ernor Reagan, has been very fine indeed. We hope that we will see the hoped-for, much-desired result of your wise testimony on the opinions and judgments of the distinguished junior Senator from California, our good friend, Senator Hayakawa. Governor REAGAN. Mr. Chairman and Senators, thank you very much. Senator ALLEN. Our next witness will be Congressman Flood. I understand that there is a vote in the House and that you will have to leave shortly. Mr. FLOOD. Yes; there is a B-1 bomber vote over there. Senator ALLEN. You may handle your statement as you wish. I wonder if Congressman Crane would also come up. It may be that we could hear from both of you before lunch and question you jointly. We are delighted that you both have come before the committee to give us your views. Both of you are recognized authorities on this issue. We certainly appreciate your presence here before the committee. I might state to you both that the committee certainly supports your position that this matter needs to be decided by both Houses of Congress in addition to the ratification vote in the Senate. Please proceed, Mr. Flood. TESTIMONY OF HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I doubt very much that I can add anything material to what you and the committee have heard. Under the circumstances, I do feel that I should be here. Mr. Chairman, on July 29, as you will recall, I submitted to this subcommittee a statement summarizing my views on the problem of the Panama Canal and outlined a program of action for the United States. There is little of consequence that could be added to the points presented in that testimony. For the benefit of those who have not seen my July 29, 1977, statement, I have placed additional copies on the table. The announcement on August 11, 1977, of an "agreement in principle" for new Panama Canal Treaties was no surprise to those who have closely followed the canal question, and these include many Members of the Congress. That news was a high point in a plan long in preparation to present the Nation and the Congress with a fait accompli. As such, it represents a real challenge to the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional powers as regards the disposal of territory and other property of the United States in the U.S. Canal Zone, which the Congress has not authorized. For this and other reasons, the Congress must face the challenge head on. Since August 11, the major news media of the Nation have featured the Panama Canal question with an enormous coverage, a large part of which has been in support of the projected surrender of U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone and, ultimately, the giving away of the Panama Canal itself, all without compensation. Over a period of years, distinguished Members of the Congress in many addresses in the Congressional Record and distinguished witnesses in hearings before cognizant committees have provided an ex tensive and authoritative documentation on all significant aspects of the canal question; and these have been widely distributed. Prepared by such information to detect and evaluate deceptive propaganda, diplomatic sophistries and other skulduggery, the people of the United States and the Congress are not likely to be stampeded into approving any treaty that surrenders U.S. sovereign control over the Canal Zone or gives away the Panama Canal to any other country or international organization. One of the most flagrant examples of fallacious prosurrender propaganda so often stressed is that, if we do not surrender the Canal Zone to Panama, the relations of the United States with all of Latin American will be seriously impaired. There could be no greater deception, for major Latin American countries, especially those on the west coast, know Panama well. Their leaders from Presidents down know what the consequences of such surrender would be for their own economy in the way of increased transit tolls. Attention is invited to the perceptive 1976 article by Dr. Mario Lazo on "Panama Canal Giveaway: A Latin American's View," which I request be included with my remarks. As stated many times in my addresses in and out of Congress, the most crucial issues involved are not local questions between the United States and Panama, most of which should be handled administratively by responsible officials of the Canal Zone. In contrast, the crucial questions are matters of global significance affecting the security not only of the United States but as well that of the Western Hemisphere and, indeed, of the entire Free World. In this light, the Panama Canal problem transcends all partisan considerations; and must be considered on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to be sound and our future well-being protected. As to this angle, Soviet power, understanding the vacuum that would be created by the projected relinquishment by the United States of its sovereignty over the Canal Zone, has already moved toward establishing a beachhead in Panama by means of a July 19, 1977, U.S.S.R.Panama economic pact. This matter was discussed at length in the American Legion National Security-Foreign Relations Bulletin, JulyAugust 1977, major excerpts of which I ask be included in my remarks. Mr. Chairman, the pact, I believe, is most significant for it includes provision for the Soviet Union to utilize the Panama free zone in Colon, which in turn now includes Old France Field in the Canal Zone, a World War II airfield located within the zone territory and is thus within our defense perimeter.1 PREDICTION FULFILLED When first learning on March 13, 1975, about the lease of Old France Field to Panama, which was not authorized by the Congress, I promptly protested it to the Secretary of the Army as "part and parcel" of the State Department's program for "piecemeal erosion" of the Canal Zone that would invite greater demands. I have had the sterile satisfaction of seeing that prediction and many others