Comment: This is a correct statement so far as it goes and contradicts the public statements of State Department officials. (See article

on Congressman Gene Snyder's telegram on this point in Washington Post, August 6, 1977, p. A12.)

The Canal Zone is an unincorporated territory of the United States over which the United States holds full sovereign rights, power and authority.

11. The White House Memo states (p. 5) that:

"A Frenchman with a financial stake in the old canal drafted
and signed the treaty for Panama."

Comment: This is a grossly misleading statement, referring to Phillippe Bunau-Varilla. As a young man he had served as Acting Chief Engineer of the French Panama Canal Company and understood Isthmian matters very well. Highly connected in both France and the United States as well as Panama, he was the best choice that could have been made for appointment as the first Minister of Panama to the United States. He rendered great services to Panama, the United States, France and the Panama Canal.

Although he may have provided some of the major ideas embodied in the 1903 Treaty, there were others involved in its preparation, including Secretary Hay and other officials of the State Department.

He had made a lifetime study of the Panama Canal and was eminently qualified for the task of aiding in the choice of the Panama site in the "battle of the routes" and the creation of the Republic of Panama.

12. The White House Memo states (p. 5) that:

"The U.S. Government controls all facilities servicing
Panama's deepwater ports."

Comment: The ports evidently in mind are those of Cristobal and Balboa, the terminal ports of the Panama Canal, both of which are located in the U.S. Canal Zone and not in Panama.

The maintenance and operation of these ports for ocean vessels of all nations is a highly technical responsibility requiring constant supervision. Panama is a technologically underdeveloped country with neither the resources nor the competence to undertake such responsibility as seen in its failure to maintain the Boyd-Roosevelt Highway.

The facilities of both Cristobal and Balboa are available for

all who pay the required charges, including Panamanians.

"The U.S. exercises power over the territory with a
police force, courts and jails which enforce American

law on Panamanians as well as Americans."

Comment: This is fortunate. Anyone familiar with the practices of Panamanian law enforcement would prefer American justice in preference to the other. Many examples could be cited of cruel and unusual punishments being inflicted upon Americans in the clutches of Panamanian law. Detentions and harassments of U.S. citizens in Panama are well-known and have been reported to the Congress.

Because of the uncertainties involved there has been a sharp increase in resignations by U.S. citizens from Panama Canal employment. They prefer not to take a chance on living under Panamanian law. Such attrition will surely make it increasingly difficult to operate the canal in an efficient manner. How many American technical experts that are needed to run the canal will stay on if they are required to forfeit their constitutional rights and live under the laws and "justice" of Panama? The White House Memo makes no mention of this problem.

14. The White House Memo states (p. 5) that:

"The Panamanian has observed the contrast between the
subsidized standard of living and lifestyle of American
Zonians and the lower income levels of fellow Panamanians."

Comment: Such a comparison can be drawn between the living conditions of Americans and the peoples of most countries, but the giveaway of American property, whether in Panama or any other place, cannot be justified on grounds of envy.

In truth, Canal Zone employees pay rent for their homes there, which are no better than homes of Americans of similar income levels in the states.

As Governor Parfitt stated in recent Senate hearings, "We have quite a wide range of quality of housing. I would say that it is modest and represents a kind of middle America. Except for the Governor's house there are no really resplendent quarters.'

15. The White House Memo states (p. 5) that:

"Objections also are raised to the stationing of U.S.
troops in the Zone for other reasons than to defend

Comment: One of the major treaty responsibilites of the United States is protection of the canal from "lawlessness and disorder," which includes the fortification of the Canal Zone to protect against aggression.

The Isthmus of Panama has always been an object for predatory attack because its location is strategic and it probably always will be.

Among the major U.S. responsibilities under the 1903 Treaty is "protection." It was successfully protected during World Wars I and II, the Korean and Viet Nam Wars, the Cuban missile crisis, and the 1964 attempted Red-led mob invasion.

16. The White House Memo states (p. 6) that:

"Latin America, often divided, is united on the issue

of the need for a new Panama Canal Treaty."

