behavior in the last year or two?\ndoubt but what for centuries to come that we\nWhat do you think about it?\nwill be a leading force in molding opinion of\nTHE PRESIDENT. Well, it is not for me to\nthe world, and I think the better they know\npass judgment on\nus the more they will like us.\nMr. Brinkley: In relation to us, sir?\n[30.] Mr. Lawrence: Is there any prog-\nTHE PRESIDENT.\non General de Gaulle's\nress, Mr. President, in the deadlock over\nconduct. My conversations with him have\nPanama and the absence of diplomatic rela-\nbeen very pleasant. I would like to see him\ntions with that country?\nmore in agreement on matters with us than\n372\nRemarks\nThird Anniversary\nof the Alliance for\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nMar.\nI6\n[220]\nProgress\nself-help. Progress cannot be created by\nincreased opportunity for us all. They 1964 are\nforming international organizations. Prog-\nthe means for each to contribute his best tal-\nress cannot be imposed by foreign countries.\nents and each to contribute his best desires.\nProgress cannot be purchased with large\nThey are the means to the full dignity of\namounts of money or even with large\nman, for the Alliance for Progress is a recog-\namounts of good will.\nnition that the claims of the poor and the\nProgress in each country depends upon the\noppressed are just claims. It is an effort to\nwillingness of that country to mobilize its\nfulfill those claims while at the same time\nown resources, to inspire its own people, to\nstrengthening democratic society and main-\ncreate the conditions in which growth can\ntaining the liberty of man.\nand will flourish, for although help can\nSo, no matter how great our progress, it\ncome from without, success must come only\nwill lack meaning unless every American\nfrom within. Those who are not willing to\nfrom the Indian of the Andes to the im-\ndo that which is unpopular and that which\npoverished farmer of Appalachia can share\nis difficult will not achieve that which is\nin the fruits of change and growth. Land\nneeded or that which will be lasting. This\nreform, tax changes, educational expansion,\nis as true of my own country's fight against\nthe fight against disease-all contribute to\npoverty and racial injustice as it is of the\nthis end. Everything else that we must do\nfight of others against hunger and disease\nmust be shaped by these guiding principles.\nand illiteracy-the ancient enemies of all\nIn these areas-cooperation and self-help and\nmankind.\nsocial justice-new emphasis can bring us\nBy broadening education we can liberate\ncloser to success.\nnew talents and energies, freeing millions\nAt the same time, we must protect the .\nfrom the bonds of illiteracy. Through land\nAlliance against the efforts of communism\nreform aimed at increased production, tak-\nto tear down all that we are building. The\ning different forms in each country, we can\nrecent proof of Cuban aggression in Ven-\nprovide those who till the soil with self-\nezuela is only the latest evidence of those\nrespect and increased income, and each\nintentions. We will soon discuss how best\ncountry with increased production to feed\nwe can meet these threats to the independ-\nthe hungry and to strengthen their economy.\nence of us all.\nFair and progressive taxes, effectively col-\nBut I now, today, assure you that the full\nlected, can provide the resources that are\npower of the United States is ready to assist\nneeded to improve education and public\nany country whose freedom is threatened by\nhealth conditions and the social structure\nforces dictated from beyond the shores of\nthat is needed for economic growth. Meas-\nthis continent.\nures ranging from control of inflation and\n[Let me now depart for a moment from my\nencouragement of exports to the elimination\nmain theme to speak of the differences that\nof deficits in public enterprises can help\nhave developed between Panama and the\nprovide the basis of economic stability and\nUnited States.\ngrowth on which our Alliance can flourish.\nOur own position is clear, and it has been\nThe third area of emphasis is the pursuit\nfrom the first hour that we learned of the\nof social justice. Development and material\ndisturbances. The United States will meet\nprogress are not ends in themselves. They\nwith Panama any time, anywhere, to discuss\nare means to a better life and means to an\nanything, to work together, to cooperate with\n383\n[220] Mar. 16\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\neach other, to reason with one another, to\npirations of millions of farmers and workers,\nreview and to consider all of our problems\nof men without education, of men without\ntogether, to tell each other all our opinions,\nhope, of poverty-stricken families whose\nall our desires, and all our concerns, and to\nhomes are the villages and the cities of an\naim at solutions and answers that are fair\nentire continent.\nand just and equitable without regard to\nThey ask simply the opportunity to enter\nthe size or the strength or the wealth of\ninto the world of progress and to share in\neither nation.\nthe growth of the land. From their leaders,\nWe don't ask Panama to make any pre-\nfrom us, they demand concern and compas-\ncommitments before we meet, and we in-\nsion and dedicated leadership and dedicated\ntend to make none. Of course, we cannot\nlabor.\nbegin on this work until diplomatic rela-\nI am confident that in the days to come we\ntions are resumed, but the United States is\nwill be able to meet those needs. It will not\nready today, if Panama is ready. As of this\nbe an easy task. The barriers are huge.\nmoment, I do not believe that there has been\nThe enemies of our freedom seek to harass\na genuine meeting of the minds between the\nus at every turn. We are engaged in a\ntwo Presidents of the two countries involved.\nstruggle for the destiny of the American Re-\nPress reports indicate that the Govern-\npublics, but it was a great poet, William\nment of Panama feels that the language\nButler Yeats, who reminded us that there\nwhich has been under consideration for\nwas doubt if any nation can become pros-\nmany days commits the United States to a\nperous unless it has national faith. Our\nrewriting and to a revision of the 1903 treaty.\nAlliance will prosper because I believe we\nWe have made no such commitment and\ndo have that faith. It is not idle hope but\nwe would not think of doing so before\nthe same faith that enabled us to nourish a\ndiplomatic relations are resumed and unless\nnew civilization in these spacious continents,\na fair and satisfactory adjustment is agreed\nand in that new world we will carry forward\nupon.\nour Alliance for Progress in such a way that\nThose of us who have gathered here today\nmen in all lands will marvel at the power\nmust realize that we are the principal\nof freedom to achieve the betterment of man.\nguardians of the Alliance for Progress. But\nThank you)\nthe Alliance is not here, and it is not in\nNOTE: The President spoke at 11:50 p.m. at the Pan\noffice buildings and it is not in meeting\nAmerican Union. His opening words \"Mr. Chair-\nrooms in Presidential mansions throughout\nman\" referred to Carlos Sanz de Santamaría, Chair-\nman of the Inter-American Committee on the Al-\nthe hemisphere. The Alliance is in the as-\nliance for Progress.\n22I Remarks to the Labor Advisory Council to the President's\nCommittee on Equal Employment Opportunity.\nMarch 16, 1964\nI AM glad to meet with you gentlemen and\nyears ago, just after President Kennedy\nto express our pleasure over your agreement\ncreated the President's Committee which I\nto serve on this newly created Labor Ad-\nchaired. I said then that there was no more\nvisory Council. Most of you met with us 3\nimportant job in the world than the one we\n384\n[231]\nMar.\n20\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\nCouncil for Science and Technology will\nand best timing for efficient use in agriculture. It\ncontinue to give this area the attention re-\nassigned high priorities to research in ground water,\nincluding an infiltration process and soil-plant-\nquired to achieve and maintain effective in-\nwater relationships; to socio-economic research; and\nteragency planning and coordination and an\nto research in water quality.\nadequate effort in water resources research.\nDr. Donald F. Hornig served as Chairman of the\nFederal Council for Science and Technology, and\nSincerely,\nLYNDON B. JOHNSON\nWilliam C. Ackermann as Chairman of the Com-\nmittee on Water Resources.\nNOTE: This is the text of identical letters addressed\nOn August I the White House announced a\nto the Honorable Carl Hayden, President pro\nfurther step in the field of water resources research.\ntempore of the Senate, and to the Honorable John W.\nA White House release of that date stated that the\nMcCormack, Speaker of the House of Representatives.\nPresident met with his Science Adviser to discuss\nThe letter was made public as part of a White\nplans for U.S. participation in the International\nHouse release announcing the transmittal to the\nHydrological Decade-a worldwide effort to ad-\nCongress of the first progress report of the Com-\nvance knowledge of water. The program, beginning\nmittee on Water Resources Research of the Federal\nin 1965, would involve the establishment of stations\nCouncil for Science and Technology (Feb. 1964,\nand networks throughout the world to measure and\n65 PP., Government Printing Office).\ntrack water in the hydrologic cycle from rain to the\nThe report proposed an increase in expenditures\nunderground water table and eventually back to the\nfor water research from $71,473,000 in fiscal year\natmosphere. The release stated that the President\n1964 to $72,464,000 in 1965. It recommended\npledged support of the International Hydrological\nstudies ranging from highly theoretical research on\nDecade studies by Government agencies and that he\nthe energy status of water molecules to such directly\nurged cooperation on the part of the universities and\napplicable matters as the amount of irrigation water\nscientific societies.\n232 The President's News Conference of\nMarch 21, 1964\nTHE PRESIDENT. Is it all right with you folks\nand respect for the sovereignty of each, to\nif I monitor your press conference? 1\nprovide for the betterment of all.'\n[1.] I am sending this afternoon a state-\n\"Under the many treaties and declarations\nment to the President of the OAS which may\nwhich form the fabric of that system, we\nbe of some interest to you. I will have copies\nhave long been allies in the struggle to\nmade of it as soon as we can complete them.\nstrengthen democracy and enhance the wel-\nThe statement reads:\nfare of our people.\n\"The present inability to resolve our differ-\n\"Our history is witness to this essential\nences with Panama is the source of deep\nunity of interest and belief. Panama has\nregret.\nunhesitatingly come to our side, twice in this\n[At this point the President presented background\ncentury, when we were threatened by ag-\nmaterial. He then resumed reading the statement.]\ngression. On December 7, 1941, Panama\n\"Our two countries are not linked by only\ndeclared war on our attackers even before\na single agreement or a single interest. We\nour own Congress had time to act. Since\nare bound together in an Inter-American\nthat war, Panama has wholeheartedly joined\nSystem whose objective is, in the words of.\nwith us, and our sister republics, in shaping\nthe charter, 'through mutual understanding\nthe agreements and goals of this continent.\n\"We have also had a special relationship\n1The President appeared unexpectedly during a\nwith Panama, for they have shared with us\nnews conference held at the White House by his\nPress Secretary, George E. Reedy.\nthe benefits, the burden, and trust of main-\n404\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nMar. 21 [232]\ntaining the Panama Canal as a lifeline of\nshares this hope. For, despite today's dis-\ndefense and a keystone of hemispheric pros-\nagreements, the common values and interests\nperity. All free nations are grateful for the\nwhich unite us are far stronger and more\neffort they have given to that task.\nenduring than the differences which now\n\"As circumstances change, as history\ndivide us.\"\nshapes new attitudes and expectations, we\nA copy of that statement will be sent to\nhave reviewed periodically this special\nHis Excellency Juan Bautista de Lavalle,\nrelationship.\nChairman of the Council of the Organiza-\n\"We are well aware that the claims of the\ntion of American States.\nGovernment of Panama, and of the majority\nI will be glad to have any questions, if you\nof the Panamanian people, do not spring\nhave any.\nfrom malice or hatred of America. They\nQ. Mr. President, sir, do you feel that the\nare based on a deeply felt sense of the honest\nAmerican people outside the Washington\nand fair needs of Panama. It is, therefore,\narea back up your stand on-\nour obligation as allies and partners to review\nTHE PRESIDENT. I am not going to make\nthese claims and to meet them, when meet-\nany evaluation of the American people out-\ning them is both just and possible.\nside the Washington area. I haven't con-\n\"We are ready to do this.\nducted any polls on it, and I don't know\n\"We are prepared to review every issue\nwhat their opinion might be on any specific\nwhich now divides us, and every problem\nsubject.\nwhich the Panamanian Government wishes\nQ. Mr. President, when you say his in-\nto raise.\nstructions will not bar any solution which is\n\"We are prepared to do this at any time\nfair, would that include, sir, a renegotiation\nand at any place.\nof the 1903 treaty?\n\"As soon as he is invited by the Govern-\nTHE PRESIDENT. This would mean just\nment of Panama, our Ambassador will be on\nwhat the statement says. We will discuss\nhis way. We shall also designate a special\nany problem that divides us in any way, and\nrepresentative. He will arrive with full\nthen we will come up with a solution that is\nauthority to discuss every difficulty. He will\nfair.\nbe charged with the responsibility of seeking\nQ. Has the Ambassador been chosen, Mr.\na solution which recognizes the fair claims\nPresident or would that be Ambassador\nof Panama and protects the interest of all the\nMann?\nAmerican nations in the Canal. We cannot\nTHE PRESIDENT. No, we would select a spe-\ndetermine, even before our meetings, what\ncial representative.\nform that solution might best take. But his\nQ. Mr. President, before you get around to\ninstructions will not prohibit any solution\nissuing the statement, could we have that-\nwhich is fair, and subject to the appropriate\nto put it up on the bulletin board so we can\nconstitutional processes of both our govern-\ndictate from it?\nments.\nTHE PRESIDENT. I may want to use it to\n\"I hope that on this basis we can begin to\nanswer any questions.\nresolve our problems and move ahead to con-\nQ. I mean when the conference is over.\nfront the real enemies of this hemisphere-\nTHE PRESIDENT. Surely.\nthe enemies of hunger and ignorance, disease\nQ. Mr. President, I understood you to say,\nand injustice. I know President Chiari\nsir, that our position now is just where it was\n405\n[232]\nMar.\n2I\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\nwhen you first talked to the President of\nQ. Mr. President, would you think that\nPanama. This is no new position?\nthis statement might clear up any difference\nTHE PRESIDENT. That is correct. Very\nof interpretation they have-\nshortly after the flag was not flown, and there\nTHE PRESIDENT. I would not speculate on\nwas a march on the zone, and some of our\nthat. I am just making a statement and\nsoldiers were killed, I called the President of\nsending it over to the President of the OAS.\nPanama and said that we have difficulties and\nWhat happens there, events will determine.\nproblems, disagreements, obviously, and we\nI, of course, am hopeful that we can always\nare prepared to discuss those disagreements\nreason out differences together, and that is\nany time, anywhere, anyplace.\none of the purposes of my expression.\nHe said, \"When would your people be\nQ. Mr. President, don't formal diplomatic\nprepared to meet with mine?\"\nrelations have to precede a discussion like\nI said, \"They will leave here in 3°\nthis?\nminutes.\"\nTHE PRESIDENT. Obviously.\nHe said, \"Very well.\"\n[2.] Q. Mr. President, on another sub-\nSince that time, although we have made\nject, can you give us your reaction to the\nvery few public statements on it and we have\nrelease by the Russians today of one of\ntried and hoped that the OAS could work\nthe American fliers shot down over East\nthis out, and there have been a great many\nGermany?\nleaks back and forth, some of the stuff\nTHE PRESIDENT. I don't think I have any\nyou call news interpretation, news analysis,\ncomment on that. Talk to the Department\nand various things, some of which really\nabout that.\ntook place and some of which was specula-\n[3.] Q. Mr. President, can you enlighten\ntion, I think it is very important that the\nus on what did go on last weekend involv-\npeople of this hemisphere know that from\ning the Panamanian negotiations? There\nthe beginning, and now, just what this\nhave been a lot of conflicting reports, as\nstatement says: that we are willing and\nyou mentioned earlier.\nready to discuss at any time, with any of\nTHE PRESIDENT. No, I am not sure that I\ntheir representatives, any problem, any dif-\nknow all that went on regarding it. So\nficulty, in a reasonable way, and to let only\nfar as I know, our position at the beginning\nequity and justice determine what course\nwas what I just stated, and it still is. Up to\nwe would take, subject to the constitutional\nthis point there has been no meeting of the\nprocesses.\nminds.\nQ. Mr. President, what is the reason for\n[4.] Q. Mr. President, were you at all\nissuing the statement today?\ndisturbed, sir, that Mr. Salinger only gave\nTHE PRESIDENT. No reason. I am sending\nyou a few hours' notice of his resignation?\nit over there. I didn't think you would\nSecond, do you agree with some-\nobject to hearing it.\nTHE PRESIDENT. Let me answer one at a\nQ. No, I meant-I mean to the OAS.\ntime.\nWhat is the reason for sending the statement\nQ. I am sorry.\nto them now?\nTHE PRESIDENT. No. The answer is no.\nTHE PRESIDENT. So that we may reiterate\nThat is, to the first question. What is the\nour viewpoint and in some detail.\nnext one? I was not disturbed.\n406\nLyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964\nMar. 2I [232]\nQ. Some of the newspapers have inter-\nThis is a statement to the President that he\npreted this as another sign that supporters of\ncan use in his deliberations. I would hope\nJohn Kennedy and Robert Kennedy are\nthat all of us realized from the beginning\nanxious to leave your administration. Do\nthat the United States position was that we\nyou agree with that, or have you seen any\nwere willing to talk to anybody that they\nsigns of that?\ndesignated at any time, anyplace, and review\nTHE PRESIDENT. The answer is no to that\nall problems and all difficulties.\nquestion.\nI don't say discuss, because that is a sticky\n[5.] Q. Mr. President, can we have the\nword. Some of them do not quite under-\nWarren Commission open to the American\nstand what it means. But I say review. We\npublic? Is there any reason why they\nare glad to do that. I made that clear that\ncannot be?\nday, and I have reiterated it. But I think it\nTHE PRESIDENT. That is a matter for the\nis good that the President of the OAS can\nCommission to determine completely.\nhave the details carried in this statement.\n[6.] Q. Mr. President, a rather sticky\n[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect any\nsituation seems to have developed in Cuba\nmajor developments in the field of East-West\nover the helicopter flight of the two defectors,\nrelations in the field of disarmament?