During the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary of State Vance met with the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, East Germany, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia ; but the Panama Canal treaties did not come up in any of these conversations. In general debate Romania expressed satisfaction that the treaties had been concluded, and the People's Republic of China expressed firm support for the Panamanian people "in their valiant and protracted struggle for the recovery of the Panama Canal." Other reaction from these countries was varied. Yugoslavia's President Tito sent President Carter a message calling the treaties an important step forward. Commentary in the Soviet press criticized those in the United States opposing the treaties while lamenting that the treaties would continue United States control of canal operation for 23 more years. Commentary in the People's Republic of China described the treaties as a victory over U.S. "imperialism" and urged Panama to press for complete control over the Canal, Senator CLARK. I see my time is up. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Biden. Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PURPOSE OF SENATOR BIDEN'S QUESTIONS Mr. Secretary and Ambassadors, I don't think there is any question that were we embarking on the construction of a treaty in the first instance in 1977, we would not be able to do it the way we did it in 1903. So the comments made by my colleagues and the point of view, about the way we went about it at the turn of the century as not something of which we should be particularly proud are shared by me. My purpose in asking the questions I am about to ask, and the others in our second round, assuming we have the chance, is to attempt to avoid confusion that could follow on in the mind of the American public, or quite possibly the Panamanians, or the U.S. Congress by various interpretations and readings of the treaty. I have yet to make up my mind as to how I will vote on this treaty, although I am disposed to support the treaty. What I would like to do is go back and ask some specific questions on some issues that have already been raised, and if I have any time left to then proceed to two new areas. But I would attempt to have some continuity. ARMS SHIPMENTS' ACCESS TO CANAL DURING UNDECLARED WAR When we earlier discussed the neutrality provisions with regard to warships of other nations and whether or not they would have access to use of the canal, it was pointed out by Senator Church that that is not a great concern to us because we usually preclude access to the canal. But what about a situation where we have an undeclared war, such as went on in Southeast Asia, where a Third World power in the Western Hemisphere is being supplied military armament by one of our adversaries. Would they have access to use the canal? For example, shipments of arms or whatever they may be from China through the canal to a South American country on the eastern side of South America-would there be access? Secretary VANCE. The answer is yes, they would have access to the canal. Senator BIDEN. Presently, would we be able to preclude such access? Under the arrangement we presently have would we be in a position to be able to stop a Chinese vessel which was supplying weapons to an insurgent group in Latin America that we did not support? Secretary VANCE. It would depend on how you interpret the HayPauncefote Treaty. I doubt that we would. Senator BIDEN. You doubt that we would as a practical matter, or you doubt that we would as a technical matter? Secretary VANCE. I doubt that we would as a practical matter, and as a technical matter I would want to check further with legal experts on that. Senator BIDEN. I would appreciate it if you would find out what the situation technically is now. Secretary VANCE. We will do that, Senator. [The information referred to follows:] ARMS SHIPMENT'S ACCESS TO CANAL DURING UNDECLARED WAR [Supplied by Department of State] The 1901 Hay-Pauncefote Treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. establishes the basic framework for the Canal's neutrality which has been in effect since the Canal was opened. That Treaty provides that the Canal shall be free and open to ships of all nations without discrimination. The U.S. has taken the position in the past that during periods in which the United States is at war with another country, the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty does not preclude it from denying use of the Canal to its enemies. The case has never arisen in practice since no enemy ship has ever reached the Canal and asked to transit in wartime. However, the U.S. has never considered that in any other circumstances it would have any right to exclude vessels, or cargoes from the Canal on the grounds that they were bound for potential adversaries. The new Neutrality Treaty is even more explicit than Hay-Pauncefote in this respect. It requires that the Canal be open to vessels of all nations without discrimination in time of war as well as in time of peace. Thus, the U.S. and Panama during their respective periods of Canal operation would be bound to transit vessels irrespective of their relations with the country to which the vessels are destined. POSSIBILITY OF PANAMA'S BEING ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY Senator BIDEN. There is discussion by both me and others as to whether or not failure to reach agreement on the construction of a new sea level canal between the United States and Panama would allow Panama to proceed to negotiate with any other country. As I understand the interpretation of the article in question, article XII, the interpretation given by all three of you gentlemen is that the only party with whom the Panamanians can even negotiate the construction of a sea level canal is the United States. They cannot even consider the possibility of that with any other country. Secretary VANCE. That is my interpretation of that article. Senator BIDEN. The basis of that interpretation is the language which says that both parties commit themselves to study jointly the feasibility of a sea level canal in the Republic of Panama. Is that the basis of that interpretation? Secretary VANCE. The basis of it is 2(a): "No new interoceanic canal shall be constructed in the territory of the Republic of Panama during the duration of this treaty, except in accordance with the provisions of this treaty, or as the two parties may otherwise agree." Senator BIDEN, Thank you. Senator Sarbanes has a question. Senator SARBANES. Thank you, Senator. If the United States were willing to agree for the Panamanians to negotiate with someone else Secretary VANCE. Then that could be done. Senator SARBANES [continuing]. We would make that agreement. Secretary VANCE. Of course. Senator SARBANES. But that is within our power. Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. Unless we were to agree, they would be absolutely precluded from entering into such talks. Secretary VANCE. That is exactly correct. UNILATERAL MILITARY MOVEMENT UPON PERCEIVING THREAT Senator BIDEN. Earlier there was discussion as to intervention on the part of the United States militarily where it saw a threat to the canal, or the Canal Zone, or the neutral operation of the canal. It was pointed out that the United States could move unilaterally, is that correct? If the United States perceived a threat, the interpretation of whether or not that threat warranted military intervention would be the sole province of the United States to make, vis-a-vis the use of U.S. military forces. Secretary VANCE. That's correct. Ambassador LINOWITZ. That's correct. Senator BIDEN. Let me ask that question in reverse. Assuming the United States feels there is no threat to the canal but the Panamanians do, are the Panamanians able to move unilaterally to use military force? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Yes; they are. IMPORTANCE OF PRECLUDING CARGO Senator BIDEN. The distinction was made-and I assume it was made for very solid reason, though I'm not sure who made it-I think it was you, Ambassador Linowitz-that movement of material through the canal, weapons, nuclear weapons included, would not be able to be precluded regardless of who was moving it through the canal; but then you mentioned that that does not mean cargo. Why did you say that? What is important about that? Ambassador LINOWITZ. The addition of that word was very important to the Department of Defense and it differentiates our rights. with reference to transit from those of every other country. Senator BIDEN. We have the right to transit any type of cargo, but other nations could be precluded from bringing through certain cargo? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Yes, sir. Senator BIDEN. For example, in the Cuban missile crisis situation, the missiles that were being transported to Cuba were "cargo," weren't they? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I believe so, though I don't know how they would be characterized. NO U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN PANAMA AFTER YEAR 2000 Senator BIDEN. A question I am often asked by my constituents is after the year 2000, the United States will have no military presence in the Canal Zone, is that correct? Secretary VANCE. [Nods affirmatively.] U.S. CONCERN WITH TOLLS AFTER YEAR 2000 Senator BIDEN. It will have no determination over the setting of fees that would be charged vessels transiting the canal after the year 2000? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I testified earlier, Senator, that under article III we are concerned about the tolls and other charges for transit to be sure that they are just, reasonable, equitable, and consistent with the principles of international law. So we do have a part to play in what the Panamanians do with setting the tolls. Senator BIDEN. Mr. Ambassador, just what does that mean? I mean, we are concerned about it, but assume that the Panamanians in the year 2001 treble the fees and we are concerned and we take issue with that. Is there anything we can do other than lodge an international protest, as a practical matter? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I imagine it would depend on the circumstances, but I can see a range of possibilities, everything from a stiff note, to undertaking to explore other ways of moving ships rather than through the canal, which might have an impact on the tolls. Senator BIDEN. We could retaliate in ways that we can now if other nations take certain actions we do not believe are in our interests or are fair or just? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Yes. Senator BIDEN. But we have no treaty authority to do anything other than to lodge that protest. We can't prevent it, per se. It says we have an interest. Ambassador BUNKER. There is an economic restraint, too, Senator, in how far Panama could go in increasing tolls without diverting traffic and turning it away from the canal. It would be operating against its own interest. Senator BIDEN. I am sure of that, Mr. Ambassador. I am just trying to raise questions that were raised by constituents in a direct manner. Clearly, it seems to me that it would not be in Panama's interest to do anything that would preclude access to the canal by ships of all nations because it is within their economic interest. It is their major economic interest, is it not? Secretary VANCE. Yes. Ambassador LINOWITZ. That is correct, Senator. I wonder if I could just help a bit on that, if I might. The regime of neutrality, under the treaty, does include certain specific rules. One of those rules is the one that calls for tolls and other charges to be reasonable, equitable, and consistent with the principles of international law. Since we are charged with the maintenance of the regime of neutrality, we are in a position pursuant to the treaty to assert that. Senator BIDEN. Your point is very well made and I appreciate your doing it. I have a number of other questions, but I have received a slip saying that my time is up, so I will yield the floor. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATIES AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear on the agreements and the implementation of the various articles in the Panama Canal Treaties and other documents submitted with the treaties. Do they take effect automatically upon approval of the treaties if the treaties are ratified? Ambassador BUNKER. Yes, sir, they do. Senator SARBANES. They, in effect, then, are a further elaboration or a detailing of the meanings and the requirements contained in the treaties? Ambassador BUNKER. Yes; that is correct. Senator SARBANES. The one agreement deals with the rights of the United States to manage, operate, and maintain the canal in the period between now and the year 2000. The other agreement deals with our military rights, to station, train, and move military forces within the Republic of Panama. Ambassador BUNKER. That is the Status of Forces Agreement. Senator SARBANES. I understand that there are "agreed minutes" with respect to both agreements of further elaboration. Ambassador BUNKER. Yes. Senator SARBANES. The protections that are accorded to American citizens working in the Canal Zone with respect to the priviliges and immunities in the future period are governed, again, in part by the treaty, but I gather in much greater detail are elaborated in these agreements implementing the articles of the treaty; is that correct? Ambassador BUNKER. Yes; that is correct. OTHER DOCUMENTS WITHIN PARAMETERS OF TREATY Senator SARBANES. What other documents, in addition to the two treaties and their texts, the two agreements implementing articles III and IV of the Panama Canal Treaty with the Annexes and the Agreed Minutes, in effect constitute the boundaries of the document which represent the agreement which is being entered into between the United States and Panama if these treaties were to be ratified? |