LEGAL PANAMANIAN GOVERNMENT CAPABLE OF MAKING TREATY

Senator CASE. I hope so, because this is a part of the treaty arrange ments. We must have it if we are going to make our decision and the country must have it if it is going to make its decision. That is the really important thing. Now, to get to the question of the country's decision, I would like to turn to the Panamanian country's decision. Who is the Government of Panama? Just what do we have?

We have what is called the Chief of the Revolutionary Government or some such thing, and then there are various other bodies which seem to be set up by that individual and his pals, and then there is a plebiscite which is coming along here. Is there in your judgment—I guess there is, because we have recognized it as the Government, but is there a Government capable and competent to make this treaty arrangement, first in the legal sense?

Mr. HANSELL. Yes.

PANAMANIAN PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF TREATIES

Senator CASE. The answer is "Yes." Now, in the practical sense, it is hoped, I guess, that whatever deficiencies may exist in making this really an obligation of the Panamanians, understood and accepted by them, which is the real question, accepted not only for now but for the future, even if there is a change of government. The real question is whether the people of Panama are going to have the facts before them when they vote on October 23 and understand what the facts are.

That is why we press so much as to what is being told them. I for one have said, and I feel the same way today, certainly, that we will not know whether they have been told the right facts until the time of the election. We can review what is being said between now and then as well as what has been told them before. I won't be satisfied if we get this thing passed by a big referendum of 95 percent or whatever the general is calling for unless I am satisfied that the people know what they are supporting and understanding.

That goes with such things as the matter of our right to intervene during the period of neutrality which is forever after the conclusion of the first treaty and our rights in that respect. I think you are technically correct when you say the last interpretation is the one made by the General when he was here, but that isn't the real point. The real point is what the people of Panama understand and accept. That is what I am concerned with here.

Mr. HANSELL. May I say that there is extensive debate going on in Panama at the moment. The reports back indicate widespread discussion and a number of observers have been invited to Panama to ob serve the plebiscite. We obviously intend to monitor very closely the arrangements being made in that connection.

RIGHT OF U.S. SHIPS TO GO TO HEAD OF LINE

Senator CASE. There are technically some other points. Secretary Vance said, and his colleague, the Secretary of Defense, also said. with respect to our right in case of need to put our ships at the head

of the line—we had that right under the treaty-do you concur with his?

Mr. HANSELL. Yes, Senator.

Senator CASE. You understand what he said and the context in which t was said?

Mr. HANSELL, Yes, sir.

Senator CASE. Attorney General Bell, what do you think about that? Attorney General BELL. We have not rendered an opinion on that. We have not studied that yet. We will be glad to render an opinion. Senator CASE. It would be helpful to us if you could do that. I would ppreciate it.

Attorney General BELL. Certainly.

[See end of hearing day, beginning p. 327.]

U.S. ENFORCEMENT OF REGIME OF NEUTRALITY RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS

Senator CASE. What about the matter of our rights and obligations n enforcing neutrality under the neutrality treaty after the year 2000? What is your judgment as to what our obligations are and what our rights are?

Mr. HANSELL. I was present with Secretary Vance when he testiied on Monday, and of course we have had extended discussions on hese questions in the Department, so that I can say that his testimony on Monday on those issues very much reflects my own view, and the iews of our other colleagues in the Department of State. These issues vere talked out extensively.

Senator CASE. To a very real extent, I think there is a feeling that our rights are pretty much dependent upon our power, and that the eason was have an effective right to intervene and enforce the neutralty provision is because we are a big, strong country. Both Panama and the United States are supposed to have the same rights in regard o enforcing neutrality and the same applications, as I understand it. Mr. HANSELL. That's right, the two countries agree to maintain the egime of neutrality.

U.S. RIGHT IF HOSTILE TROOPS ARE INTRODUCED BY PANAMA

Senator CASE. What is our position, if they attempt to bring in some outside power to help them, such as the Russians?