\nand the slaying in the air. What is the U.S.\nTHE PRESIDENT. Well, we always hope for\nposition on that?\nthe best.\nTHE PRESIDENT. That is a matter you should\n[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you still feel\ntalk to the Department about. We are now\nthat there are remaining misinterpretations\nlooking into it very carefully. I have talked\nabout the statement last week on Panama?\nto the Secretary of State and the Secretary of\nTHE PRESIDENT. I don't want to go into\nDefense about it this morning. I have no\nthat, because\nannouncement that will be made at this time.\n[At this point the President spoke off the record.]\nOf course, when there is an announcement,\nit will probably come from the Secretary of\n[10.] Q. Mr. President, your guidelines\nDefense or the Secretary of State.\nfor holding the wage-price line have been\n[7-] Q. Mr. President, you said a mo-\ncriticized by both labor and management\nment ago, sir, that there was no reason for\nrecently. Do you still think that these will\nthe issuance of this statement.\nwork, in view of this criticism?\nTHE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't say that.\nTHE PRESIDENT. We hope very much that\nQ. I am sorry.\nthey will. We believe that both labor and\nTHE PRESIDENT. I didn't intend to say there\nmanagement can best solve their problems\nwas no reason. I think I would not issue it,\nthrough collective bargaining, and we hope\nif there was no reason.- There is a reason,\nthat that is the way.it will be done. We have\nbut I thought his question was what was\noutlined what course we believe is best for\nthe reason for giving it to them. I just\nAmerica, all the people, and generally the\nthought you ought to be kept informed of\ncriteria of that course is indicated by the\nwhat was happening in this field.\nguidelines. But in the wage negotiations\nQ. Are you trying to clear the air, sir?\nand the working conditions that must from\nTHE PRESIDENT. No, I want everyone to\ntime to time be examined, and new agree-\nknow our position and I think this helps.\nments reached, we hope that that will be\n407\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSECRET\nJune 5, 1970\nNational Security Decision Memorandum 61\nTO:\nThe Secretary of State\nThe Secretary of Defense\nThe Secretary of the Army\nSUBJECT:\nPanama Canal\nI have reviewed the paper prepared in response to NSSM 86 and\nagency comments on the issues contained therein, and I have de-\ncided the following:\nJ. We should be prepared to discuss with Panama our fundamental\ncanal relationship and to negotiate new treaty arrangements if\nPanama asks US to do so and if there are reasonable prospects for\nachieving a satisfactory new treaty arrangement.\n2. I authorize the Secretary of State to coordinate exploratory and\npreliminary ialks with the Panamanian government designed to\ndetermine Panama's views in more detail and to reach a judgment as\nto whether mutually satisfactory new treaty arrangements can be\nexpected. It should be made clear to the Panamanians that these\ntalks are preliminary and exploratory and not themselves negotiations.\n3. I authorize the Secretary of State and Ambassador Anderson to\ncoordinate consultations with the US Congress at such time as they\ndeem advisable on the question of our future canal relationship with\nPanama.\n4. Inter-agency recommendations should be submitted to me, based\non what is learned as a result of the steps authorized by 2 and 3\nabove as to a) whether and when to open formal negotiations on new\ntreatics and b) what our specific negotiating objectives should be.\nThese recommendations should be coordinated and submitted to me\nby the Under Secretaries Committee.\n5. If formal negotiations appear desirable, I would prefer, in the\nabsence of overriding reasons 10 the contrary, that these not begin\nSECRET\nNSC 80086 DECLASSIFIED 12/30/80\nBy WHM HARS, Date 12/19/84\nSECRET\n- 2\nuntil early 1971 to permit receipt and evaluation of the Canal Study\nCommission report and soundings with the new Congress. These\nreasons may be used to explain to the Panamanian government why\nwe suggest this time frame.\n6. In any new negotiations three points are to be considered non-\nnegotiable: a) effective US control of canal operations; b) effective\nUS control of canal defense; and c) continuation of these controls\nfor an extended period of time preferably open-ended.\n7. In the exploratory talks our representatives should be guided by\nthe following with respect to those issues raised by the NSSM-86\npaper:\na) On expanded cana] capacity, Indicate in any new negotia-\ntions we would expect to negotiate definitive rights (but with-\nout obligation) to build a new sea-level canal and/or enlarge\nthe present canal. However, our final position in this regard\nwould be formed after we have evaluated the Canal Study\nCommission Report.\nb) On control of canal operations. Test first Panamanian recep-\ntivity to a continuation of exclusive USG control of canal opera-\ntions and whether such a control pattern can be made palatable\nto Panama; if it is clear that Panama will not accept this, then\nagree to explore a pattern of joint US-Panamanian administra-\ntion, with US majority control, along the lines of the 1967 draft\ntreaties or some similar arrangement.\nc) On defense. Indicate that in any new negotiations we would\nseck rights for unilateral defense of the canal and canal arcas.\nDefer for the time being discussion of the hemisphere defense\nissue in view of the pending Defense Department review of\nSouthern Command status.\nd) On sovereignty and inrisdiction. Test first Panamanian recep-\ntivity to the idea of a markedly reduced Zone with continuance\nof USG control therein, but with negotiation for Panamanian\njurisdiction over commercial and non-essential governmental\nfunctions (Option A of paper). If pursuing this course is clearly\nnot fruitful, explore joint US-Panamanian jurisdiction along\nthe 1967 draft treaty model (Option E).\nFORD\nSECRET\nSECRET\n- 3 -\nd) On duration. Our objective should be an open-ended\narrangement; we should consider specific provision\nfor periodic review.\n:) On economic benefits. Indicate the U.S. is prepared\nto seek ways to create substantial additional revenue\nfor Panama.\ncc:\nChairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff\nDirector, Central Intelligence Agency\nAmbassador Robert Anderson,\nSpecial Representative for US/Panama Relations\nSECRET\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGION\nSECRET /EXDIS\nJune 24, 1971\nNational Security Decision Memorandum 115\nTO:\nThe Secretary of State\nThe Secretary of Defense\nSUBJECT:\nPanama Canal Treaty Negotiations\nFORD LIBRARY\nI have reviewed Ambassador Anderson's letter of April 12, 1971, and the\nreport of the NSC Under Secretaries Committee dated June 10, 1971, con-\ncerning United States goals and objectives for negotiations with Panama\non canal treaty relations. On the basis of that review, I have decided to\nauthorize Ambassador Anderson to undertake formal negotiations with\nPanama with a view to obtaining agreement on the text of a draft treaty\nthis year. The principles set forth in NSDM 64 will continue to provide\nthe basis for the United States position in the forthcoming negotiations,\nexcept insofar as they are modified or expanded by the following specific\ndecisions.\n-- Recommendations B-3 through 7 contained in the June 10, 1971\nreport of the NSC Under Secretaries Committee are approved.\nWith respect to Recommendation B-1 of the NSC Under Secretaries\nCommittee report, concerning the duration of the treaty, I have\ndecided that the United States negotiating objective should continue\nto be control of canal operations and defense for an open-ended\nperiod. Provision for review of this arrangement at some specific\nfuture date may be included in the U.S. position. Should Ambas-\nsador Anderson conclude, in the course of negotiations, that\nachievement of our major negotiating objective will require agree-\nment to a fixed-term treaty, twill be prepared to consider promptly\na revision of this objective.\nWith respect to Recommendation B-2 of the NSC Under Secretaries\nreport, concerning jurisdiction over the Canal Zone, I have decided\nthat the initial United State's negotiating objective should be to per-\nmit U.S. jurisdiction to be phased out within a minimum of twenty\nyears while protecting non-negotiable rights for U.S. control and\nSEGRET /EXDIS\nNSC 80086, DECLASSIFIED 12/30/80\nBy WHM NARS, Date 12/19/84\nSEGRET/EXDIS\n2 -\ndefense of the canal for the duration of the treaty. However,\nAmbassador Anderson is authorized to negotiate a shorter time\nperiod for the phase-out of jurisdiction if, after initial negotia-\ntions, he deems such action necessary to achieve our non-\nnegotiable objectives. Such a fall-back position should be the\nmaximum that can be successfully negotiated with the Government\nof Panama consistent with an orderly transfer of jurisdiction to\nPanama, effective U.S. control and defense of the canal after such\njurisdiction is phased out, and Congressional acceptance.\n-- Congressional consultations should be initiated as soon as possible\nto test support for a treaty along the lines outlined above.\nThe NSC Under Secretaries Committee should submit to me by July 15,\n1971, recommendations and/or options for U.S. policy toward Panama in\nthe event treaty negotiations reach an impasse or must be broken off.\nAmbassador Anderson intends to remain in close consultation with the\nSecretaries of State and Defense during the period of negotiations and I\nhave asked him to keep me closely and periodically informed as to the\nstatus of negotiations and Congressional consultations.\nCC: The Chairman, NSC Under Sccretaries Committee\nThe Secretary of the Army\nThe Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff\nThe Director of Central Intelligence\nSpecial Representative for Interoceanic Canal\nNegotiations\nSEGRET/EXDIS\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASRINCTON\nSeptember 13, 1971\nSecurity Recision interendem 131\nTO:\nThe Secretary of State\nThe Secretary of Defence\nSUBJECT:\nPanama Canal Treaty Negotiations\nIhave reviewed Ambassador Anderson's letter of August 20, 1971, 80\nwell 28 the views of the Departments of State and Defense concerning\nmodification of Ambassador Anderson's negotiating instructions 022\nduration of a new treaty 0.8 set forth in NSDM 115. On the basis of\nthat review, I have made the following decisions:\n-- Ambassador Anderson is authorized at the time he feels most\nappropriate to inform Panama that the U.S., while strongly\npreferring an opensended treaty, is willing to consider the\npossibility of it, termination formula, provided that the dura-\ntion negotiated is a long one and that other provisions of the\ntreaty package are satisfactory to the U.S. If such a formula\nappears unobtainable, he is authorized to fall back to consid-\neration of a treaty providing for a fixed date of termination.\nIn either case, the U.S. negotiating objective should be a\nduration of at least fifty years, with provision for an addi-\ntional 30-50 years if Canal capacity 10 expanded.\n-- In addition, he should seek to obtain, as part of any new\ntreaty providing a formula or specific date for termination,\n8 joint U.S. -Panamanian guarantee that upon termination of\nthe treaty, the Canal would be open to all world shipping\nwithout discrimination at reasonable to 11c and that Panama\nwould take no action that would hamper the efficient opera-\ntion of the waterway.\nSECRET /EXDIS\nNSC 80086 DECLASSIFIED 12/30/80\nBy W HM NARS, Date 12/19/84\nnotests /ENDIS\n10 2 to\nCongressional concultations should be continued to test support for is\nlicaly along the lines outlined above.\nCC:\nThe Chairman, NSC Under Secretaries Committee\nThe Secretary of the Army\nThe Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff\nThe Director of Central Intelligence\nSpecial Representative for Interoceanic Canal\nNegotiations\nSECRET/L DIS\nCongressional\nDigest\nANNUIT COEPTIB\nUNUM\nINOVUS MDCCLXXVI ORDO CLORUM\n(THE THE GREAT SFAL\nOFTHF OF THE UNITED UNITED STATES\nNovember, 1972\nNOV RESEARCH 11 1974 SERVICE\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nDUPLICATE\nControversy Over Proposed\nRevision Of The\nPanama Canal Treaty\nPro & Con\nWashington, D.C.\nThe Congressional Digest\nControversy Over Proposed\nFOUNDED\nAN INDEPENDENT MONTHLY FEATURING CONTROVERSIES IN CONGRESS, PRO & CON\nRevision Of The Panama\n1921\nNOT AN OFFICIAL ORGAN, NOT CONTROLLED BY ANY PARTY, INTEREST, CLASS OR SECT\nPUBLISHED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST CORPORATION, 3231 P STREET N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007\nCanal Treaty\nA. GRAM ROBINSON, President\nNORBORNE T. N. ROBINSON 3RD, Publisher\nJOHN E. SHIELDS, Editor\nHe Who Decides a Case Without Hearing the Other Side\nNOVEMBER, 1972\nVOLUME 51\nTho He Decide Justly, Cannot Be Considered Just-SENECA\nNUMBER 11\nFOREWORD=\npage 264), a development which some ecologists argue\nwould cause irreparable harm to sea life because of the\nCONTENTS =\nintroduction of destructive marine predators from one\nS\nINCE June 1971 representatives of the United States\nocean to the other.\nTHE MONTH IN CONGRESS:\nand the Republic of Panama have been engaged in\nMeanwhile, close observation of the growing discord\nnegotiations seeking to reach agreement on one or more\nwith Panama and of the successive Johnson and Nixon\nNote: This section will be resumed with the First Session of the 93rd Congress which will convene in January 1973.\ntreaties to replace the present basic agreement under\nAdministration efforts to ameliorate it has been main-\nwhich the United States built and exercises jurisdiction\ntained by the U.S. Congress. As will be seen in the article\nTHIS MONTH'S FEATURE:\nover the Panama Canal.\non page 267, hearings before several subcommittees of the\nSimilar efforts during the mid-1960's resulted in 1967\nHouse of Representatives have been conducted in each of\nControversy Over Proposed Revision Of The Panama Canal Treaty\nin agreement by negotiators on three treaties (see pages\nthe past several Congresses on the subject of treaty nego-\nThe Foreword\n257\n258, 265), but the instruments were never signed and\ntiations and on other major questions at issue between the\n258\nhave since been declared unsatisfactory by Panama. In-\nUnited States and Panama.\nEvents Leading to the Present Treaty Negotiations\nvolved in the controversy which has long existed over\nThe Panama Canal Zone: Facts & Figures\n260\nThe position of the Nixon Administration-essentialy\nproposals to cede significant U.S. jurisdiction over the\nthe same as that earlier enunciated by the Johnson Admin-\nA Profile of the Canal and Its Operation\n262\nCanal and the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama are\nistration-has been to accommodate Panamanian objec-\nPresent Economic Impact of the Panama Canal\n263\na number of basic questions. These include that of basic\ntions to the present \"perpetuity\" provision governing U.S.\nRecommendations Concerning A New Sea Level Canal\n264\nsovereignty, the cession of certain U.S. properties to\ntenure in the Canal Zone, and to establish a joint Pana-\nHighlights of the Proposed 1967 Treaties With Panama\n265\nPanama, perpetuity provisions in the present treaty, the\nmanian-U.S. administration of the Canal and the Zone.\nAction re Treaty Negotiations in the 91st & 92nd Congresses\n267\nU.S. defense role, the level of U.S. payment to Panama\nAdditionally, plans for a sea level canal have been dis-\n(presently $1.9 million annually), and the right to con-\ncussed in terms of a definite date by which the United\nPRO and CON Discussion =\nstruct an alternate canal at sea level, among others.\nStates will turn the present canal completely over to\nUnited States negotiators, headed by former Secretary\nPanama.\nShould the U.S. Retain Its Present Basic Sovereignty\nof the Treasury Robert B. Anderson, have found their\nOpposing this position has been an active and influen-\nOver the Panama Canal Zone?\nnegotiating task complicated by the fact that since the\ntial bloc in the Congress which opposes what it terms a\n1964-67 treaty sessions the elected Panamanian govern-\nPRO=\nCON=\nU.S. \"giveaway\" of the Canal. Members who oppose the\nment has been ousted in a military coup and replaced by\nAdministration's approach have succeeded in focusing\nU.S. Senator Strom Thurmond\n268\nU.S. Senator Alan Cranston\n269\nan administration headed by General Omar Torrijos, the\ncontinuing attention on the progress of U.S.-Panamanian\nU.S. Representative Daniel J. Flood\n272\nHon. Robert A. Hurwitch\n275\nnation's present leader. Recent statements by the latter\nnegotiations and on provisions being advanced by negotia-\nU.S. Representative Leonor K. Sullivan\n280\nHon. David H. Ward\n279\nhave condemned the U.S. military presence in the Canal\ntors for both sides which they hold to be contrary to the\nCommittee for Continued U.S. Control\n284\nAmbassador John C. Mundt\n283\nZone, have claimed Panamanian sovereignty, and have\nlong-range U.S. interest.\nintimated that outright Panamanian abrogation of the\nNo predictions are presently being made as to when,\nexisting basic treaty (see page 258) may be his country's\nSUBSCRIPTION RATES: 1 yr., $14.50; 2 yrs., $26; 3 yrs., $34. Foreign 55c extra per yr. Current single copy, $1.50.\nif at all, agreement will be reached with Panama on the\nCURRENT COPY BULK RATES: 5 @ $1.25 each; 10 @ $1 each; 25 and up @ 75c. Write for back copy information.\nresponse to unresolved U.S.-Panamanian differences over\nnumerous sensitive subjects under negotiation. With talks\nthe future status of the Canal.\nADDRESS ORDERS and checks to: CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST CORP., 3231 P St., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20007.\ncontinuing, however, and a new U.S. Congress-the 93rd\nFurther dimension to the controversy has been lent by\n-convening in January 1973, controversy over the ques-\nSecond Class postage paid at Washington, D. C. and at additional mailing offices. Published monthly except July and August.\nsimultaneous efforts to negotiate an agreement for U.S.\ntion of continued U.S. sovereignty is expected to continue\nYearly index to each volume published with the December issue. Indexed in the Readers Guide and other indexing publications.\nCopyright 1972 by The Congressional Digest Corporation, Washington, D. C. Back volumes available in all standard microforms.\nrights to construct a sea level canal through Panama (see\nand to grow in intensity in the months ahead.\n257\nUnited States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control\nTreaty Revisions of 1936 and 1955\nPANAMA CANAL\nEvents Leading To The Present\nof a zone of land and land under water for the construc-\nIn 1936 the Hull-Alfaro Treaty was signed; after pro-\nTREATY\ntion, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of\ntracted Congressional objection, its ratification was con-\nREVISION-\nTreaty Negotiations\nsaid Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the\nsented to by the Senate in 1939. At the request of Panama\ndistance of five miles on each side of the center line of\n-which, after the ratification in 1922 of the U.S.