Comment: A false statement that will not bear close investigation. Members of the Congress recently visiting major South American countries have reported that they have discussed the canal question with many political leaders and found strong opposition to the surrender of the Canal Zone to Panama; for Latin Americans know what the consequences would be to the well-being of their own countries. (See Mario Lazo, Panama Canal Giveaway: A Latin American View, Washington, D. C., Council for Inter-American Security, 1977; Hon. Spruille Braden, "Soviet Threat to Panama Canal," as reprinted in Congressional Record, June 1, 1977, p. H5235.)

17. The White House Memo states (p. 6) that:

"We are negotiating because it is believed that this is
the best way to protect America's basic national interest
in an open, efficient, neutral and secure Canal."

Comment: As for having an "open, efficient, neutral and secure Canal" that is precisely what now exists. How surrender of U.S. sovereignty could help is beyond comprehension to anyone who is familiar with the burden of responsibility in the maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the canal. The new treaty will only result in extending Panamanian instabilities to the lock walls of the canal with enormous potentials for mischief.

་་་་ག

"The canal is important to the United States, though
less than in earlier years, and we believe a new treaty
with arrangements more acceptable to Panama will be more
protective of the Canal than the present treaty, which
is outmoded and a source of hostility."

Comment: Since World War II, the Panama Canal has had as many as 15,000 transits annually, which is much higher than pre-World War II traffic levels. Since that World War, the United States has fought two other wars - Korea and Viet Nam. Distinguished former Chiefs of Naval Operations have stated in a letter to the President that the canal is more important than ever before. (Congressional Record, June 30, 1977, pp. H6764, H6771 and S.11344.)

The assertion that surrender of U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone is the best way to protect the canal is difficult to understand. Such surrender would not enhance canal security but expose the canal to far greater hazards than under present treaty provisions. No wonder that Latin American leaders are reluctant to support the United States publicly when its own State Department does not.

19. The White House Memo states (p. 6) that:

"The United States has all the rights, power and
authority to conduct its activities in the Zone, 'as
if it were sovereign,' not as the sovereign."

Comment: Article III of the 1903 Treaty grants to the United States
"all the rights, power and authority within the zone... which the
United States would possess and exercise if it were sovereign... to
the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Canada of any
such sovereign rights, power or authority."

Here again is the rewriting of an historical document by means of the insertion of the word "as" in the White House release before the word "if" to make it read "as if" - which of course creates an entirely different meaning.

Articles II and III of the treaty give the United States supreme power in the Canal Zone and this is sovereignty.

20. The White House Memo states (p. 7) that:

"Q. Militarily, does the canal have an important strategic
role?"

"A. Not since the United States built aircraft carriers
that are too big to go through the canal. However, it is
still an important defense asset to the United States
because it does facilitate the movement of military
supplies."

Comment: The United States does not have a two-ocean navy.

Its

naval forces have been reduced to pre-World War II levels with less than 500 vessels of all types, only 13 of which are the large aircraft carriers. All other vessels can transit.

As to its military value, recent Commanders-in-Chief, Pacific, have stated that the Korean and Viet Nam Wars could not have been effectively conducted without U.S. control and use of its canal.

Placing the canal under Panamanian sovereignty would endanger the security of transit and have the effect of requiring far larger naval forces at tremendous cost.

"Q. Why is the canal's strategic importance now diminished?"

"A.

Because larger aircraft carriers cannot move through it and submarines would have to surface during transit. Also, the canal is vulnerable to attack.

Military officials

generally agree that it would be extremely difficult to pre-
vent canal closure by an air attack or by skilled sabotage."

Comment: Only 13 large aircraft carriers of less than 500 vessels cannot transit. As to submarines they have to surface when entering U.S. harbors and inland waterways. The statement that they would have to surface during transit of the canal is too absurd to merit consideration.

As to the use of the word "strategic," this term means one thing only and that is "advantageous geographical location." Since more vessels serving more people now transit than ever, the canal is more "strategic" than it was before World War II and no semantic twists can alter this fact.

All major transportation facilities are vulnerable. The Panama Canal was successfully protected during World Wars I and II, the Korean and Viet Nam Wars, the Cuban missile crisis and the 1964 attempted mob invasion of the Canal Zone. Our armed forces on the Isthmus are prepared and able to protect it again.

20-266 - 78 - 13