Mr. HANSELL. The treaty, of course, provides that after the terminaion of the interim arrangement, the 23-year arrangement during which we have the primary defense rights, only the Republic of Panma will operate the canal and maintain military forces, defense sites, and military installations within its national territory, so that an integral part of the neutrality arrangement is that only Panama will replace the United States commencing in the year 2000, with respect to naintenance of military forces and military installations within Panama.

Senator CASE. You are quite right. I am sure that as a country, no outside country has a right to come in, but what if Panama asks anther country to send in its forces to help under Panama's jurisdieion, under Panama's control. even, if you will.

Mr. HANSELL. The obligation to maintain the neutrality of the canal on Panama and on the United States would, of course, not be affected. As was said, I think, a number of times in the testimony, both by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, and also the negotiators, the choice by the United States of the action that it deems necessary to maintain the neutrality of the canal depends, of course, on the circumstances, but it is our choice. One can envision, obviously, a spectrum of possibilities along the lines that you mention. What the situation might be in terms of maintaining the neutrality of the canal, keeping it open, keeping it available for use, which of course is the objective, would depend on the circumstances at the time, but the introduction of that kind of arrangement would not deprive the United States either of its obligations or of its rights to maintain the neutrality of the canal and its choice of methods to do that as the situation might dictate. Senator CASE. Would the United States have the right to act against Panama if it brought in forces unfriendly to ourselves, forces of a country unfriendly to us on the claim that it was necessary to help Panama carry out its duties under the treaties?

Mr. HANSELL. If the neutrality of the canal

Senator CASE. I understand the point about that. I am talking about the presence of these forces. The answer is no, isn't it?

Mr. HANSELL. If the neutrality of the canal were threatened, yes, sir, we would have the right to respond as we deemed appropriate. Senator CASE. All right, thank you very much.

Senator BIDEN. If the Senator would yield, I am not sure I understood that answer. I understand Senator Case's answer to his question, but I did not understand your answer to his question. [Laughter.]

Mr. HANSELL. The question as I understood it was, would we have the right to respond if we felt that introduction

Senator BIDEN. No, I thought the question was, if Panama invited in Russian troops, would we have any power to intervene or prevent that?

Mr. HANSELL. My answer was that we would. We would continue to have the same rights and authority and powers to protect the neutrality of the canal that

Senator BIDEN. Assuming it did not affect

Senator CASE. As what? As now?

Mr. HANSELL. No, through the neutrality treaty, prior to the commencement of that arrangement.

Senator BIDEN. Assuming the neutrality was not in question, that they decided just to have Russian garrisons in Panama.

Mr. HANSELL. As long as it is not a threat to the neutrality of the canal, presumably there would be no occasion for us to move, but in fact garrisons would be a threat.

Senator BIDEN. By definition, presence of hostile troops is not a threat to the canal necessarily.

Mr. HANSELL. Of course, the introduction of troops would conflict with the provision I mentioned a moment ago; that is, that only Panamanian forces will be maintained in the Republic of Panama's territory following the year 2000.

Senator CASE. But the question of advisers-great numbers of alien people could be there and it might or might not threaten the neutrality within the meaning of the treaty.

Mr. HANSELL. That is right. It would depend on whether or not it does, the extent to which it is a threat to the neutrality of the canal, and our actions could be taken accordingly. Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARTICLE V MEANING

Attorney General BELL. I would like to say one word here, because as a lawyer I don't want to be left with some of these things that have been said. Article V says the key word is "maintain military forces." Whatever that means is what would be done about the introduction of troops of a foreign government. That is completely aside from any neutrality problem, so we get down to what does article V mean. We can give informal opinions to the committee. We can give formal opinions to the Secretary of State if we are asked to do so about anything in the treaty. We can give informal opinions to the Senate, however. Senator ČASE. Which would you prefer to do?

Attorney General BELL. I think it would be better to have a formal opinion if we are asked, but we will give them either way. [Laughter.] Senator CASE. We take what we can get, but the point is not what you must do, it is what will be helpful in making this arrangement clear to the American people.