-Colom-\nthe route of the Canal to be constructed\nThe\nRepublic\nbia treaty felt that its independence was not endangered—\nof Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity\nAs\nS\nEARLY as the beginning of the 16th century the\nstructing a canal in Nicaragua; when the French Canal\nArticle I of the 1903 treaty, guaranteeing U.S. defense of\nthe use, occupation and control of any other lands and\nworld's major maritime nations were giving consid-\nCompany accepted a U.S. offer of $40 million for its\nPanamanian independence, was abolished. The U.S. ceded\nwaters outside of the zone above described which may be\neration to the possibility of joining the Atlantic and Pa-\nrights and properties in Panama, however, the Commis-\nback certain rights to Panama in the 1936 treaty, includ-\nnecessary and convenient for the construction, mainte-\ncific Oceans by canal across Central America. In 1523,\nsion presented a supplementary report favoring a Pana-\ning that of intercession in Panamanian internal affairs.\nnance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said\nCharles V of Spain initiated the first investigation into\nmanian route. On June 28, 1902, the U.S. Congress\nThe 1903 treaty had provided for a U.S. one-time payment\nCanal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary\nthe subject, and in 1534 ordered the Governor of Panama\npassed the Spooner Amendment, setting into motion the\nof $10 million in cash and for an annual payment for use\nand convenient for the construction, maintenance, opera-\nto make a formal survey of the route following the\npurchase from the French Canal Company and the begin-\nof the Canal Zone of $250,000. This amount was raised\ntion, sanitation and protection of the said enterprise\nChagres and Rio Grande Rivers, the general course\nning of U.S. canal construction.\nto $430,000 by the 1936 treaty.\nwhich the actual Panama Canal takes today.\n\"Article III. The Republic of Panama grants to the\nIn the years following World War II the effects of the\nColombian and Panamanian Negotiations\nUnited States all the rights, power and authority within\nEast-West cold war became manifest in Panama with\nReaction to French Canal Building Efforts\nThe territory in question was in 1902 a part of the Re-\nthe zone mentioned and described in Article II of this\n\"hate America\" campaigns reportedly fomented by Pana-\nIn January 1880 the first actual effort to build an\npublic of Colombia, and the United States accordingly\nagreement and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and\nmanian communists. In 1951 further efforts to subvert the\nisthmian canal was begun in Panama under Count Ferdi-\nnegotiated a treaty with that nation conveying the needed\nwaters mentioned and described in said Article II which\nloyalty of Panamanians working in the Canal Zone, this\nnand de Lesseps-who had successfully completed the\nrights to construct an isthmian canal and setting forth\nthe United States would possess and exercise if it were\ntime allegedly by President Juan Peron of Argentina,\nSuez Canal eleven years earlier-for the French Canal\nguarantees pledged by each nation to the other relative\nthe sovereign of the territory within which said lands and\nprompted Panamanian efforts to secure further revision\nCompany. Reflecting American views toward foreign en-\nto such a canal.\nwaters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise\nof the basic canal treaty. The Eisenhower-Remon Treaty\nterprises in the Western Hemisphere, shaped by the Mon-\nA fast-moving series of events followed. The Colombian\nby the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights,\nof 1955 which ensued transferred certain additional U.S.\nroe Doctrine, President Rutherford B. Hayes stated in\npower or authority.\"\nSenate refused to ratify the Hay-Herran Treaty, as it was\nrights and properties to Panama and increased the canal\n1880:\ntermed, whereupon separatist political forces in Panama-\nIn 1914, the year in which the Canal was completed,\nannuity from $430,000 to $1.93 million.\n\"The policy of this government is a canal under Amer-\nwho favored the construction of a canal-revolted, assist-\nthe United States negotiated a treaty with Colombia-\nican control. The United States cannot consent to the sur-\ned (it was later acknowledged) by the United States. On\nthe Thomson-Urrutia Treaty-under which the U.S. of-\nBackground of Latest Treaty Talks\nrender of this control to any European power or to any\nNovember 3, 1903, creation of the independent Republic\nfered Colombia $25 million as compensation for this coun-\nUnder the reported leadership of the Communist Party\ncombination of European powers.\nOur merely com-\nof Panama was proclaimed. Three days later the United\ntry's collusion in the Panamanian revolution. In return,\nof Panama, a series of disorders and attempted disrup-\nStates recognized the new Republica, and within two\nColombia recognized that title to the Panama Canal was\nmercial interest [in the Canal] is greater than that of all\ntions took place, beginning in 1958 with \"Operation Sov-\nother countries\nweeks a basic treaty concerning the construction of a\n\"now vested entirely and absolutely in the United States\nereignty,\" a student-executed attempt to fly the Pana-\nThe French effort failed, however, and nine years later\ncanal-the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty-was signed with\nof America.\" Former President Theodore Roosevelt de-\nmanian flag over the U.S. Canal Zone. The program was\nthe company was dissolved. A new French Canal Com-\nthe new Panamanian Government.\nnounced the treaty, however, and succeeded in blocking\nsuccessful in winning support of Panamanian President\nit in the U.S. Senate. It was not until 1922 that it finally\npany was formed in 1894, but little work was accom-\nErnesto de la Guardia. Destructive riots and other disrup-\nMajor Treaties Involved\nreceived ratification.\nplished.\ntions, particularly in 1958 and 1964, led to successful\nSeveral years earlier the United States and Great Britain\nmoves by Panama to make the U.S. role in that nation a\nInitial U.S. Canal Moves\nhad negotiated the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 which\nConstruction of the Canal\nsubject of discussion before the Organization of American\nNotwithstanding intermittent expressions of U.S. inter-\nrecognized the exclusive right of the United States to con-\nAfter the United States secured the rights and proper-\nStates, the United Nations, and other international forums.\nest in the idea of a canal during the closing years of the\nstruct and deepen an isthmian canal.\nties of the French Canal Company for $40 million, con-\nIn 1964, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson agreed to\n19th century, no official action was taken to assert an\nThe Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty with Panama, which\nstruction of the Panama Canal began and extended over\nbegin negotiations for a new treaty. These resulted in three\nactual U.S. role. This passivity was shaken, however, by\ndespite amendment on several occasions over the years\nthe ten-year period from 1904 to 1914. Initially it was\ndraft treaties initialed in 1967 (see page 265). The Presi-\nevents arising from the Spanish-American War-in partic-\nremains the basic instrument of agreement defining the\nessentially a civilian undertaking. In the face of immense\ndent of Panama did not act to have these treaties ratified,\nular, the two months required for the battleship Oregon\nU.S. and Panamanian roles, includes the following major\nproblems-logistics, rampant disease, the sheer magnitude\nhowever, and no action was taken on them by the United\nto make the long voyage to Cuba from the Pacific by way\nprovisions:\nof the \"ditch-digging\" and lock-building tasks-and, par-\nStates.\nof Cape Horn at a time of military need.\n\"Article I. The United States guarantees and will\nticularly, of difficulties retaining key personnel, President\nAfter almost four years during which the proposed\nPresident William McKinley pointed out the necessity\nmaintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.\nRoosevelt turned the project over to the U.S. Army in\ntreaties were in limbo, and in which period the elected\nfor a canal and, after Congress had passed enabling legis-\n[This article has been superseded by the 1936 treaty-see\n1907. Under the direction of Col. George W. Goethals,\nGovernment of Panama was overthrown by a military\nlation, in 1899 appointed the first Isthmian Canal Com-\nbelow.]\nchief engineer, the Canal was finished and opened to traf-\ncoup, the United States and Panama resumed negotiations\nfic on August 15, 1914. Total construction costs were\nmission. Initially, the Commission recommended con-\n\"Article II. The Republic of Panama grants to the\nin June 1971 for a new treaty regarding the Panama Canal.\n$380 million.\nThese continue at the present time.\n258\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n259\nABOG\nPANAMA CANAL\nThe Panama Canal Zone:\nPANAMA\nOF\nBAY\nTREATY\nREVISION\nFacts Figures\nPANAMA VIEJO\nPANAMA\nT\nHE Panama Canal Zone is a strip of land extending\ncapital stock were acquired in 1881 by the French in\nTOCUMEN\n(AIRPORT)\nNATIONAL\nCANAL ZONE AND VICINITY\nSCALE\nacross the Isthmus of Panama from the Atlantic to\nconjunction with their attempt to construct a canal. The\nthe Pacific Ocean, ten miles in width (five miles on each\nIsthmian Canal Commission acquired the shares owned by\nJUAN DIAZ\nHOWARD\nVERACRUZ\nside of the axis of the Panama Canal), and under juris-\nthe French Canal Company for the United States as part\ndiction of the United States by treaty with the Republic\nof the French assets purchased in 1904, and in 1905 pur-\nARRAIJAN\nof Panama. Its area is 553 square miles, of which 371\nchased the remaining outstanding shares from private\nare land.\nowners. Thus, since 1905 the Company has been wholly\nALCALDE DIAZ\nowned by the United States Government.\nCUMBRES\nPopulation\nPANAMA\nZONE\nCHORRERA\nNATIONAL\nIn 1945 Congress enacted the Government Corpora-\nThe population of the Canal Zone is approximately\ntion Control Act which prohibited the continued existence\n47,500. About 39,400 of these are U.S. citizens, and most\nof any wholly owned Federal Government corporation\nPANAMA\nof the rest are Panamanians. Of the total population,\ncreated by or under the laws of any State. Accordingly,\nabout 26,500 are military or civilian personnel of the\nin 1948 the Panama Railroad Company was reincorpo-\nBUENOS AIRES\nU.S. armed forces and their families, and about 10,400\nrated under a Federal charter with authority to continue\nare employees of the Panama Canal Company and the\nits operations as before.\nCanal Zone Government and their families. Of the 11,000\nnon-U.S. citizens employed by the Company and the Gov-\nThe 1950 Reorganization\nernment, less than 2,000 (plus their families) live in the\nUnder legislation enacted in 1950, a basic change in the\nSANTA\nZone; the remainder live in the Republic of Panama.\norganizational structure of the canal enterprise became\neffective on July 1, 1951. One purpose of the reorganiza-\nAdministration of the Zone\ntion was to separate the business operations of the canal\nCEMENTO\nConstruction of the Canal was performed by the Isth-\nenterprise, including operation of the waterway, from\nmian Canal Commission (see page 258) under the pro-\nthose functions normally associated with civil government.\nvisions of the Spooner Act of June 28, 1902. As con-\nThus, all the functions of the agency previously known\nstruction approached completion, the President issued an\nas The Panama Canal except those relating to civil gov-\nBUENA VISTA\nExecutive Order providing a permanent organization for\nernment, health, and sanitation were transferred to the\nthe completion, maintenance, operation, government and\nPanama Railroad Company which was renamed the Pan-\nThe Panama Canal and Canal Zone, administered by the U.S. under terms of the\n1903 treaty with Panama (as amended in 1936 and 1955). Map courtesy of The\nPanama Canal Company. For a profile view of the Canal showing locations and\ncomparative elevations of its systems of locks, see diagram at bottom of page 262.\nsanitation of the Panama Canal and its adjunets and the\nama Canal Company. The Panama Canal agency retained\ngovernment of the Canal Zone pursuant to authority pro-\nits governmental functions and was renamed the Canal\nw\nvided by the Panama Canal Act of August 24, 1912. The\nZone Government. These two instrumentalities comprise\neffect of the Panama Canal Act and the Executive Order\ntoday the basic agencies operative in the Canal Zone,\nwas to establish The Panama Canal as an independent\nfunctioning as an integrated enterprise, but each an inde-\ngovernment agency for operation and maintenance of the\npendent agency of the United States.\nwaterway and civil government of the Canal Zone.\nThe Panama Canal Company\nThe Panama Railroad Company\nThe Panama Canal Company is \"a body corporate\nREANURE\nE\nDuring the existence of The Panama Canal agency,\nand an agency of the United States for the purpose of\nmany of the quasi-business enterprises relating to the\nmaintaining and operating the Panama Canal and con-\nCanal operation (railroad, steamship line, commissaries,\nducting business enterprises incident thereto and incident\netc.) were conducted by the Panama Railroad Company.\nto the civil government of the Canal Zone.\"\nThe Company was originally created in 1849 under the\nThe United States, in its capacity as owner of the cor-\nlaws of New York as a private corporation for the pur-\nporation, is represented by the President or such officer\npose of constructing and maintaining a railroad across the\nas he designates, called the \"stockholder.\" The President\nSEA\nCARIBBEAN\nIsthmus of Panama. Most of the shares of the Company's\n(Continued on page 288)\n260\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n261\nPANAMA CANAL\nA Profile Of The Canal\nPANAMA CANAL\nPresent Economic Impact\nTREATY\nTREATY\nREVISION-\nAnd Its Operation\nREVISION-\nOf The Panama Canal\nF\nIRST opened to world navigation in 1914, the Panama\nlocated in the center and side walls of the locks. From\nthese, the water flows through smaller culverts which open\nT\nHE economic impact of the Panama Canal-both\nmachinery and equipment, and chemicals and petrochem-\nCanal is approximately 51 miles in length, Atlantic\nworldwide and in terms of Canal Zone and Republic\nicals.\ndeep water to Pacific deep water. Minimum width of the\ninto the floor of the lock chambers.\nof Panama economies-is measurable in a number of\nnavigable channel is 500 feet. From Cristobal to Balboa,\nTo empty the locks, water is permitted to flow in the\nways: tolls collected, cargo tonnage passing through the\nRepublic of Panama\nthe two terminal cities, airline distance is 36 miles. The\nopposite direction-through the openings in the floor of\nCanal, effect on the Panamanian gross national product,\nWith 11,000 of the 15,000 persons employed by the\nCanal reduces the distance traveled by ships going from\nthe chamber, into the lateral culverts, back into the main\nas well as others.\nCanal organization citizens of the Republic of Panama,\nNew York to San Francisco by 7,873 miles.\nculverts, and down to the level below.\nwith the volume of Canal-related services and products\nCanal Tolls\nOperation of the Locks: The Canal contains six double\npurchased in the Republic, and with the purchasing power\nDimensions and Numbers: Each lock chamber is 1,000\nlocks which act as stairsteps to raise and lower ships over\nTolls have been virtually unchanged since the Canal\nof the $120 million annual payroll (not including the U.S.\nfect in length, 110 feet wide, and 70 feet deep, with a\nthe Continental Divide. Gatun Locks (see diagram below)\nopened on August 15, 1914. Levied on a net tonnage\nmilitary establishment in the Canal Zone), the impact of\nminimum water depth in each lock of 40 feet. Fifty-seven\non the Atlantic side form one continuous flight in three\nbasis, and based on each 100 cubic feet of space usable\nthe Canal on the nearby Republic of Panama is of major\n55-ton locomotives (or \"mules\"), with four to eight used\nsteps which raise and lower ships 85 feet. Miraflores\nfor revenue purposes, the rates for merchant vessels are 90\nproportions.\non each ship, running on trackage beside the Canal, move\nLocks, nearest the Pacific entrance, have two steps and\ncents a ton for laden ships and 72 cents a ton for ships\nIn 1970, of Panama's gross national product of ap-\ntransiting vessels through the locks and their approaches.\nlift or lower ships 54 feet. Pedro Miguel Locks, also on\nin ballast. Ships of war and other floating craft pay at the\nproximately $992 million, nearly one-third was directly\nthe Pacific side, raise or lower vessels 31 feet in one step.\nGates of the locks require two minutes to open or close,\nrate of 50 cents a displacement ton. These tolls cover all\nor indirectly attributable to the Canal and its military\nWater required to operate the Panama Canal is stored\nand it requires eight minutes to fill or empty one lock\nnormal transit charges, including pilot service, which is\nbases. Of Panama's total foreign exchange earnings from\nchamber. Approximately 30 minutes are required for\nin Gatun and Madden Lakes during the long rainy sea-\nrequired for all but small craft. U.S. Government ships\nexport of goods and services in 1970 of $367 million,\npassage through the Pedro Miguel Locks, 45 through the\nare assessed tolls on the same basis as other vessels.\nsons. (The main channel of the Canal passes through\n$162 million (45 per cent) comprised direct payments\nGatun Lake; Madden Lake lies to the northeast, and is\nMiraflores, and 60 through the Gatun. Average total tran-\nIn Fiscal 1971 there were 15,348 transits of the Canal,\nfrom the Canal and its military bases.\nsit time through the Canal is seven to eight hours.\nconnected to the Canal by separate channel.) These two\nproducing a revenue from tolls of approximately $100\nOf Panama's employment nationwide, nearly one-third\nwater sources are also used for the generation of hydro-\nWater Consumption: Each lock chamber holds about\nmillion. Total transit revenues for the year, including tolls,\nis directly or indirectly due to the presence of the Canal.\nelectric power and for municipal uses.\ncredit for tolls of U.S. Government vessels, and harbor\nWithin 30 miles of the Canal Zone, more than two-thirds\n8,800,000 cubic feet of water and about 26 million gal-\nNo pumps are used in filling or emptying the lock\nlons, a one-day supply for a large city, are used in each\npilotage, tug, launch, and other services, was $114,421,-\nof the employment is Canal-oriented. Panama's per capita\nchambers. The principle involved is simply that of letting\nlockage. About twice this amount, or 52 million gallons,\n519. The average vessel passing through the Canal pays\nincome of $693 (in 1970) is the highest in Central\nwater run downhill in either direction, since Gatun Lake\nis expended in one Canal transit. A total of 90.8 billion\na toll of approximately $6,500.\nAmerica and more than twice the average. It is the fourth\nis 85 feet above sea level. The water flows from one level\ncubic feet of water is used for Canal traffic in an average\nFrom 1914 through June 30, 1971, a total of 449,428\nhighest in Latin America as a whole, exceeded only by\nto another through large tunnels, 18 feet in diameter,\nyear (based on recent averages of 38.5 transits per day).\nvessels of all types have transited, with 362,280-or 80.6\nthat of Argentina, Venezuela, and Uruguay.\nper cent of the total-being of the oceangoing commercial\nAdditionally, Panama is paid an annual sum of ap-\nclass.\nproximately $2 million for the canal-a form of compen-\n554\nGOLD\nsation established by the 1903 treaty (see page 258) and\n500\nHILL\nCargo Tonnage\nincreased to its present level over the intervening years.\n400\nIn 1972 more than 116 million tons of cargo passed\n312\n300\nthrough the Panama Canal. Principal user nations were,\nImpact of Canal Zone Internal Operations\nELEVATION FEET\nGAMBOA\nGATUN\n200\nin descending order: Liberia (a maritime \"flag of con-\nThe payroll of approximately $120 million annually for\nvenience\" nation), Japan, United Kingdom, Norway,\nemployees of the Panama Canal Company and the Canal\n100\nBALBOA\nCRISTOBAL\n85\nUnited States, West Germany, Panama (also a \"flag of\nZone Government is divided almost evenly between U.S.