Does that help you recall that incident?

Ambassador JORDEN. There is a difference between a protest and epresentation.

Senator STONE. I said representation.

Ambassador JORDEN. That is what my confusion is because a formal rotest is one thing. I did make representations. It was a rather senitive position to be in, Senator, as you can imagine, because we are alking about the way one government treats its own people. Noneheless we are interested in human rights and in the rights of these ›eople and therefore we did make representations.

EFFECT OF TREATIES ON PANAMANIAN HUMAN RIGHTS

Senator STONE. The reason for all these questions, apart from their undamental merits on human rights, is this: Do you, with your exerience, feel that the ratification of these treaties and the removal of America's physical presence at the end of the first treaty period will nhance or reduce the chances for improved human rights of Panamaians in Panama?

Ambassador JORDEN. I am persuaded that it will improve the chances for improved human rights because I think that if two governnents are dealing with each other on a basis of cooperation, on the pasis of mutual advantages, in a friendly spirit, that the words of one government carry considerably more weight with the other governnent than if they are in a process of antagonism, bitterness, and opposition.

One of the items, for example, that is raised in the documents you have concerns the exiles. Now, the Government of Panama has just announced that 80 of those exiles can return to Panama immediately. Senator STONE. That is very helpful.

Ambassador JORDEN. That did not happen out of the blue or by accident.

Senator STONE. Mr. Ambassador, I congratulate you if you played a role in that, and I presume you would have in the light of your past representations. I think that that is what our foreign policy is supposed to stand for. That is very good news. I am glad to hear that.

I thank my senior colleague, Senator Biden, for letting me take a round.

Senator BIDEN. I have only about 2 more hours of questions, gentlenen. It won't take long.

WILL MILITARY EQUIPMENT BE LEFT IN PANAMA?

This is directed to you, Mr. Secretary. It seems to me I recall reading somewhere in the volume of briefings we received from our staff that at the end of the treaty period there will be a significant amount of nilitary equipment that will have to be left in Panama.

Secretary ALEXANDER. Absolutely not. There will be no military -quipment left in Panama.

Senator BIDEN. Is there any military equipment that will be turned over to the Panamanians as a consequence of the treaty? I am not alking about foreign military sales.

Secretary ALEXANDER. The treaty provides that the level of forces can be maintained under normal circumstances under the present treaty. It would, of course, be a Joint Chiefs and Department of Defense determination as to what the appropriate level was in normal times.

Senator BIDEN. My question is: Would there be any transfer of military equipment from the United States to the Panamanians under this treaty or any adjunct to the treaty other than foreign military credit sales?

PROPERTY TRANSFERS TO PANAMA

Secretary ALEXANDER. I have a note that says "buildings" on it. There are certain buildings, I gather, and I will be happy to give you the specifics as to what those are.

Senator BIDEN. Do those buildings have any property other than what ordinary buildings do? Are we leaving behind vast computers or electronic equipment?

Secretary ALEXANDER. Perhaps to clarify, for the 23-year period, until December 31, 1999, at noon, if this treaty is ratified, a U.S. Government agency will be running the canal during that time period. Senator BIDEN. I understand. In the meantime is there a physical property transfer?

Secretary ALEXANDER. As far as military property being transferred, that will not take place. The military levels will be for our determination.

Senator BIDEN. For example, on ratification of the treaty our headquarters are physically turned over to the Panamanians, the key is given, we no longer have control over it; they own it, buildings, walls, etc. I am wondering if inside the walls there are things like computers, electronic equipment.

Secretary ALEXANDER. No. There are certain buildings that are turned over. As you are aware, the Joint Chiefs had General Dolvin involved in the negotiations at all times. Whatever met our needs militarily, we have those facilities and we have those bases. All buildings will eventually be turned over, but no equipment will be transferred.

Senator BIDEN. To make it as clear as I can, I am convinced that the Joint Chiefs have reached the conclusion, as they testified here, that our military needs are more than adequately met under the terms of the treaty, both during the terms of the treaty and after the treaty expires and the neutrality treaty goes into effect.

What I want to find out for the record precisely is: Every single, solitary piece of equipment, physical property-bricks, mortar, chairs, tables, guns, computers, anything that physically is no longer going to belong to the United States of America and will now become the property of Panama.

Because what is being stated by many-and I don't know whether it is true or not-is that, as a consequence of this treaty, there will be military equipment that will be transferred.

Secretary ALEXANDER. That is not so, sir. There will be buildings: there may be other items. We will see to it that we enter into the record all those items.

Senator BIDEN. I would like to either uncover that or lay it to rest. I think it is a matter of laying it to rest. I think we should have that clearly set out in the record. It may already be but, if it is, I am unaware of it.

[The information referred to follows:]

U.S. PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO PANAMA (SUPPLIED BY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE)

The number of Army buildings which would be transferred to the Republic of Panama within six months and five years following ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty are indicated by type in the table below:

1 Indicates number of family housing units to be transferred. A lesser number of buildings may be transferred if it is decided to transfer multifamily structures.

In addition to the Army buildings noted above, one Air Force maintenance building at Curundu and one Navy storage building in the Balboa Port area would also be transferred to Panama within five years and one Navy storage building in the Balboa Port area would be transferred within six months.

No weapons or other military equipment will be transferred under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty; however, there is a September 7, 1977, separate agreement in which the United States Government agrees to issue repayment guarantees under Foreign Military Sales program to help secure for Panama $50 million worth of defense articles over a 10-year period.