Attorney GENERAL BELL. I would think we should work very closely with the Department of State on these questions of that sort where you really need a construction. The Secretary of State would probably want us to render an opinion which would then be made available to the committee.

Senator CASE. I just wanted to point out that you don't have to have armed forces necessarily. Advisers could be present or other actions could occur, and I think that could be a very serious part of this whole thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pell?

PANAMANIAN INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

Senator PELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up that for a moment, I think that we should recognize that the Panamanian view, quoting one of their two principal negotiators, when he was reporting to the Panamanian Parliament, "The pact does not establish that the United States has the right to intervene in Panama." We mentioned this before in an exchange and the State Department indicated that it was going to try to secure some comment or statement from the Panamanian Government that this was not a correct statement on the part of Escobar Bethancourt, and I believe that the progress of ratification would be helped if we could have some statement from Panama that the views of Escobar do not reflect the views of the Panamanian Government.

I would remind the State Department representative that the sooner the Department gets that comment up here, the better off its cause is.

I have five very brief questions that I would hope to get through. The first concerns the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONTINUATION OF TROPICAL RAIN

FOREST

The tropical rain forests of the Canal Zone are among the few that are left protected in the world today. The Smithsonian Institution has a Barro Colorado Island facility down there. What arrangements are being made to insure the continuation of that tropical rain forest and the environmental considerations involved. In answering that question we come to another, that we do not want to permit an intermixture of sea water if you have a seal-level canal. As you know, all the waters in the locks now are fresh water. There should be no mixing up of the sea and fresh waters.

Mr. HANSELL. Senator, I don't know the answer to that question, but we will obtain the answer and report to you promptly.

I know that consideration has been given to the various environmental aspects, but precisely what arrangements have been thought of with respect to the tropical rain forests, I am sorry, but I don't know.

[The information referred to follows:]

INSURING CONTINUATION OF TROPICAL RAIN FOREST

[Supplied by Department of State]

The status of Barro Colorado Island after the entry into force of the Panama Canal Treaty would be governed by the Agreement Pursuant to Article VI of the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere signed by the U.S. and Panama on September 7, 1977 and the Exchange of Notes Relating to Custodianship of Barro Colorado Nature Monument by the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute dated September 7, 1977. Under the Agreement, Barro Colorado Island is declared to be a "Nature Monument" as that term is used in the Convention on Protection and Wildlife Preservation. At the end of the Panama Canal Treaty, the Nature Monument would be expanded to include the adjacent areas if Orchid and Point Salud Islands; Bohio, Buena Vista and Frijoles Points; the smaller islets adjacent to them; and the peninsular immediately south of Maiz Island. The parties agreed that the Barro Colorado Nature Monument would be preserved for scientific research and investigation for at least as long as both Governments remain parties to that Convention.

In the Exchange of Notes dated September 7, Panama agreed that the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) could be the custodian for the Nature Monument for the duration of the Panama Canal Treaty and thereafter until such time as Panama might give one year's notice of its desire to terminate the custodianship arrangement. In addition, the Parties have agreed that during the life of the Panama Canal Treaty the adjacent areas which will become part of the Nature Monument upon termination of the Treaty may be used under appropriate land licenses for purposes of scientific research and investigation.

Panama has also agreed in the Exchange of Notes Relating to Scientific Activities in Panama of STRI that STRI will have the exclusive use of the 37acre Pipeline Road Reserve for a 5 year period which will be automatically renewable for additional 5 year periods unless one of the Governments wishes to terminate the arrangement.

With regard to the possible construction of a sea-level canal in Panama, one of the matters which would be investigated extensively before a decision would be made to proceed with a sea-level canal would be the possible environmental consequences of such a Canal including the potential problem of the mixing of the current fresh water supply with sea water.

MAPS ACCOMPANYING TREATIES

Senator PELL. The maps that are furnished with the treaty are very deplorable maps. I think as Senator Case pointed out, the American