\n0\nconvenience\" nation), and Greece.\nand Panamanian personnel.\nFor fiscal 1971, ranked by tonnages, the major com-\nDuring Fiscal 1971, the various consumer-oriented\n100\nmodity groupings of Canal-transiting cargoes were, in\nfacilities operated by the Panama Canal Company had\nNAOS\nPACIFIC\nMIRAFLORES\nPEDRO MIGUEL\nGAILLARD\nGATUN\nGATUN\nATLANTIC\nBREAK-\nISL.\nOCEAN\nLOCKS LAKE\nLOCKS\nCUT\nLAKE\nLOCKS\nOCEAN\nWATER\ndescending order: coal and coke, petroleum and products,\ntotal sales of $31.4 million. Included on the Company\ngrains, ores and metals, miscellaneous agricultural com-\npayroll, in addition to personnel concerned directly with\n50\n45\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\nMILES\nmodities, nitrogenous products, manufactures of iron and\nCanal operations, are employees of such service establish-\nHIGH TIDE +11.54\nHIGH TIDE + 1.8\nLOW TIDE -11.16\nLOW TIDE -1.25\nsteel, lumber and products, canned and refrigerated food,\nments.\n262\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n263\nPANAMA CANAL\nRecommendations Concerning\nPANAMA CANAL\nHighlights Of The Proposed\nTREATY\nTREATY\nREVISION-\nA New Sea Level Canal\nREVISION-\n1967 Treaties With Panama\nAT\nTHE time the Panama Canal was built there was\nIn the early 1960's, legislation adopted by the Congress\nauthorized a new study of means for increasing the capac-\nT\nHREE proposed and interrelated treaties between the\nDefense and Status of Forces\nintense controversy over the questions of whether\nUnited States and the Republic of Panama were the\nA second draft treaty, consisting of 20 articles and\nto build a sea level or a lock canal and whether it should\nity of the Panama Canal or construction of a new canal,\nsubject of negotiations between the two nations over the\ntwo annexes, treats with the defense, security, continuity\nbe located in Panama or Nicaragua. A sea level canal\nand provided specifically for a study of the feasibility of\nperiod of 1964-67. Copies of the draft treaties were not\nof operation, and neutrality of the Panama Canal; with\nhad been recommended by the original Isthmian Canal\na sea level canal to be conducted by an Interoceanic Canal\nofficially released by the Executive Branch of the U.S.\nthe status of U.S. armed forces and dependents; and with\nCommission, but-as will be seen in the article on page\nStudy Commission.\nGovernment, but when ultimately made public in the press\ntheir use of designated facilities and areas utilized in Canal\n258-the Congress ultimately enacted legislation express-\nand through publication by a committee of the Congress\ndefense. The treaty would, among other provisions, end\nly providing for the construction of a lock canal in\nFindings of the ICSC Study\nthey provoked major controversy.\nthe exclusive defense role of the U.S. in the Canal Zone\nPanama.\nOn December 1, 1970, the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic\nIn October 1968 the Panama National Guard staged a\nand would establish a joint Panamanian-U.S. security\nNonetheless, the United States and Nicaragua in 1914\nCanal Study Commission submitted its final report, which\nmilitary coup to oust President Arnulfo Arias who had\nand defense force, although the U.S. would continue to\nconcluded a treaty in which Nicaragua granted the U.S.\nincluded the following conclusions and recommendations:\nbeen inaugurated on October 1 following his election to\nact to ensure the defense of the Canal itself. Article II\nexclusive rights to construct a canal across its territory.\n\"The United States should retain an absolute right to\nthe Presidency. A military junta took over the Govern-\nof the draft treaty states:\nThe rights were granted in perpetuity, but were finally\ndefend the present canal and any new Isthmian canal sys-\nment of Panama and has remained in control since that\n\"(1) The Republic of Panama and the United States\nrenounced by the United States in a convention signed in\ntem for the foreseeable future\ntime. None of the treaties has been signed to date by\nof America shall provide jointly for the defense, security\nJuly 1970 which became effective early in 1971.\n\"Constructing a third lane of locks for the present\neither nation, and the present Panamanian Government\nand continuity of operation of the Panama Canal and its\ncanal\nwould be a temporary solution without signifi-\nhas indicated that it does not consider the negotiated draft\nappurtenant and supporting facilities and services and of\nCanal Enlargement Studies\ncant military advantages, and it would not relieve the\ntreaties acceptable.\nthe Canal Area.\nTo this end and for its part, the\nOver the years, deliberations on whether to expand the\nproblems in United States-Panamanian relations that\nSea Level Canal\nRepublic of Panama hereby makes available to the United\ncapacity of the present canal by constructing a third set\nderive from personnel and defense requirements of the\nIn a 17-article draft treaty with three annexes (explana-\nStates of America the use of Defense Areas\nfor Canal\nof locks have regularly revived the controversy over\nlock canal\ntory addenda) the Government of Panama would provide\nDefense and related security purposes. Pursuant to this\nwhether a second canal should be built. Among earlier\n\"A sea-level canal would provide a significant improve-\nthe United States with the right to build a further canal,\nTreaty, the United States of America shall have the right\nstudies of the feasibility of either of the above courses of\nment in the ability of an Isthmian waterway to support\nas follows:\nto act to ensure Canal Defense.\naction have been those authorized by the Congress in\nmilitary operations both in its lessened vulnerability to\n1929, 1936, and 1945.\nArticle II. \"The Republic of Panama grants to the\ninterruption by hostile action and in its ability to transit\nUnited States of America the right to construct in the\nBasic Canal Treaty\nIn a 1947 report, the Governor of the Panama Canal\nlarge aircraft carriers that cannot now pass through the\nterritory of the Republic of Panama a sea level canal\nBy far the most controversial of the three proposed\nconcluded that construction of additional locks to the\nPanama Canal. These military advantages of a sea-level\nconnecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In the event\ntreaties is that which would abrogate and replace the\nexisting Panama Canal would meet anticipated require-\ncanal, together with its capacity to meet the potential\nthat the United States of America notifies the Republic of\ntreaties of 1903, 1936, and 1955 (see page 258) with a\nments of commercial traffic, but recommended construc-\ndemand for transits over a much longer period, and its\nPanama within twenty years of the entry into force of the\nrevised treaty setting forth a greatly modified basis for\ntion of a sea level canal because of security considerations.\nlesser operating costs, would more than counter-balance\nTreaty, of its intention to construct such a canal, the\nU.S.-Panamanian relationship with regard to the Canal\nSome 30 possible canal routes were identified, but it was\nthe lower construction cost of augmenting the existing\nfinancing, construction, operation, maintenance and im-\nand the Canal Zone. The proposed treaty would transfer\nconcluded that the most practicable solution was conver-\ncanal with larger locks.\nprovement of the sea level canal shall be carried out in\nfrom exclusive U.S. jurisdiction to joint or Panamanian\nsion of the existing canal to sea level.\n\"The technical feasibility of the use of nuclear explo-\naccordance with the provisions of this Treaty.\"\ncontrol a number of functions and activities performed\nStudies during the 1950's, after the reorganization of\nsives for sea-level canal excavation has not been estab-\nFurther provisions of the draft treaty treat with details\nwithin the Canal Zone, and would remove significant ele-\nthe Canal's administrative structure, resulted in 1960 in\nlished. Whether the technology can be perfected and the\nof construction, financing, location, conditions under\nments of the Panama Canal organization and operations\na report recommending improvements to the existing canal\ninternational treaty obstacles to its use removed are not\nwhich such a canal would be operated, U.S.-Panamanian\nfrom the purview of the U.S. Congress.\nand calling for planning leading to construction of a sea\nnow predictable\ncooperation in its construction and operation, tolls and\nConsisting of 41 articles, the draft treaty includes the\nlevel canal using nuclear excavation methods. A board of\n\"A sea-level canal in Panama constructed by conven-\ncompensation, defense, neutrality of the canal, and estab-\nfollowing provisions:\nindependent consultants employed by the Congress subse-\ntional excavation is technically feasible. Route 10 is the\nlishment of a U.S.-Panamanian \"Panama Interoceanic\nArticle II. \"1. The Republic of Panama and the\nquently recommended against undertaking a sea level\nmost advantageous sea-level canal route. [Route 10, one\nCanal Commission\" to oversee operation of the canal.\nUnited States of America hereby establish an international\ncanal project in the near future, called for early comple-\nof a number considered, runs approximately parallel to\nThe proposed treaty would continue in force for a\njuridical entity to be known as the joint administration\ntion of pending canal improvement projects, and advised\nthe present canal, almost entirely out of the present Canal\nperiod of 60 years from the date the sea level canal is\nof the Panama canal [hereinafter referred to as the\nfurther studies concerning both nuclear and conventional\nZone, lying about ten miles to the west of the present\nopened to traffic, provided that such period shall not\n\"administration\"] to operate the Panama canal and its ap-\nexcavation methods.\nPanama Canal toward the Republic of Costa Rica.]\"\nextend beyond December 31, 2067.\npurtenant and supporting facilities and services, maintain\n264\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n265\nthe Panama canal and such facilities and services, make\n\"7. The director general shall be the chief executive\nimprovements and additions thereto, and administer the\nofficer of the administration\nPANAMA CANAL\nAction Re Treaty Negotiations\ncanal area\nfor the purposes of this treaty.\nArticle V. \"For the purposes of this treaty, the admin-\nTREATY\n\"3. The Republic of Panama as sovereign over the\nistration shall have the right and power to:\nREVISION-\nIn The ST 92ND Congresses\ncanal area, guarantees to the administration the peaceful\n\"1. Operate and maintain the Panama canal and its\nuse and enjoyment of the canal area, consistent with this\nappurtenant and supporting facilities and services and\ntreaty and the continuity of operation of the Panama canal.\nmake improvements and additions thereto, and control\nArticle III. \"1. The Republic of Panama and the\nnavigation in canal area waters\nU\nNDER normal circumstances negotiation involved in\nalso with regard to findings of the Interocean Canal Com-\nthe U.S. treaty-making process with another nation\nmission (see page 264) concerning possible routes for a\nUnited States of America, each to the extent of its inter-\nArticle XV.\n\"1.\nthe administration shall, within\nis carried out exclusively by the Executive Branch. While\nnew canal. Under the chairmanship of Rep. Leonor K.\nests, grant to the administration, effective upon the date\nfive years following its assumption of its full responsibili-\nthe Legislative Branch, specifically the U.S. Senate which\nSullivan, Mo., D., the Subcommittee additionally held\nthe administration assumes its full responsibilities and\nties and functions under this treaty, discontinue its opera-\nmust consent to ratification before a treaty enters into\nhearings in 1970 on questions of Canal traffic projections,\nfunctions under this treaty, the use of the Panama canal\ntion of food stores; department stores; milk product plants;\nforce, is frequently briefed on treaty provisions while nego-\ncapacity, tolls, feasibility of a sea level canal, and issues\nand its appurtenant and supporting facilities and services\nbakeries; pastry shops; cafeterias or luncheonettes; thea-\ntiations are in progress, legislative hearings on the merits\narising from the 1964-67 treaty negotiations.\nand the use of the areas of land and water\nwhich shall\nters; bowling alleys and other recreational facilities for\nof such a treaty are generally restricted to those conducted\nIn the 92nd Congress, with the Subcommittee under\nbe known as the 'canal area.'\nthe use of which a charge is payable; optical shops; such\nafter a signed convention is presented for ratification.\nchairmanship of Rep. John Murphy, N.Y., D., hearings\n\"2. The administration shall have and enjoy, subject\nhotels, laundries, dry cleaning plants, printing plants,\nThe three proposed treaties with Panama negotiated\nhave been held intermittently since November 29, 1971,\nto the terms of this treaty, the use of the Panama canal,\nautomobile repair services, tire recapping services and\nover the period of 1964-67, revising U.S.-Panamanian\non the treaty negotiations and general U.S.-Panamanian\nof the canal area and of all of the property which, on\ngasoline stations as are operated for the public; and\nrelationships concerning the Panama Canal (see pages\nrelations.\nthe date the administration assumes its full responsibilities\nany other similar facilities or services.\n258, 265), have given rise in the 91st and 92nd Con-\nA second House panel, the Subcommittee on Inter-\nand functions under this treaty, is being administered or\nArticle XVIII.\nthe administration shall have\ngresses to significant departure from this customary pro-\nAmerican Affairs (chaired by Rep. Dante Fascell, Fla.,\nused by the United States of America thru its agencies,\nthe right and power to authorize the establishment of\ncedure.\nD.) of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, has cognizance\nthe Panama Canal company or the Canal Zone govern-\nprivate business enterprises of all kinds in the canal area\nover treaties and other matters affecting relations between\nment.\nand adopt, issue, and enforce regulations relating to their\nRole of the Senate\nthe two nations. In the First Session of the 92nd Congress,\n\"3. The administration shall assume, as of the date it\nestablishment, conduct and discontinuance.\nIn the U.S. Senate, matters affecting the Panama Canal\non September 22 and 23, 1971, the Subcommittee held\nassumes its full responsibilities and functions under this\nArticle XX. \"1. The Republic of Panama grants to\nfall principally within the jurisdiction of two committees.\nhearings on several pending resolutions calling for reten-\ntreaty, all of the assets, liabilities and commitments of\nthe administration the right and power to provide for the\nThose relating to maintenance and operation of the Canal\ntion of full U.S. sovereignty over the Panama Canal and\nthe Panama Canal company and Canal Zone government\nprotection of persons and property in the canal area\nand defense of the Canal Zone come under purview of\nthe Canal Zone. Advisory rather than legislative in nature\nas reflected in the final financial statements for the Panama\n\"2. The administration shall provide for the protection\nthe Committee on Armed Services. Those relating to\nbecause of the exclusive treaty responsibility assigned by\nCanal company and Canal Zone government. The unrecov-\nof the Panama Canal, the shipping therein, and its appur-\nbroader questions of U.S.-Panamanian relations and treaty\nthe Constitution to the U.S. Senate, the resolutions have\nered investment of the United States of America in the\ntenant and supporting facilities and services.\nmatters are the concern of the Committee on Foreign Rela-\nreceived no action to date by the full House of Represen-\nPanama Canal shall not be included in the liabilities\n\"3. The administration may, if necessary, call upon the\ntions, and of its Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere\ntatives.\nassumed by the administration under this paragraph.\narmed forces of the Republic of Panama or of the United\nAffairs, chaired by Sen. Frank Church, Idaho, D.\nAmong those resolutions under consideration, perhaps\nArticle IV. \"1. The governing body of the adminis-\nStates of America for military assistance whenever it\nWhile the 1967 initialing of the three treaties has\nmost representative was H. Res. 154, introduced early in\ntration shall be a board consisting of nine members; four\ndeems such military assistance to be necessary in carrying\nreceived discussion on the Senate floor over the past sev-\n1971 by Rep. Daniel Flood, Pa., D., who for many years\nof whom shall be appointed by the president of the Repub-\nout its responsibilities under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this\neral Congresses, no formal hearings have taken place in\nhas been an active champion of continued U.S. sovereignty\nlic of Panama and five by the President of the United\narticle.\nthe Senate on the substantive questions which the recently-\nin the Canal Zone. The operative portion of the Flood\nStates. The members of the board shall be appointed for\nArticle XXIII. \"The Republic of Panama grants to\nrenewed treaty negotiations have raised.\nresolution reads as follows:\nterms of six years, subject to removal for cause by the\nthe administration the right and power to establish and\nHouse of Representatives Moves\n\"Resolved by the House of Representatives, That it is\nPresident of the country by whom appointed\nmaintain a police force, which shall have exclusive police\nthe sense of the House of Representatives that the Gov-\n\"3. The board shall elect a chairman, from among its\nauthority in the canal area. Consistent therewith, officials\nIn the House of Representatives the situation has been\nernment of the United States should maintain and pro-\nmembers, who shall serve for one year.\nThe chair-\nof the Republic of Panama shall have the right to exercise\nquite different, with proceedings undertaken by both of\ntect its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over said Canal\nmanship shall alternate annually between a member ap-\nin the canal area functions authorized by laws of the\nthe subcommittees principally concerned with Panama\nZone and Panama Canal and that the United States Gov-\nRepublic of Panama applicable in the canal area\nCanal matters.\npointed by the president of the Republic of Panama and\nernment should in no way forfeit, cede, negotiate, or trans-\na member appointed by the President of the United States\nArticle XXIV. \"1. The laws of the Republic of Pana-\nThe Subcommittee on the Panama Canal of the Com-\nfer any of these sovereign rights, jurisdiction, territory or\nof America.\nma shall\nbe applicable in the canal area except with\nmittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries is the body with\nproperty to any other sovereign nation or to any interna-\n\"5. There shall be a director general and a deputy\nrespect to those subject matters enumerated or referred\noversight responsibility for the operation and administra-\ntional organization which rights, sovereignty and jurisdic-\nto\ndirector general of the administration, one of whom shall\n[and] otherwise provided in this treaty.\ntion of the Canal and Canal Zone. In the 91st Congress\ntion are indispensably necessary for the protection and\nbe a national of the United States of America and the\n\"2.