fulfilled. Surrender of the U.S. Canal Zone would undoubtedly have serious 1 Congressional Record, August 4, 1977, p. H8704. faraway consequences, which would include the loss of U.S. naval bases at Guantanamo in Cuba and in Puerto Rico. These two bases, with the Panama Canal, form the defense triangle for protecting the strategic Caribbean, which Admiral Mahan and other eminent strategists long ago described as the Mediterranean of the Americas. Upon the outcome of the projected giveaway will depend whether the advantageously located Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico shall be transformed from peaceful avenues for ocean commerce into red lakes, thereby bisecting the Americas with enormous potentials for evil for the United States, Latin America, and the entire Free World. Senator ALLEN. Excuse me, Mr. Flood. We have a vote in progress now. As soon as five lights come on, we will have to go. I would like to address this inquiry to both of you. Would you like for us to come back immediately and conclude yours and Mr. Crane's testimony? Or would you prefer to have a recess to lunch? Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, I can finish mine in 12 minutes. Mr. FLOOD. In the past, the responsible leaders of the United States always safeguarded and defended the territories over which it had sovereign control. They and the Congress never surrendered U.S. sovereign territory under threats of foreign military or mob assaults, however large the country, but stood up for American rights under international law. Yet, since World War II, through a succession of administrations, certain leaders have sought to surrender our sovereign control over the U.S. owned Canal Zone and, eventually, the Panama Canal itself to the Republic of Panama. A small, weak and industrially primitive tropical country, it simply does not possess the resources, the manpower, or technical skills required for the efficient maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the most vital waterway of the Americas. The satisfactory performance of these crucial functions requires the combined technological, industrial, military, and naval might of the United States, or that of some other great power-if you know what I mean. Mr. Chairman, though my statement on July 29 and its attachments cover the more important aspects of the canal situation and need no elaboration, as a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations, I wish to stress a major point. The historic Isthmian canal policy of the United States has always been to safeguard our economic and broad national interest investments involved in the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the Panama Canal enterprise by insisting upon sovereign control in perpetuity over the area in which it is located. I feel sure that many Members of the Congress still share this view and will demand adherence to that policy. There is a vast difference between managing a canal with sovereign control over the territory in which it is located and one in an area over which the United States has only "treaty rights" and is beholden to a weak Central American country. As to the reactions of Latin Americans to the projected U.S. surrender at Panama, which have been so falsely used by its advocates, I have seen no better statement than that of the late Dr. Mario Lazo, the distinguished Cuban lawyer and author who, in his 1976 paper wrote: The almost universal reaction among the educated people of Latin America who are not politicians to a promulgated Kissinger-Bunker giveaway treaty would be, at first, incredulity, then sadness and eventually ridicule and even contempt for the once greatly respected nation that had shown itself no longer to have the will to maintain its prestige and discharge its responsibilities. The Panama Canal now contributes the grave issue that can serve as a catalyst to restore the courage and willpower of the American people. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Flood. The material to which you referred will be made a part of the record, without objection. [Material follows:] Special Study No. 1 Council for Inter-American Security 1977 PANAMA CANAL GIVEAWAY: A LATIN AMERICAN'S VIEW BY MARIO LAZO Panama Canal Giveaway: A Latin American's View was written shortly before Mario Lazo's death in 1976. Mario Lazo went to Cuba after receiving his law degree from Cornell and serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army in World War I. He took ɑ law degree from the University of Havana and later founded and headed on of Latin America's most prestigious law firms. Through the years his firm represented the U.S. Government, major corporations, and a distinguished Cuban clientele. After the fall of Batista, Dr. Lazo valiantly continued his law practice in Havana. Imprisoned and threatened with execution by the Castro regime, his wife, Carmen, saved his life and helped him escape to the United States. For the next seven years Dr. Lazo set himself the task of writing Dagger in the Heart which even The New Republic has called "the best account to date of Castro's victory," bringing to the undertaking the investigative skills of a great lawyer, and a reputation that permitted him to reach into the highest official circles in Washington. The fate of the Panama Canal deserves a prominent place among the issues facing the Congress of the United States and the New Administration. The American people should be informed and alerted on the subject. What are the basic facts? By the treaty of 1903 the United States bought from Panama for cash plus an annuity, a strip 50 miles long and 10 miles wide through a pestilential tropical zone wracked by fevers but containing the most feasible pass between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The treaty granted the United States perpetual sovereignty over the Canal Zone "to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority." |