INTERPRETATIONS OF EXPEDITIOUS PASSAGE

Senator BIDEN. Governor, you said something that startled me a while ago when asked by, I believe, Senator Percy, discussing expeditious passage. For 21/2 days prior to your testifying, there was absolute, complete unanimity that expeditious passage could mean only one thing, the head of the line. There was no possible interpretation beyond that. It was the only one that could be made, that the military need not ask for that expeditious passage but, if they asked for it, there were no if's, and's, but's, maybe's, in-betweens. I thought you said it was subject to a different interpretation.

Governor PARFITT. That is correct, sir; that is my view. I understand that our formal position is that it means the head of the line. I would not necessarily read it that way as an individual.

Senator BIDEN. Why would you not read it that way?

Governor PARFITT. Primarily "expeditious" does not mean priority in my view.

Senator BIDEN. What does it mean?

Governor PARFITT. It means you give them a little extra attention and, if you can work them in a schedule and get them through conveniently without interrupting your whole operation, you would do so but not necessarily bump everybody else. That would be the normal interpretation. I am happy to implement that interpretation that has been given. That would not normally be the one I would give to it.

Senator BIDEN. You are a reasonable man. If you would not give it that interpretation, clearly someone who wanted to take a different point of view would not give it that interpretation. That would give a problem to me, a leaning supporter of this treaty, because if it does not mean head of the line, we can't clarify that, I do have problems with this treaty. That is not your problem. That is my problem.

Secretary ALEXANDER. I don't see how it could mean anything else. It is the only expression specifically for a country to have expeditious passage. There isn't any other provision that says A, B, C, or D countries have more expeditious or immediate priority.

Senator BIDEN. The concern I have is that Senator Stone, who was the first to raise this issue and read from statements made in Panama by the chief negotiator and others in the Panamanian delegation and government, reads "expeditious" the way in which the Governor reads "expeditious."

Senator STONE. As rapidly as possible but not preferential.

Senator BIDEN. That is what I mean. If that is what it means, we have, as we say in certain parts of my State, a world of hurt coming up. That is going to be hard to sell if it is not that. At any rate, I will leave that for now. I am sure we will be back to that onetime and again.

Senator STONE. If the Senator will yield, that is why this morning I suggested to the State Department witness, the general counsel, the possibility that interpretation such as "Go to the head of the line." which has been given here today, be presented to us in the form of recommended understandings-not reservations but understandingsand if we adopt such interpretations as understandings and then if we ratified and filed them and exchanged them and Panama made no protest about it, accepted it, then that would be binding on them by acquiescence at the very least.

There is no question about it; they have said this and not in casual remarks but in speeches to the Panamanian Assembly and other things.

Senator BIDEN. I thank the Senator for that. I think he has made a valuable contribution because when you first brought that up I was dismissing it in terms of the need for Panamanians to make different utterances, different sounds politically about this treaty. When our own Government shares the same view, I put a different light on it.

POSSIBILITY OF UNDERSTANDINGS

To follow up on that point, despite my rudeness to you earlier, Mr. Ambassador, do you think it is practical as a diplomat now for us to begin to do what Senator Stone and others have sug

gested, and that is: not begin to write reservations into the treaty but exchange understandings? Does that open up a Pandora's box? Is that diplomatically possible to do now? When it was suggested before, the State Department looked like it was going to have a slight case of apoplexy.

Senator STONE. If the Senator will yield for a comment, I recall that our opening witnesses, which were the administrations lead witnesses, Secretary Vance and the two negotiators, made it clear to us that appropriate understanding would not upset the applecart but that reservations requiring the Panamanians to do an affirmative act and, therefore, new negotiations would be rather severe. I took it by that that their view was that if an understanding was clearly a construction and an interpretation and understanding, not an attempt to change the meaning or the import, that it was in the classical sense an understanding, that that would not really create a problem. That is why my suggestion this morning, that we consider, not necessarily our own understandings, but those that the State Department might put forth in the light of some of the ambiguities that have been brought out.

Ambasador JORDEN. I think it is quite true that reservations would create havoc. It would mean renegotiation. It would mean in Panama having another plebiscite, et cetera. Understanding would be a good deal more manageable. I would not for a minute say it would not be possible. I would hope we would not have 25 understandings but on some of the key issues that are on our minds I think it may well be that we could work out in language that says clearly to us what these things mean and get at least acquiescence from the Panamanians. It will take a lot of work.

Senator BIDEN. Still if I sense the tenor of what has transpired thus far on this committee, that may be needed because those who are inclined to support the treaty, as I have in the last couple days, have reservations, not in the classic sense reservations about the treaty, but reservations about certain interpretations.

PROBLEM OF EXPEDITIOUS PASSAGE

Ambassador JORDEN. Isn't it true that the real problem of expeditious passage is a problem after 2000? After all, the United States is going to be making the key operational decisions until then. Senator BIDEN. Unless the governor is still there.

Secretary ALEXANDER. He is also in the army.

Ambassador JORDEN. If he is told by higher authority this is what it means, then it will be done.

Senator BIDEN. I would like to pursue a few more points. I know you have been here a long while. At least we have had a chance to take calls from our office.

Senator STONE. Could I interrupt because the staff has just really made an interesting point on something that I didn't know. The neutrality treaty comes into force and effect at the same time as the basic Panamanian treaty and it is in the neutrality treaty that we have the "expeditious passage" provision. Therefore, it is not the problem after the year 2000. It is the problem of the interpretation of the neutrality treaty which will go into effect at the same time.