(a) The Republic of Panama grants to the admin-\nit received briefings in 1969 from State Department offi-\nsecurity of the entire Western Hemisphere including the\ncials on problems arising from the treaty negotiations and\ncanal and Panama.\"\nother a national of the Republic of Panama.\n(Continued on page 288)\n1972\n267\n266\nNOVEMBER\nPRO\nTHURMOND, continued from page 268\nCON\nCRANSTON, continued from page 269\nAs an artery of marine transportation, the Panama Canal enterprise became,\nCanal in 1903, that justification hardly remains in 1971. There is no question as\nand still is, a part of the coastline of the United States. As such its exclusive\nto the legality of our presence in Panama. It was fully agreed to by the Pana-\ncontrol by the United States is just as necessary for national defense as the control\nmanian government. For ten million dollars and $250,000 a year the United\nof the Chesapeake Bay or New York Harbor.\nStates was leased the Canal Zone in perpetuity. It was a contract that fit perfectly\nIn 1967, after three years of diplomatic discussion, the Presidents of the\nwell into our quest for territorial expansion and influence at the turn of the\nUnited States and Panama announced the completion of negotiation of three new\ncentury. But one wonders if Panama, in its zeal for independence, struck a bargain\nI became convinced\nCanal treaties. As the negotiations drew to a close, I was alarmed by reports of\nwith the United States which it probably never would have agreed to under\none wonders if\nthat continued U.S. control\nthe forthcoming treaties and applied myself to a close study of the situation and\nquieter times.\nPanama\nstruck a bar-\ndepended upon maintain-\nthe Canal problem. It was at this time that I became convinced that continued\nSecretary of State John Hay wrote, in a letter to a leading Senator of the\ngain\nwhich it probably\ning our sovereignty in the\nU.S. control depended upon maintaining our sovereignty in the Canal Zone and\ntime: \"As it stands now, as soon as the Senate votes we shall have a treaty in\nnever would have agreed\nCanal Zone\nmodernizing the present works.\nthe main very satisfactory to the United States, and we must confess\nnot so\nto under quieter times.\"\nFrankly, I was amazed when I actually obtained copies of the treaties. Those\nadvantageous to Panama. You and I know too well how many points there\ntreaties would have surrendered U.S. sovereignty, control, and ownership of the\nare in this treaty to which a Panamanian patriot could object.\"\nCanal Zone and the Panama Canal, as well as any new canal built by our tax-\nIn the years since John Hay wrote that letter, the United States has built what\npayers. The treaties provided for a nationalization by Panama of the Zone territory\nhas become a colony of mostly white Americans who reside in the Canal Zone\nand for internationalization of the Canal itself under a bi-national canal author-\nyear after year, and some, generation after generation. Most of the Americans\nity. In the background, but not in the public discussions, was the objective of\nwho live in the Canal Zone do not have any occupational association with the\nultimate control of the Panama Canal through a multi-national agency, perhaps\nCanal itself. In fact, of the 15,000 workers employed in the Canal Zone, only\nunder the authority of the U.N.\n4,000 are Americans, and of that figure, only 1,289 work on the Canal. The other\nSuch treaties were totally unacceptable according to the thinking of scores\nAmericans are employed in support services which perpetuate community life\nof U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators. The reaction, both in the U.S. and\nsuch as schools, movie theatres, bowling alleys, commissaries, golf courses and a\nPanama, was so hostile that those treaties were never signed and never submitted\nzoo.\nto the Senate.\nThe Zone has nicely paved roads, lovely suburban homes, and 15 per cent\nIt is discouraging, therefore, to see that negotiations are once again underway\ndifferential on top of an inflated pay scale to entice people to come down from\nwith Panama, even though the present Government is a revolutionary regime\nthe States. The Canal Zone is a far cry from the jungle swampland that Walter\nthe State Department\nwith little prospect of stability and with no procedures for ratifying a new treaty.\nReed and his associates found in attempting to clear the land in the early part\nopenly acknowledges that\nMore discouraging still is the fact that the State Department openly acknowledges\nof this century. It is a haven of segregated little communities, with whites pretty\nthe basis for negotiation is\nthat the basis for negotiation is the surrender of U.S. sovereignty and the giving\nmuch having exclusive domicile of the towns of Balboa and Diablo Heights, and\nthe surrender of U.S.\nup of our jurisdiction throughout most of the Zone.\nnon-US Panamanians and Jamaicans living in the Latin communities of Pedro\nsovereignty\nIn my judgment, it is a semantic trick to maintain that the U.S. can keep\nMiguel and Paraiso. It is nonsense for this Nation to perpetuate such an obvious\ncontrol of the Canal and the capability to defend it if ever we give up our sovereign\naffront to the host country on the excuse that we are thereby better protecting the\nrights. The duration of a treaty is not the key issue when the treaty itself gives\ncanal.\nup our basic rights. Such a surrender document would last too long if it lasted\nThe fact is that the Canal Zone has little to do with protecting the canal from\nonly one day. I believe that if a new treaty is necessary-and I am not yet con-\ninvasion. According to Major General Donnelly P. Bolton of the Office of the\nthe Canal Zone has\nvinced of that-then at a minimum we must maintain our sovereignty in the Zone,\nDeputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations, Department of the Army, \"no\nlittle to do with protecting\nwith the physical control which that implies; and we must maintain U.S. citizens\nsignificant Navy or Air Force high performance combat units are based in the\nthe canal from invasion.\"\nin the policy-making and strategic areas of the Canal operation. It is a fallacy to\nZone. Most Air Force activity is oriented toward supporting such activities as\nbelieve that we can control the Canal or keep our obligation to keep the Canal\ndisaster relief or military assistance. Navy elements are engaged primarily in\nrunning if we allow foreign nationals to be in substantial control of the decision-\nadministrative and strategic support activities.\" The Army forces in the Canal\nmaking and highly technical posts connected with the operation of the Canal.\nZone consist of one infantry battalion on the Atlantic end of Zone, and one\nIt is possible that certain disagreements and irritations can be solved through\nmechanized infantry battalion on the Pacific side. General Bolton continues, \"Army\nnegotiations with the Republic of Panama, but we can never agree to a treaty\nunits located in the Zone can be broken down to 46 per cent in combat and\nwhich does not allow us to have the physical and actual capability of keeping\ncombat support, and 54 per cent in combat service support, headquarters, or\nthe Canal secure. It is for this reason that the sovereignty of the Canal Zone is\nmilitary assistance activities.\"\nthe key issue which must never be compromised.\nIt is important to note that in case of an attack on the Canal Zone, General\n(PROS, continued on page 272)\n(Continued on page 273)\n270\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n271\nPRO\nPROS, continued from page 270\nCON\nCRANSTON, continued from page 271\nby HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD\nBolton says, \"Reinforcement for the Zone would come from the pool of Army and\nUnited States Representative, Pennsylvania, Democrat\nAir Force units assigned to the U.S. Strike Command, MacDill AFB, Florida,\nand Marine and Naval elements assigned to the CINC, Atlantic Command in\nFrom testimony given on September 22, 1971, before the Subcommittee on Inter-\nNorfolk, Virginia.\"\nAmerican Affairs of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in the course of\nClearly, the Canal Zone, and the forces residing there, do not provide signifi-\nhearings on resolutions concerning Panama Canal sovereignty and jurisdiction.\ncant protection for the Canal. The real muscle comes from forces based within the\nA ranking authority on matters affecting the Panama Canal, Rep. Flood has long\ncontinental United States. The Canal Zone-based forces provide little more than\nbeen a spokesman for the retention of full U.S. Canal Zone sovereignty.\npolice protection in case of an invasion from within the Republic of Panama.\nHow then can we justify our grand presence in Panama? How does the pres-\n.T\nHE Panama Canal enterprise consists of two inseparable parts: (1) the Canal\nence of a colony of civilians help contribute to the stabilization of this area of the\nitself, and (2) its absolutely necessary protective frame of the Canal Zone\nworld? Very little. On the contrary, it is my firm belief that the continuing exist-\nterritory. The two great canal issues now before the Nation are: (1) the transcen-\nence of the Canal Zone provides much fuel to the militant factions in Panama and\nnow before the Nation\ndent key issue of retaining United States undiluted sovereignty over the Canal\nelsewhere in Latin America who point to the Canal Zone as a colonialistic out-\nthe continuing exist-\nis the key issue of retaining\nZone and (2) the important project of modernizing the existing Panama Canal\nrage, fenced apart from the horrible slums which neighbor alongside.\nence of the Canal Zone\nUnited States undiluted\nby the construction of a third set of larger locks.\nprovides much fuel to the\nI believe the United States should now relinquish its jurisdiction over the Zone.\nsovereignty over the Canal\nUnfortunately, the handling of the two principal issues has been greatly com-\nmilitant factions in\nThe State Department and the President of the United States have recognized\nZone\nplicated by radical Panamanian attacks on U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone\nPanama and elsewbere in\nthat a new arrangement must be effected between our two governments-an\nLatin America\n\"\nand the exhumation of the corpse of the old controversy over types of canal\narrangement which is fair and equitable, and which does not jeopardize our secu-\nhigh level lake-lock versus sea level tidal lock.\nrity or commercial interests. I support these efforts for a new treaty, but I feel\nIn the convention of November 18, 1903, Panama granted to the United\nthat the negotiating team is not seeking to go as far as is necessary to eliminate\nStates in perpetuity the \"use, occupation and control\" of the Canal Zone terri-\nthe wrongful situation which continues to fester like an uncared-for wound. The\ntory for the \"construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection\"\nU.S. negotiating team now believes that the Canal Zone should be vastly reduced\nof the Panama Canal with full \"sovereign rights, power and authority\" within\nin size, with commercial interests in the Zone assigned to Panama. It does not\nthe Zone to the \"entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of\npropose, as has been alleged, to turn over the entire Canal Zone, including the\nany such sovereign rights, power or authority.\" This was the indispensable agree-\nPanama Canal, to Panama-nor do I propose such a step. The team has also\nment under which the United States undertook the great task of completing the\ncalled for a gradual phase-out of American legal jurisdiction over cases involving\nconstruction of the Panama Canal and its subsequent operation and defense, which\nAmericans in the area.\nis binding on the United States as fully as on Panama.\nThe idea seems to be that more and more Americans will leave as Pana-\nThe terms of this treaty were not accidental. Our leaders at that time had\nmanians assume more jurisdictional control. I question the need for any continued\nstudied the history of the Isthmus and understood the problems that would be\nAmerican control over the affairs of civilian Americans in the Republic of Panama.\n\"\nthe United States\ninvolved in such undertaking in a land of frightful disease and endemic revolution.\nDoes the United States exercise control of this nature in any other area of the\ncould not accept responsi-\nThey realized that the United States could not accept responsibility without\nworld where Americans choose to work and reside? The answer-except in diplo-\nbility without complete\ncomplete authority.\nmatic missions and on military bases-is no, not even within the Republic of\nauthority.\"\nIn addition to the grant of full sovereign rights, power and authority over the\nPanama. Why should Americans living in the Canal Zone and working on the\nCanal Zone, the United States obtained title by purchase of all privately owned\nPanama Canal be treated any differently? If an American chooses to work abroad\nland and property in the territory from individual property owners, making the\nelsewhere, he does so knowing that he must abide by the laws and live according\nCanal Zone the most costly territorial acquisition in the history of the United\nto the rules of the host country.\nStates.\nThe United States does not need the Canal Zone in order to operate the\n\"The United States does\nBecause of the economic support of the Panama Canal, the full effects of the\nPanama Canal. Because we permit unrestricted passage to countries of all political\nnot need the Canal Zone in\nGreat Depression of 1929 were not felt in Panama until 1932 when they stimu-\nallegiances, including North Korea and Communist China, it cannot be said of us,\norder to operate the\nlated agitations for a new treaty. With the change of administrations in the United\nas has been said of Egypt in the case of Suez, that we exclude our enemies.\nPanama Canal.\"\nStates in 1933 our Government weakened as to the earlier official positions taken\nWe should make clear to Panama that in giving up jurisdiction over the Zone\nby President Theodore Roosevelt, Secretaries Hay and Hughes, and negotiated\nwe are not giving up our military bases, nor the right to defend the Canal from\nthe Hull-Alfaro Treaty of 1936 with Panama.\nalien aggressors or from aggressors within the Republic of Panama, even if our\nBecause of a strong opposition in the Senate it was not ratified until 1939\nforces must cross over Panamanian soil to do so. Those rights should be an\n(Continued on page 274)\n(Continued on page 275)\n272\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n273\nPRO\nFLOOD, continued from page 272\nCON\nCRANSTON, continued from page 273\njust before the start of World War II. In this treaty, the United States made\ninherent part of the new treaty, and it is a small price for Panama to pay. It\nimportant concessions to Panama, which included the construction of a Trans-\nwill also assuage the fears of those who feel the United States will lose the Panama\nCanal by making such concessions.\nIsthmian highway in Panama extending through the Canal Zone to Colón,\ngiving Panama jurisdiction over that highway in the Zone, renunciation of the\nIn summary, I believe the United States should return all aspects of sovereignty\nright of eminent domain in the Republic of Panama for Canal purposes, and\nin the Canal Zone back to the Republic of Panama, and that the United States\n\"I believe the United\nsurrender of U.S. authority to maintain public order in the cities of Panama and\nshould continue to own and operate the Canal as a world utility, retaining all\nStates should return all\nColón and adjacent areas. In a realistic sense this treaty was the start of our great\nrights to defend the Canal, even to the point of moving our armed forces into\naspects of sovereignty in\nthe Treaty of 1936\ngiveaway programs, causing serious difficulties in obtaining military bases in\nthe Republic of Panama to do so.\nthe Canal Zone back to the\nwas the start of our great\nPanama for defending the Panama Canal in World War II and creating dangerous\nWe in the United States might look toward our own country to seek an analogy\nRepublic of Panama\ngiveaway programs\nprecedents.\nto the Panama Canal Zone situation. What if the British had built the Erie Canal\nBy 1953 agitations were well underway in Panama for the Chapin-Fábrega\nin the early 1800's and set up a Zone of their own to run it? How then would the\nTreaty, which without adequate understanding or debate, was ratified in 1955.\nAmericans of today feel toward a British Colony living alongside of Buffalo,\nThe 1955 Treaty completed the withdrawal of the United States from Panama to\nNew York, and Cleveland? Is the only difference really the fact that we Americans\nthe boundaries of the Canal Zone but did not alter the basic sovereignty and\nare a vast world power, capable of removing such unwanted colonies, while the\nperpetuity provisions of the 1903 Treaty as regards United States exclusive sov-\nPanamanians are helpless to do anything about their own situation except make\nereign control in perpetuity of the Canal enterprise, which includes the Zone.\nnoises which are faint on the world scene?\nOn May 2, 1958, there was an organized mob invasion into the Canal Zone\nIf we are to behave as the greatest nation in the world-and we must-then\ncalled Operation Sovereignty. Red-led Panamanian University students planted\nwe must set a proper example for nations large and small, rich and poor, around\n72 Panama flags at various spots in the Zone, including some squarely in front\nthe world. We must solve such frictions before they become major confrontations.\nof the Canal Administration Building. Instead of acting promptly to arrest and\nWe must in effect initiate solutions before the guns are fired, and blood is drawn.\npunish the trespassers, our responsible authorities naively ignored the incidents\nToo often, we have been a Nation of reactors. Let us act in a preventive way,\nas youthful pranks. Instead of pranks they were probes of our Government's\nand gain friends who will know that it was the United States that took the first\nwill power to stand up for the just and indispensable rights of the United States\nstep forward-not a step backward in retreat.\nat Panama.\nOn September 17, 1960, soon after adjournment of the Congress, President\nEisenhower, without Congressional sanction and using emergency funds from the\nby HON. ROBERT A. HURWITCH\nDepartment of State, in a mistaken gesture of friendship, naively authorized the\nU.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs\nformal display of the Panama flag in one place in the Canal Zone at Shaler's\nFrom testimony given on November 29, 1971, before the Subcommitte on the\nTriangle as \"visual evidence\" of Panama's titular sovereignty over the Zone but\nPanama Canal of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the\ndid not define the term, which is of purely reversionary character. Also as pre-\ncourse of hearings on the subject of Panama Canal treaty negotiations.\ndicted, Panamanians took this display not as evidence of titular sovereignty, but\nas an official admission by the United States of its recognition of Panama's full\nsovereignty over the Zone Territory.\nT\nHE 1903 Convention and the agreements associated with it have formed the\ncentral core of our unique relationship with Panama ever since its founding\nThe Panama flag display was extended by President Eisenhower's successors,\nand have constituted a built-in source of friction. The Canal Zone cuts through\nPresidents Kennedy and Johnson. They culminated in a massive Red led mob\nthe center of Panama. On the Pacific side, Panama City, the capital, adjoins the\na massive Red-led\ninvasion of the Canal Zone during January 9-12, 1964, again requiring the use\nZone, while the major city on the Caribbean is surrounded by the Zone. One\nmob invasion of the Canal\nof our armed forces to protect the lives of our citizens and the Canal itself. In\ncannot cross from the eastern to the western half of the country without transiting\nZone in 1964\nrequired\nretaliation, Panama broke diplomatic relations with the United States and brought\nthe 10-mile-wide strip under U.S. jurisdiction.\n\"One cannot cross from the\nthe use of our armed\ncharges against the United States of \"aggression\" against Panama.\nA host of specific issues relating to the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone\neastern to the western half\nforces\nHere I would like to stress that not one United States soldier left the Canal\nhave troubled U.S. relations through the years. In 1936 and 1955 we entered\nof Panama without transit-\nZone but simply defended the lives of our citizens and the Canal with the result\ninto supplementary treaties designed to resolve some of them, but many continued\ning the 10-mile-wide strip\nthat there was no interruption of transit despite the magnitude of the disorders.\nto rankle. Chief among these have been the U.S. treaty right to act as if sovereign\nunder U.S. jurisdiction.\"\nThis was the highest tribute to the wisdom of our policy of having United States\nin perpetuity, the amount (now $1.93 million) of annual direct compensation,\ncitizens in security positions, and having a protective strip framing the Canal.\nand our possession of certain areas of land which Panama urgently desires for\nAfter President Johnson had an opportunity to get the necessary facts about\neconomic expansion and does not consider essential to the operation and defense\n(Continued on page 276)\n(Continued on page 277)\n274\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n275\nPRO\nFLOOD, continued from page 274\nCON\nHURWITCH, continued from page 275\nthe Panamanian mob attack, on January 14, 1964, he took a strong initial stand\nof the canal. During 1962-63, representatives of Presidents Kennedy and Chiari\nfor exercising United States sovereignty over the Canal Zone stating that our\ndiscussed points of dissatisfaction, but growing frustration and emotional national-\ncountry had a \"recognized treaty obligation to operate the Canal efficiently and\nism among Panamanians erupted in January 1964 in a four-day riot on the Canal\ngrowing frustration\nsecurely, and (that) we intend to honor that obligation in the interest of all who\nZone borders in which 18 Panamanians and 4 American soldiers were killed,\nand emotional nationalism\ndepend upon it.\"\nhundreds injured, and millions of dollars worth of property destroyed. Panama\namong Panamanians\nUnfortunately, after this initial policy statement he apparently fell into the\nbroke off diplomatic relations with the United States, charging us with acts of\nerupted in 1964 in a four-\nclutches of Department of State miners and sappers and reversed his original\naggression, and took her case to the United Nations and the Organization of\nday riot on the Canal Zone\nposition. Consequently, on December 18, 1964, after restoration of normal rela-\nAmerican States. In April 1964, the OAS announced that an agreement had been\nborders\ntions with Panama, President Johnson announced that the U.S. Government had\nreached between the United States and Panama to re-establish diplomatic rela-\ncompleted an intensive policy review with respect to the present and future of\ntions and to designate special Ambassadors with sufficient powers to seek the\n\"President Johnson an-\nnounced that the U.S. had\nthe Panama Canal and that he had reached two decisions:\nprompt elimination of points of dissatisfaction, without limitations or precondi-\ncompleted an intensive\nFirst, to press forward with Panama and other interested governments for a\ntions of any kind. President Johnson appointed the distinguished former Secretary\npolicy review\nwith\nsea level canal; and second, to negotiate an entirely new canal treaty for the\nof the Treasury and Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Robert B. Anderson, as the Spe-\nrespect to the Canal\nexisting Panama Canal.\ncal U.S. Representative, and three draft treaties resulted from the 1964-67 nego-\ntiations.\nIn June 1967, President Johnson and President Marco A. Robles of Panama\njointly announced that agreement had been reached on three proposed new canal\nDuring the years 1965-1970, Ambassador Anderson also headed the Atlantic-\ntreaties as follows:\nPacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission. After more than five years of\nstudy and investigation, the Commission concluded, inter alia, that current U.S.\nThe first, covering the operation of the present canal, would have (1) abro-\ncanal policy should not be made in the expectation that nuclear excavation tech-\ngated the Treaty of 1903, (2) recognized Panamanian sovereignty over the Canal\nnology would be available for canal construction; that the construction of a sea-\nZone, (3) made Panama an active partner in the management and defense of the\nlevel canal by conventional means is physically feasible; that the most suitable\nCanal, (4) increased toll royalties to Panama, and (5) eventually given to\nsite for such a canal is on Route 10 in Panama a few miles west of the present\nPanama exclusive possession in 1999 if no new canal were constructed at U.S.\ncanal; that its construction cost would be about $2.8 billion in 1970 prices; and\nexpense or soon after opening of a sea level canal but not later than 2009 if a\nthat amortization might or might not be possible from tolls, depending on a\nnew canal were built.\nnumber of future factors.\nThe second treaty for a canal of sea level design would have given the United\nThe President of Panama did not act to have the 1967 draft treaties ratified,\nStates an option for 20 years after ratification to start construction, 15 more years\nfor construction and a majority membership in the canal authority for 60 years\nand no action was taken on them by our Government. Panamanian attention was\nafter opening or until 2067, whichever was earlier. Additional agreements to fix\nlargely concentrated on domestic developments for a few years. After a long and\nthe specific conditions for its combinations would have to be negotiated when the\nbitter political campaign, Dr. Arnulfo Arias was elected President in May 1968\nUnited States should decide to execute its option.\nand inaugurated on October 1st. On October 11, Dr. Arias was ousted by a coup\n-a fate he had also suffered during his two previous presidential terms-and a\nThe third treaty for defense would have provided for the continued use of\nmilitary junta took over the Government of Panama. Following a period of some\nmilitary bases by U.S. Forces in Panama for 5 years beyond the termination date\ninitial instability, the Provisional Junta Government established itself firmly in\nof the proposed treaty for the operation of the existing canal. If a new canal in\npower under the leadership of Brigadier General Omar Torrijos, Commandant of\nPanama were constructed the military base rights treaty would have to be\nthe National Guard. After a study of the 1967 drafts, the Provisional Junta\nextended for the duration of the treaty for the new canal.\nGovernment rejected them and asked us to renew discussions for a new canal\nAlthough President Johnson did make a press release outlining the general\ntreaty.\naims of the treaties, the governments of both the United States and Panama\nThe United States had no realistic choice but to agree to the renewal of nego-\nthe proposed treaties\nwithheld publication of the proposed treaties apparently with the hope that they\ntiations. The canal issue in Panama is just as emotional and nationalistic an issue\naroused a storm of\nwould be ratified by our Senate without adequate debate.\nPanama has some\nnow as it ever was. In all fairness, it must be admitted that Panama has some\nprotests\nFerreted out through journalistic initiative, published, and later quoted in\nreasonable grievances in\nreasonable grievances in connection with the present situation. This Administration\nconnection with the\naddresses to the U.S. Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, they\nfirmly believes that differences should be settled at the negotiating table if mutually\naroused a storm of protests in both Panama and the United States as well as in\npresent situation.\"\nsatisfactory agreements can be reached. We fully recognize that the conditions\nGreat Britain and Japan, which are large users of the Panama Canal. So strong\nwhich existed in 1903-and Panamanians were dissatisfied with some aspects of\nwere these protests that the proposed 1967 treaties were never signed.\nthe treaty even then-no longer exist in 1971, and that treaty provisions appro-\nOne of the great purposes of United States policy of exclusive sovereign con-\npriate then may no longer be appropriate now. Treaties after all must bear a\n(Continued on page 278)\n(Continued on page 279)\n276\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n277\nPRO\nFLOOD, continued from page 276\nCON\nHURWITCH, continued from page 277\ntrol over the Canal Zone was the avoidance of the never ending conflicts and\nreasonable relationship to the environment in which they exist. It is our firm\nrecriminations that always accompany extra-territorial rights. To speak so bluntly\nintention to secure essential U.S. objectives with respect to the right to operate\nas the gravity of the situation at Panama demands, the State Department in recent\nand defend the present canal and to provide additional capacity when needed\nyears has been dominated by those who timidly accept as valid every major claim\neither by a third set of locks or by building a sea-level canal. At the same time,\nof Panamanian radicals for the surrender by the United States of its sovereignty\nit is our earnest desire to meet certain reasonable Panamanian aspirations with\nover the canal enterprise and its transfer to Panama. Such action would undoubt-\nthe objective of contributing to a more enduring relationship between Panama and\nedly result in the immediate dominance of the Isthmus including the Canal Zone\nthe United States and a more secure environment for the canal. In the modern\nby Soviet powers against which Panama could not cope.\nworld, we can no longer look upon a sovereign enclave in the territory of another\nwe can no longer look\nthe State Department\nThough averring that the United States has \"no intention of yielding control\ncountry in perpetuity as a secure environment in which to operate a canal, a canal\nupon a sovereign enclave\nview is that it is in U.S.\nand defense of the Canal to the threat of violence,\" the State Department view\nwhich is of incalculable value to our own security and commerce and a tremen-\nin the territory of another\ninterest to demonstrate\nis that it is in United States interest to demonstrate again as in 1967 our \"willing-\ndous service to world trade.\ncountry in perpetuity as a\nour willingness to make\nness to make adjustments\" which do not significantly weaken our rights to control\nIn this connection, it should be noted that the Panama Canal is of great\nsecure environment in\nadjustments'\nand defend the canal and that it would be difficult for the United States to \"justify\neconomic importance to many Latin American countries. More than 50 per cent\nwhich to operate a canal\nitself in world forums\" in the event it is again forced to \"commit\" its armed\nof the total ocean-borne trade of three of them transits the canal, as does more\n\"\nforces against \"Panamanian incursion into the Canal Zone.\" Could there be any\nthan 30 per cent of another five and over 20 per cent of one more. Those nations\nmore obvious double talk? The United States did not commit its Armed Forces\nobviously have high stakes in the continuance of an efficient canal charging reason-\nagainst anybody.\nable tolls. At the same time, we believe they would like to see those conditions\nSuch statements of policy are an expression of willingness to surrender in\nprevail under the aegis of a modern treaty mutually considered by the U.S. and\nadvance. What could be more pusillanimous or unrealistic than this State Depart-\nPanama to be just and fair. We believe that such a treaty would be a contribu-\nment pronouncement! No wonder the eyes of the world are watching us at\ntion to the peace of the hemisphere and would also enhance our position within\nPanama, for upon what we do there could well depend the freedom or the slavery\nthe hemisphere.\nof the world. Shabby sentimentality has no place in the consideration of the\nproblems of the Canal Zone and Panama Canal.\nAs foreseen by the formulators of our major Isthmian Canal policies of site,\nby HON. DAVID H. WARD\ntype and control, the Panama Canal is a part of the coastline of the United States.\nU.S. Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for International Affairs\nIts protection is just as vital to national defense as the protection of Delaware\nFrom testimony given on December 1, 1971, before the Subcommittee on the\nBay or San Francisco Harbor.\nPanama Canal of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the\nGeneral plans for the major increase of capacity and operational improve-\nprotection of the\ncourse of hearings on the subject of Panama Canal treaty negotiations.\nments of the existing canal have been developed and are covered in pending legis-\nPanama Canal is just as\nlation but cannot proceed until the sovereignty issue is clarified and our undiluted\nvital as the protection of\ncontrol and ownership of the canal and the Canal Zone fully understood and\nF\nUNDAMENTALLY, the United States is in Panama because of the Panama Canal.\nDelaware Bay or San\nThe prime interest of the Department of Defense, and indeed of the United\nrecognized, for the Canal can no more be separated from the Zone than boilers\nFrancisco Harbor.\"\nStates, is that the Panama Canal remain open to shipping bound to and from\nfrom a steam power plant.\nUnited States ports and to United States and allied naval shipping. In order to\nThe present task before the House of Representatives is the transcendent one\npreserve this interest we must be concerned with the following means to that end:\nof clarification and reaffirmation of our sovereign control of the Panama Canal\nFirst, the Canal organization-this means the American and Panamanian\nenterprise. The resolutions now pending reflect the views of our best informed\npeople who do the job of running the Canal, and the machinery and facilities\nCongressional leaders and specially qualified citizens from various parts of the\nwhich they employ in this task.\nNation. Their adoption will serve notice in the world, especially to Soviet rulers,\nSecond, our defense forces which defend the Canal, and the bases and military\nthat the United States has the will to meet its treaty obligations at Panama and\nrights of these forces.\nthat it will continue to do so and thus serve to regain the public image that our\nThird, our relationship with Panama whose territory is traversed by the Canal,\ngreat country has lost through weak and timid policies in recent years. It will\nmany of whose citizens are employed in its operations and whose two principal\nopen the way for the next great step by the Congress in the evolution of our\n\"Panama is discontented\ncities border on ours at the two ends of the Canal.\nIsthmian Canal policy-the major modernization of the existing Panama Canal.\nwith our treaty relation-\nThese two steps together, sovereignty reaffirmation and modernization, should\nAs is well known, Panama is discontented with our treaty relationship. An\nship. An adjustment of this\nmeet the canal situation for many years into the future.\nadjustment of this relationship is desirable, provided that it can be done without\nrelationship is desirable\nweakening the organization by which we operate the Canal and without jeopardiz-\n(PROS, continued on page 280)\n(Continued on page 281)\n278\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n279\nPRO\nPROS, continued from page 278\nCON\nWARD, continued from page 279\ning our defense interests in the Canal Zone. It is also important that the United\nby HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN\nUnited States Representative, Missouri, Democrat\nStates gain the right to build a sea-level canal so that that option will be available\nto us in the future. We are hopeful that an adjustment can be made which meets\nFrom a statement issued on July 15, 1971. For fourteen years Rep. Sullivan\nthe most important concerns of both nations and it is to that end that negotiations\nserved as chairman of the Panama Canal Subcommittee of the House Committee\nare being conducted.\non Merchant Marine and Fisheries.\nOver a period of years Panama will assume responsibility for some of the\ngovernmental functions now carried out by the Canal Zone Government but it is\n\"Over a period of years\nI\nAM gravely concerned over reports to the effect that the Administration is\nour particular care that this gradual evolution occur in a way consistent with the\nPanama will assume re-\n\"I am gravely concerned\ntaking active steps which may result in the reopening of treaty negotiations\njust expectations and concerns of our employees. We will negotiate ample treaty\nreopening of\nsponsibility for some of the\nover\nwith the Republic of Panama.\nrights to cover our employees, facilities and operational prerogatives.\ntreaty negotiations with\ngovernmental functions\nI have been associated with affairs in the Republic of Panama, and more\nthe Republic of Panama.\"\nDefense interests are of course of vital importance to us in these negotiations.\nnow carried out by the\nparticularly in the Canal Zone, since the mid-1930's and officially since 1953. As\nAs you will recognize, the Canal itself is a valuable defense asset and the bases\nCanal Zone Government\npast Chairman of the Subcommittee on Panama Canal, I have worked closely\nlocated in the Canal Zone play a significant role in our defense posture. At present\nwith the Panama Canal Company, the people of Panama, and the people of the\nwe have approximately 12,000 military personnel in the Canal Zone. We also\nCanal Zone. In light of this long association with the affairs of Panama and the\nhave an extensive base structure.\nCanal Zone, I was amazed and dismayed to learn that the Administration has\nFor the foreseeable future the United States must have unilateral rights to take\nsent Ambassador Robert B. Anderson to discuss the reopening of negotiations\nwhatever action is necessary to defend the Canal and not be obliged to depend\nfor new treaties with the Provisional Government of General Torrijos. Ambassa-\nupon the consent of any other nation to keep it in operation. This is fundamental.\ndor Anderson, of course, was the Special Representative who headed the team\nBut this is not to say that Panama and its forces will not play an important role\nwhich negotiated the three treaties with the Republic of Panama between 1964\nin keeping the Canal open. Since the Canal and our employees are not isolated\nand 1967.\nfrom Panamanian population centers we rely upon Panama to deal with civil\nIt is a fact that the abortive 1967 treaties never came to fruition and ended\ndisturbances in its own territory that may spill over into the Zone and in the\non a very negative note. For example, copies of these draft treaties were never\nunlikely event of an attack by a third party, Panama would undoubtedly become\nmade available to the Congress of the United States but apparently were being\ninvolved in common cause with us.\ncirculated on the streets of Panama back in 1967. In addition, these proposed\nAlthough the negotiations will result in some land concessions to Panama we\ntreaties evoked loud protest from the people of the United States and, more particu-\nfully intend that bases necessary for our vital defense interests be retained. This\nthese proposed treat-\nlarly, from the Congress. Indeed, the House of Representatives in the Ninety-first\nis one of the non-negotiable parts of our position.\nies evoked loud protest\nCongress expressed itself as to the 1967 treaties blunder through the introduction\nIn addition to the Canal defense mission, there are certain collateral military\nfrom the Congress.\"\nof some 105 resolutions declaring it to be the policy of the House of Representa-\nactivities carried on in the Canal Zone which will continue. These benefit not only\ntives and the desire of the people that the United States should maintain its\nthe United States but also Panama and its other Rio Pact allies. One example is\nsovereignty and jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone. In fact, since 1967,\nthe military schools in the Zone which give extensive training to officers from\nthe Provisional Government of Panama itself has made known its objections to\nLatin American military establishments. Over 1,300 members of the Panamanian\nthe 1967 draft treaties in unmistakable terms.\nmilitary have received training at these schools. Another example of activities\nFrom the standpoint of the U.S., there were a number of disabilities inherent\nunrelated to Canal defense is that of humanitarian assistance. Our military forces\nin those treaties. They would have, for example, resulted in the United States\nin Panama have on many occasions assisted Latin American nations, and Panama\nrelinquishing its powers of sovereignty over the Canal and would have operated\nin particular, in times of natural disaster.\nin such a way that the United States would not be able to control effectively the\nIt will be necessary for us to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement for our\nPanama Canal or provide for its defense in a satisfactory manner. In addition,\n\"It will be necessary for us\nforces in Panama. There is very substantial precedent for agreements of this type\nthose treaties contemplated an unrealistic and unreasonable increase in tolls,\nto negotiate a Status of\nand our experience throughout the world is useful in developing the provisions\nrates and revenues and did not take into account the constitutional authority of\nForces Agreement for our\nthat must be included. Such an agreement would of course have to include appro-\nCongress over the disposal of United States property. Also, those treaties would\nforces in Panama.\"\npriate provisions regarding our Canal defense rights, freedom of access and move-\nhave removed the Canal from the authority of the United States Congress. In this\nment for our forces, and protection for the rights of individual members of the\nconnection, it should be noted that under the 1967 draft treaty relating to the\nservice in Panama. In our view it will be possible for us to fulfill our mission in\npresent locks canal, control of the Canal would have passed from the Congress\nPanama while operating under a Status of Forces Agreement, as we do in other\nto the nine-man governing authority and the five American members would be\nparts of the world.\nappointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and responsible\n(Continued on page 282)\n(Continued on page 283)\n1972\nNOVEMBER\n281\n280\nPRO\nSULLIVAN, continued from page 280\nCON\nWARD, continued from page 281\nto the Executive, not to the Congress. This arrangement alone would tend to cast\nThe question of expansion of Canal capacity is a major one in the treaty\nthe treaties in an unfavorable light with respect to the Congress.\nnegotiations. The logistical importance of the Canal is well known to this Com-\nAside from the disabilities inherent in these treaties, they are based on a\nmittee, as is its usefulness for the transit of combat ships. The day can be expected\nnumber of erroneous premises. For example, at the time the 1967 treaties were\nto come when this same interest in the lock canal will dictate an expansion of\nthese treaties\nare\nbased on a number of erro-\ndrafted and negotiated, it was thought that a sea-level canal was economically\nCanal capacity. The Interoceanic Canal Study Commission set up a National\nneous premises.\"\nfeasible and could be built by nuclear excavation. It is clear from the Atlantic-\nDefense Study Group of which I was the Chairman at the time of issuance of\nPacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission Report that nuclear excavation has\nits report. The study group concluded, and the Department of Defense and the\nbeen eliminated for the foreseeable future. Absent nuclear excavation, it would\nJoint Chiefs of Staff agreed, that a new sea-level canal would represent a major\ncost approximately $2.5 to $3 billion (at 1970 estimate cost figures) to construct\ndefense asset for the United States. Our conclusion was heavily based upon the\na new sea-level canal on Route 10, as recommended by the Interoceanic Canal\nfact that a sea-level canal is less vulnerable to attack than a lock canal and that\nStudy Commission. Testimony before our Committee has shown that based on\nsuch a canal would be wide enough to permit the passage of our aircraft carriers,\ntraffic forecasts and the Canal Improvement program, the existing Canal should\nsome of which are too wide for the present canal. Although the decision as to\nbe able to handle the traffic to the end of the century. At the present time, it seems\nthe construction of a sea-level canal or a third set of locks will probably not be\nclear that the Republic of Panama, or anyone else for that matter, cannot premise\nmade for some time, the Department of Defense strongly supports the objective\ntreaty negotiations on the assumption that Congress will authorize the construction\nof gaining definitive options to expand Canal capacity.\nof a new sea-level canal or enact legislation to transfer the existing Canal to any\nIn conclusion, the Department of Defense is interested in an adjustment of\n\"Department of Defense is\nother country.\nour treaty relationship with Panama which will remove at least some of the major\ninterested in an adjustment\nIf the 1967 proposals were unacceptable to the American people and to the\ncauses of friction that might threaten the peaceful operation of the lock canal\nof our treaty relationship\nCongress, how much more unacceptable will new treaties be which go even\nand foreclose to us the option of building a sea-level canal. Our mission of defend-\nwith Panama which will\nfurther than the last round of treaties in ceding American jurisdiction and sov-\ning the lock canal, with its locks and dams and 52 miles of bank largely covered\nremove at least some of the\nereignty in the Canal Zone? For the Government of Panama expressed its dis-\nwith jungle, will be facilitated by good relations with the people of Panama. But\nmajor causes of friction\nsatisfaction with the 1967 treaties in an August 5, 1970 letter to our Secretary of\nwe must ensure that a new treaty fully protects our vital defense interests. It\nState and simultaneously released a 32-page document explaining the reasons for\nmust also fully protect our interest in operating the Canal. And, finally, it is\nrejecting the 1967 draft treaties. In general, this document took an extreme posi-\nimportant that Canal expansion be clearly permitted by a new treaty.\ntion which, in effect, rejected U.S. control of the Canal, the right of the U.S. to\nmaintain military forces on the Isthmus, and rejected the management of the\nCanal for the benefit of shipping rather than the enrichment of Panama.\nby AMBASSADOR JOHN C. MUNDT\nIt seems to me that it is entirely improper and incorrect when so many priority\nSpecial Representative of the United States for Panama Treaty Negotiations\nproblems are facing the country at this time, that we should be pressured into\nFrom testimony given on November 29, 1971, before the Subcommittee on the\nopening up negotiations on new treaties that will once again engender enormous\nPanama Canal of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the\nreopening negotia-\ncontroversy and opposition. Undoubtedly, reopening negotiations on the type of\ncourse of hearings on the subject of Panama Canal treaty negotiations.\ntions on the type of treaties\ntreaties anticipated will result in protest by the American people when they learn\nanticipated will result in\nthe facts.\nP\nANAMA has been discontented with the Treaty of 1903 since its inception and\nprotest by the American\nThe possibility of new treaty negotiations raises several basic questions in my\n\"The United States ac-\nhas pressed for more favorable terms with increasing intensity in recent years.\npeople when they learn the\nmind:\nThe United States acknowledged as early as 1905 that under the 1903 Treaty\nknowledged as early as\n1. Why must we enter into treaty negotiations which give every indication\n1905 that under the 1903\nfacts.\"\nPanama retained titular sovereignty over the Canal Zone. Treaty revisions were\nof being contrary to the best interests of the United States?\nmade in 1936 and 1955. However, the most objectionable feature from Panama's\nTreaty Panama retained\n2. Must we enter into treaty negotiations at this time which can only cause\nviewpoint-United States exercise of rights as if sovereign in the Canal Zone in\ntitular sovereignty over\nthe Canal Zone.\"\nfurther unrest in both the United States and Panama?\nperpetuity-remained unchanged. Neither did the increases in payments and other\n3. Where has the United States failed in living up to its duties, obligations and\neconomic benefits for Panama in the two revisions provide what Panama consid-\ncommitments as set out in the basic 1903 treaty and its revisions of 1936 and\nered a fair sharing of the benefits of the canal. Panama's discontent led to destruc-\n1955?\ntive riots along the Canal Zone border in 1958 and 1964.\nI would be at least a little less apprehensive if someone in the Administration\nFollowing discussion of the Panama situation in the OAS, the UN, and in other\ncould answer these questions for me.\ninternational forums, President Johnson agreed in 1964 to begin negotiations for\na new treaty relationship. In reaching this decision, President Johnson had con-\n(Pros, continued on page 284)\n(Continued on page 285)\n282\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n283\nPRO\nPROS, continued from page 282\nCON\nMUNDT, continued from page 283\nsulted with and obtained the support of Presidents Hoover, Truman and Eisen-\nby COMMITTEE FOR CONTINUED U.S. CONTROL OF PANAMA CANAL\nhower.\nFrom a memorial addressed to the 92nd Congress late in 1971. The Committee\nThree draft treaties were negotiated by the United States and Panama between\nwas organized by Prof. Richard B. O'Keefe of George Mason College, the Uni-\n1964 and 1967. The President of Panama did not act to have these treaties\nversity of Virginia, research consultant on the Panama Canal.\nratified. Consequently, no action was taken on them by the United States.\n\"The construction\nof\nThe Government of Panama has changed twice since 1967, and the Govern-\nT\nHE construction by the United States of the Panama Canal (1904-1914) was\nthe Panama Canal was the\nment now in power is entering upon its fourth year. It is recognized by the United\nthe greatest industrial enterprise in history. Undertaken as a long-range com-\n\"President Nixon\nhas\ngreatest industrial enter-\nStates. President Nixon agreed more than one year ago to renew treaty negotia-\nmitment by the United States, in fulfillment of solemn treaty obligations (Hay-\ntions and has established negotiating objectives similar to those set by President\nestablished negotiating ob-\nprise in bistory.\"\nPauncefote Treaty of 1901) as a \"mandate for civilization\" in an area notorious\nJohnson in 1964, modified by developments since that time. United States objec-\njectives similar to those set\nas the pest hole of the world and as a land of endemic revolution, endless intrigue\ntives and positions thus reflect a bipartisan approach toward treaty negotiations\nby President Johnson in\nand governmental instability, the task was accomplished in spite of physical and\n1964\nwith Panama.\nhealth conditions that seemed insuperable. Its subsequent management and opera-\nThe United States has three essential objectives:\ntion on terms of \"entire equality\" with tolls that are \"just and equitable\" have\nwon the praise of the world, particularly countries that use the Canal.\n1. That the U.S. control canal operations for a very long period to ensure\nthat the canal remains available to our and the world's vessels on a non-discrimina-\nFull sovereign rights, power and authority of the United States over the Canal\ntory basis at reasonable tolls.\nZone territory and Canal were acquired by treaty grant in perpetuity from Panama\n(Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903). In addition to the indemnity paid by the\n2. That the United States have unimpaired rights to defend the canal from any\nUnited States to Panama for the necessary sovereignty and jurisdiction, all pri-\nthreat, and to maintain its uninterrupted operation in peace or war.\nvately owned land and property in the Zone were purchased by the United States\n3. That the United States have the right to expand canal capacity, either by\nfrom individual owners; and Colombia, the sovereign of the Isthmus before\nadding an additional lane of locks or by building a sea-level canal.\nPanama's independence, has recognized the title to the Panama Canal and Rail-\nThe Government of Panama has indicated that it is willing to grant these\nroad as vested \"entirely and absolutely\" in the United States (Thomson-Urrutia\nrights to the United States in a new treaty, but wishes to eliminate the causes of\nTreaty of 1914-22). The cost of acquiring the Canal Zone, as of March 31, 1964,\nconflict with the U.S. in Panama.\ntotaled $144,568,571, making it the most expensive territorial extension in the\nThere are many things that I could cite that are irritants to our relations\nhistory of the United States. Because of the vast protective obligations of the\nwith Panama-U.S. occupation of land needed by Panama (that we do not need),\nUnited States, the perpetuity provisions in the 1903 treaty assure that Panama\nthe presence of a U.S. Canal Zone Government in Panama, and the contrast in\n\"The cost of acquiring the\nwill remain a free and independent country in perpetuity, for these provisions bind\nCanal Zone\nmade it the\nliving standards between the Zone and nearby Panamanian communities. Suffice\nthe United States as well as Panama.\nit to say that Panamanian resentments are sufficient that they have boiled over in\nmost expensive territorial\nStarting with the 1936-39 Treaty with Panama, there has been a sustained\nextension in the history of\ndestructive and bloody riots twice in recent years. It is in our interest to develop\nthe United States.\"\nerosion of United States rights, powers and authority on the Isthmus, culminating\nin place of this a relationship that is based upon mutual needs and benefits and\nin the completion, in 1967, of negotiations for three proposed canal treaties that\nthat is adhered to willingly on both sides.\n\"It is in our interest to\nwould:\nAs I have already mentioned, a primary United States objective is the right\ndevelop\na\nrelationship\n1. Surrender United States sovereignty over the Canal Zone to Panama;\nto administer, operate and defend the canal for an extended period of time. We\nthat is based on mutual\n2. Make that weak, technologically primitive and unstable country a senior\nare confident this can be negotiated.\nneeds and benefits\npartner in the management and defense of the Canal;\nThe United States seeks clear provisions which would permit the expansion\n3. Ultimately give to Panama not only the existing Canal, but also any new one\nof canal capacity to meet world shipping needs by the construction of either a\nconstructed in Panama to replace it, all without any compensation whatever and\nsea-level canal or third locks for the present canal. The Atlantic-Pacific Inter-\nall in derogation of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This\noceanic Canal Study Commission reported that greater canal capacity will prob-\nClause vests the power to dispose of territory and other property of the United\nably be needed before the end of the century. A new treaty is needed to permit\nStates in the entire Congress (House and Senate) and not in the treaty-making\nthe construction of a sea-level canal and to ensure Panamanian acceptance of a\npower of our Government (President and Senate)-a Constitutional provision\nUnited States decision to expand the existing lock canal by addition of a third\nobserved in the 1955 Treaty with Panama.\nset of locks. No decision has yet been made as to which alternative will be\nIt is clear from the conduct of our Panama Canal policy over many years that\nadopted, and a decision is not likely until well after a new treaty has been ratified.\npolicy-making elements within the Department of State, in direct violation of\nIt is estimated that a sea-level canal, which would be less vulnerable to attack or\n(Continued on page 286)\n(Continued on page 287)\n284\nNOVEMBER\n1972\n285\nPRO\nCFCUSC, continued from page 284\nCON\nMUNDT, continued from page 285\nsabotage, would cost about $2.8 billion to build and that a third set of locks\nthe indicated Constitutional provision, have been, and are yet, engaged in efforts\nwould cost about $1.5 billion.\nwhich will have the effect of diluting or even repudiating entirely the sovereign\nrights, power and authority of the United States with respect to the Canal and of\nPanama seeks the application of its laws to various activities in the present\n\"Certain jurisdictional\ndissipating the vast investment of the United States in the Panama Canal project.\nCanal Zone. Certain jurisdictional rights and activities, including commercial\nrights and activities\nSuch actions would eventually and inevitably permit the domination of this stra-\noperations, not necessary for the administration, operation and defense of the\ncan be transferred to\ntegic waterway by a potentially hostile power that now indirectly controls the\ncanal, can be transferred to Panama without adversely affecting the United States\nPanama without adversely\nSuez Canal. That canal, under such domination, ceased to operate in 1967 with\ninterests. Panama today can provide nearly all the commercial services essential\naffecting the United States\nvast consequences of evil to world trade.\nto the health and welfare of the personnel who operate the Canal. Right now\ninterests.\"\nsome 5,000 U.S. citizens live in the Republic of Panama. Some are engaged in a\n\"[These] efforts\nwill\nExtensive debates in the Congress over the past decade have clarified and\nhave the effect of diluting\nnarrowed the key canal issues to the following:\nwide variety of private business activities and others commute daily to jobs in\nthe Canal Zone. They are fully subject to Panamanian law and police jurisdiction\nor repudiating the sov-\n1. Retention by the United States of its undiluted and indispensable sovereign\nand have experienced no significant difficulties. Throughout the world tens of\nereign rights of the United\nrights, power and authority over the Canal Zone territory and Canal as provided\nthousands of U.S. Government employees live and work satisfactorily under the\nStates with respect to the\nby existing treaties;\nlegal jurisdiction of foreign governments. The United States will continue to have\nCanal\n2. The major modernization of the existing Panama Canal as provided for in\nadequate protection of the rights of its canal employees under a new treaty, and\nthe Terminal Lake Proposal.\nI assure you that we will not negotiate away legal rights essential to the operation\nUnfortunately, these efforts have been complicated by the agitation of Pana-\nand protection of the canal. Our military personnel will be protected by a Status\nmanian extremists, aided and abetted by irresponsible elements in the United\nof Forces Agreement comparable with other such agreements elsewhere in the\nStates, aimed at ceding to Panama complete sovereignty over the Canal Zone and,\nworld.\neventually, the ownership of the existing Canal and any future canal in the Zone\nCommercial activities currently conducted by the Panama Canal Company will\nor in Panama that might be built by the United States to replace it.\ngradually be phased into private operation as arrangements can be worked out\nIn the 1st Session of the 92d Congress identical bills were introduced in both\nfor their satisfactory conduct under Panamanian law. The U.S. will reserve the\nHouse and Senate to provide for the major increase of capacity and operational\nright to continue to conduct essential commercial services where satisfactory\nimprovement of the existing Panama Canal by modifying the authorized Third\nprivate operation cannot be arranged. Military commissaries and post exchanges\nLocks Project to embody the principles of the previously mentioned Terminal\nwill not be affected by the proposed changes. Some piers we plan to turn over to\nLake solution, which competent authorities consider would supply the best opera-\nPanama outright as proposed in 1967, inasmuch as the U.S. now controls all\ntional canal practicable of achievement, and at least cost without treaty involve-\ndeep-water port capacity in the Republic of Panama, and the U.S. needs for such\nment.\ncapacity will be greatly reduced with the termination of Canal Company commer-\nStarting on January 26, 1971, many Members of Congress have sponsored\ncial activities. Pier capacity for military and Canal Administration requirements\nresolutions expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United\nwill be retained under U.S. control.\nStates should maintain and protect its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the\nThe economies of many Central and South American countries are closely\nPanama Canal enterprise, including the Canal Zone, and not surrender any of its\ntied to the uninterrupted operation of the Panama Canal at reasonable tolls.\npowers to any other nation or to any international organization in derogation of\nThere is considerable fear among canal users in Latin America and worldwide\npresent treaty provisions.\nthat, without continued U.S. control, the Canal might be operated to produce\nThe Panama Canal is a priceless asset of the United States, essential for\nmaximum revenues rather than as a utility serving world trade at reasonable tolls.\ninteroceanic commerce and hemispheric security. The recent efforts to wrest its\nOn the other hand, there is widespread support in Latin America for Panama's\ncontrol from the United States trace back to the 1917 Communist Revolution and\nefforts to obtain greater practical exercise of its sovereignty and to terminate the\nconform to long-range Soviet policy of gaining domination over key water routes\nobjectionable aspects of the U.S. presence in the Canal Zone, which is exactly\nthe real issue at\nas in Cuba, which flanks the Atlantic approach to the Panama Canal, and as was\none of the U.S. objectives in the current negotiations.\nPanama\nis United\naccomplished in the case of the Suez Canal, which the Soviet Union now wishes\nU.S. control and defense of a canal in Panama well into the next century is\nStates control versus Soviet\nopened in connection with its naval buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean and\nnot at stake in the current negotiations. We are seeking a treaty arrangement with\n\"We can afford to make\ncontrol.\"\nIndian Ocean. Thus, the real issue at Panama, dramatized by the Communist take-\nPanama that will ensure the continuation of the U.S. presence in tranquillity. This\nadjustments in our treaty\nover of strategically located Cuba and Chile, is not United States control versus\nmeans that this presence must not be imposed on an unwilling partner. It must be\nrelations with Panama.\"\nPanamanian but United States control versus Soviet control. This is the issue that\nestablished on a mutually acceptable basis. We can afford to make adjustments\nshould be debated in the Congress.\nin our treaty relations with Panama.\n1972\n287\n286\nNOVEMBER\nTHE PANAMA CANAL ZONE\nHIGHLIGHTS OF PROPOSED TREATIES\nFrom page 260\nFrom page 266\nOrganization of the Current, the 92nd Congress\nhas designated the Secretary of the Army to act as stock-\nistration the right and power to adopt, by an absolute\nholder, specifying that in so doing he shall act as the direct\nmajority vote of the board, statutes with respect to [spe-\nDuration: January 3, 1971-January 3, 1973. First Session convened Jan. 21, 1971; adjourned Dec. 17, 1971.\nrepresentative of the President and not in his capacity as\ncified] subject matters, which shall comprise the statute\nSecond Session convened Jan. 18, 1972; adjourned Oct. 18, 1972.\nhead of the Department of the Army.\nfor the canal area and shall be the applicable law\nin\nManagement of the Company is vested in a board of\nthe canal area, to the exclusion of any other statutory law.\nTHE U. S. SENATE\nTHE U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\ndirectors, consisting of not less than nine nor more than\nArticle XXXIII. \"1. The administration shall operate\nTotal Membership, 100: 54 Dem., 44 Rep., 1 Cons., 1 Ind.\nTotal Membership, 435: 255 Dem., 177 Rep., 3 Vacancies\nthirteen members, including the Governor of the Canal\nthe Panama canal both to provide the Republic of Panama\nPRESIDING OFFICER: The Vice President of the U.S.\nPRESIDING OFFICER: The Speaker of the House\nZone and the stockholder, if he elects to serve. The other\nand the United States of America a fair return in the\nPRESIDENT OF THE SENATE: Spiro T. Agnew, Maryland, R.\nSPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Carl B. Albert, Oklahoma, D.\nmembers of the board are appointed by and serve at the\nlight of their contributions to the creation and mainte-\nPRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: James O. Eastland, Miss., D.\npleasure of the stockholder. The directors receive no\nnance of this interoceanic waterway and in the interest of\nsalary but are paid a per diem allowance and transporta-\nFLOOR LEADERS: Majority Leader-Mike Mansfield, Mon-\nFLOOR LEADERS: Majority Leader-Hale Boggs, Louisiana,\nworld commerce.\ntana, D.; Minority Leader-Hugh Scott, Pennsylvania, R.\nD.; Minority Leader-Gerald R. Ford, Michigan, R.\ntion expenses for travel in connection with their services\n\"2. The administration may establish and apply new\nto the Company.\nrates of tolls and related charges for the transit of the\nPARTY WHIPS: Majority Whip-Robert C. Byrd, W. Va.,\nPARTY WHIPS: Majority Whip-Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,\nThe powers of the Company, enumerated in its charter,\nD.; Minority Whip-Robert P. Griffin, Michigan, R.\nMass., D.; Minority Whip-Leslie C. Arends, Illinois, R.\ncanal by vessels and cargoes, in conformity with [speci-\nin general extend to operations directly involved in the\nfied] provisions\nmovement of ships through the Canal and supporting\nArticle XXXIV. \"1. The Republic of Panama de-\nservices. The latter include vessel repairs, harbor ter-\nclares the Panama canal to be neutral.\nminals, a railroad across the Isthmus, a supply ship oper-\n\"2. The Republic of Panama and the United States of\nRecent Issues of The Congressional Digest\nating between the United States and the Canal Zone, motor\nAmerica agree that the neutrality of the canal, the en-\n1972 Presidential Election Issues-Oct. '72\nA Six-Year Presidential Term-Mar. '72\ntransportation facilities, storehouses, an electric power\ntrances thereto, and the territorial seas adjacent thereto,\nsystem, a communications system, a water system, and\nFinancing Public Education-Aug.-Sept. '72\nNational Health Insurance Proposals-Feb. '72\nshall be maintained in accordance with the principles\nservice activities essential to meeting the needs of em-\nwhich have governed since the canal was opened.\nThe Future U.S. Space Program-Je.-Jy. '72\nFederal Voter Registration by Mail-Jan. '72\nployees, such as living quarters, retail stores, etc.\nArticle XXXVIII. \"1. Upon the entry into force of\nFederal Role in Day-Care-May '72\nU.S. Adoption of Metric System-Dec. '71\nUnder its charter the Company is required to be self-\nthis treaty, all rights of the United States of America to\nsustaining, although appropriations are authorized to\nExpanding the Minimum Wage Law-Apr. '72\n\"Equal Employment\" Enforcement-Nov. '71\nreal property in the territory which constituted the Canal\ncover any operating losses or for capital improvements.\nZone but which is not included in the canal area and in\nAppropriations for operating losses are required to be\nthe areas described [in the proposed Panama Canal de-\nrepaid. Since the 1950 reorganization, all operating ex-\nfense treaty]\nshall become the exclusive rights of the\nCongressional Digest in Microform: 1921-1971\npenses and capital costs have been met from revenues.\nRepublic of Panama, without cost.\nTolls for the use of the Canal are established by the\nComplete annual volumes of the Congressional Digest since\nannual volumes or the complete set (priced at a discount)\n\"3. Any rights of the United States of America and\n1921 are available in three standard microforms-16 and\nmay be ordered. Standing orders accepted. Annual index\nCompany, subject to approval by the President of the\nof the administration to real property within the canal\n35mm reels and microfiche. All film is positive. Individual\nset also available, 1921 to date.\nUnited States. The law requires that tolls be maintained\narea shall, upon the termination of this treaty, become\nMicrofiche:\n1\nto\n4\nvolumes\n@$7\neach.\nat rates calculated to recover all costs of maintenance\n5 or more, $6.50 each.\n50-vol. set (1921-1971), $295.\nIndex set, $4.\nthe exclusive rights of the Republic of Panama, free of\n16mm reels: 1 to 4 volumes $8 each.\n5 or more, $7.50 each.\n50-vol. set (1921-1971), $345.\nIndex reel, $5.\nand operation of the Canal, including interest, deprecia-\ncost\n35mm reels: 1 to 4 volumes $9 each.\n5 or more, $8.50 each.\n50-vol. set (1921-1971), $395.\nIndex reel, $6.\ntion, and an appropriate share of the net cost of the\nArticle XXXIX. \"1. Upon termination of this treaty:\nCanal Zone Government. The remaining financial obliga-\n(a) The Panama Canal shall come under the exclusive\ntions of the Company are met through revenues derived\noperational control of the Republic of Panama and all\nSubscription Order Form\nfrom operation of the supporting activities.\nits appurtenant facilities and services and all property of\nTHE CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST, Congressional Digest Building, 3231 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007\nthe administration shall be the property of the Republic\nCanal Zone Government\nPlease enter subscription for\nyears beginning with\nissue. Payment enclosed\nSend bill\nof Panama; and (b) all rights to property granted to the\nThe Canal Zone Government is an independent agency\nadministration pursuant to the provisions of this treaty\nNAME\nof the United States charged with the performance of the\nshall be enjoyed exclusively by the Republic of Panama.\nvarious duties connected with the civil government of the\nNo compensation shall be owed by the Republic of Panama\nADDRESS\nZIP\nCanal Zone. It is administered by a Governor of the\nbecause of the provisions of this paragraph.\nCanal Zone, who serves also in a dual role as President\nArticle XLI. \"1. This treaty shall enter into force\nSIGNATURE\nof the Panama Canal Company. He is appointed by the\nupon the exchange of instruments of ratification and shall\nRATES: 1 yr., $14.50; 2 yrs., $26; 3 yrs., $34; Current single copies $1.50 ea.; 5 @$1.25; 10 @$1; 25 and up @75c.\nPresident for a term of four years.\nremain in force until December 31, 1999.\"\n288\nComing\nThe Federal Spending\nCeiling Controversy\nPro & Con\nPRO\nThe Congressional Digest\n&con\nFOUNDED 1921-PUBLISHED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST CORPORATION\n$14.50 per year. $1.50 per copy.\nCONGRESSIONAL DIGEST BUILDING, 3231 P STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007\nRichard Nixon, 1973\nMay 3 [141]\nthis kind of dispute enjoys any real bene-\nphasized my concern by sending two\nrit. Indeed, both suffer because of the\npersonal representatives, former Secretary\nresulting exacerbation of political, eco-\nof the Treasury Connally and Federal\nnomic, and security relations.\nReserve Chairman Burns, to a number of\nThe real point is not fishing rights or\ncountries in Latin America. The detailed\nretaliation. Rather it is: what rules shall\nand perceptive reports I received from\ngovern the use of the oceans? If countries\nthese special envoys helped to keep me\nmake unilateral claims over ocean space\nabreast of current problems and develop-\nwithout international agreement, conflict\nments. This year, I will be consulting with\nover uses of the area and its resources are\nmy fellow presidents in the hemisphere\ninevitable. We believe that the Law of the\nand with other knowledgeable Latin\nSea Conference provides the appropriate\nAmericans on our future course. I have\nforum for resolving outstanding law of the\nasked Secretary of State Rogers to visit\nча problems. We intend to work with the\nLatin America to convey our intention to\nLatin Americans and all other nations to-\ncontinue to work closely with our neigh-\nward achieving a timely and successful\nbors. And I plan to make at least one visit\nconference.\nto Latin America this year.\n[Another important unresolved problem\nAt the same time, I hope Members of\nconcerns the Panama Canal and the sur-\nthe Congress will travel to the area and\nrounding Zone. U.S. operation of the\nsee what is happening in this part of the\nCanal and our presence in Panama are\nworld. Such visits could produce new in-\ngoverned by the terms of a treaty drafted\nsights into the complex problems we and\nin 1903. The world has changed radically\nour neighbors confront. They would pro-\nduring the 70 years this treaty has been in\nvide an awareness of what able and dedi-\neffect. Latin America has changed.\ncated Americans are doing in those coun-\nPanama has changed. And the terms of\ntries. And it would create a base of knowl-\nour relationship should reflect those\nedge from which understanding legislative\nchanges in a reasonable way.\naction might come.\nFor the past nine years, efforts to work\nI urge the Congress to take a new and\nout a new treaty acceptable to both parties\nthorough look at existing legislation that\nhave failed. That failure has put con-\naffects our relations with Latin America.\nsiderable strain on our realtions with\nWe need to study, for example, whether\nPanama. It is time for both parties to take\nvarious legislative restrictions serve the\na fresh look at this problem and to develop\npurposes for which they were designed.\na new relationship between us-one that\nDo they deter other governments from\nwill guarantee continued effective opera-\nvarious actions, such as seizing fishing\ntion of the Canal while meeting Panama's\nboats? Or do they merely make the solu-\nlegitimate aspirations.\ntion of such problems more difficult? I\nbelieve some current restrictions are en-\nLOOKING TO THE FUTURE\ntirely too rigid and deprive us of the\nflexibility we need to work out mutually\nI intend to underscore our deep interest\nbeneficial solutions.\nin Latin America through expanded per-\nSimilarly, we should inquire whether\nsonal involvement. Last year, I em-\ncurrent limitations on military equipment\n443\nTransmitting Fourth Annual Report\nMessage to Congress\non United states Foreign Policy\nThird Annual Report\nto the Caugress\nThird Transmitting Annual\n[56] Feb. 9\nPublic Papers of the Presidents\nReport on US Foreign Policy\ngenerates into hostile confrontation, which\ndiscussion and fair settlements between\ntinued\nwould be an obstacle to achievement, and\nsovereign nations are inconsistent with\nthe fish\nthus self-defeating.\nnational dignity.\nPeni and\nOur especially close relationship with\nThe\nCOMMUNITY, DIVERSITY, AND\nMexico provides striking examples of\nlegal de\nNATIONALISM\nproblems resolved systematically by self-\ncentral\nrespecting states who feel a preeminent in-\nconflict\nThe hemisphere community took shape\nterest in good relations. The closeness\nwhich\nhistorically as an association of free repub-\nreflected in my several meetings in 1969\ntions a\nlics joining together against domination\nand 1970 with Presidents Diaz Ordaz and\nmental\nand interference from tyrannies across the\nEcheverria resulted in specific agreements\nStates\nocean. This sense of unity was reinforced\non such matters as narcotics control,\nthat\nby the Second World War and was em-\nboundaries, civil air routes, agricultural\nsanction\nbodied in the new institutions and instru-\nimports, Colorado River salinity, joint\ntherefo\nments of the inter-American system.\nflood control projects, and the return of\nat least\nOur cohesion has served many other\narchaeological treasures.\nseizure\ncommon purposes since then. It has pro-\nIn addition, in 1971 the United States\nthe jur\nvided forums for multilateral considera-\nand Nicaragua abrogated the Bryan-\nthe '97\ntion of issues facing us all. It has afforded\nChamorro Treaty, relinquishing canal-\nthe Se\nmechanisms for peaceful settlement of dis-\nconstruction rights in Nicaragua which we\ninterna\nputes within the hemisphere. It has en-\nno longer require. Presidential Counsellor\nreopen\nabled Latin Americans to express a\nFinch, visiting six Latin American nations\nEcuado\ncollective voice in discussions with the\non my behalf in November 1971, signed\ncussed\nUnited States and the rest of the world.\nan agreement recognizing Honduran\nMajo\nIn the 1970's, this cohesion is being\nsovereignty over the Swan Islands. We\nthe pas\ntested by rapid and turbulent change-\nhave entered new negotiations with\nStates\nmore intense nationalism, accelerating ex-\nPanama to achieve a mutually acceptable\nover\npectations, new ideologies and political\nbasis for the continuing efficient operation\ninvestm\nmovements, a new diversity of political\nand defense of the Panama Canal.\nInter\nsystems and expanding ties between Latin\nOur mutual interest also requires that\ninatory\nAmerican countries and the rest of the\nwe and our neighbors address in this same\npublic\nworld. These new conditions are bound to\ncooperative spirit the two significant dis-\nable pr\ntransform our political relationships.\nputes which flared up last year in our rela-\neffective\nOur task is to respond constructively\ntions with Latin America-the fisheries\ntually\nwith a realistic set of objectives and princi-\ndispute and the problem of expropriation\nments\nples for United States policy. We have\nLet me state frankly the United States\ninstand\ndone so.\nview on these unsettled questions.\nbeen\nThere are hemispheric questions on\nIn 1971, Ecuador seized and fined a\nmate\nwhich our judgments differ from those of\ngreat number of U.S.-owned tuna boats\nbeen\nsome of our partners. As I said in Octo-\nfishing within its claimed 200-mile terri-\nIn\nber 1969: \"partnership-mutuality-\ntorial sea. United States law required me\nachieve\nthese do not flow naturally. We have to\nto suspend new military sales and credits\nthese\nwork at them.\" I do not believe that frank\nto Ecuador as a result; seizures have con-\nneeds\nsavings\n262"
}