Army Times who see danger in this obvious politicizing of the role of the military decisionmakers.

I again quote the Army Times:

"It is fair, in our view, to criticize the President for the service leader's participation in the pre-debate 'education' effort."

I welcome an education effort, educating the American people about these treaties, because the more they find out about the treaties, in my opinion, the harder and the more determined will the opposition of the American people be to the treaties.

"When general officers have spoken out on other national policy matters, he and his representatives have been quick to remind them of the bounds of their military responsibilities."

"He," in this case, is the President.

"In this case, however, the military leaders are showing approval of administration policy, not opposition. The difference may be difficult to explain and may result in some erosion in the military's traditional political neutrality.”

Mr. President, I do believe that the fair and dispassionate views of our lead-ing military officers should be considered by the Congress, but I trust the Members will recognize the unseemliness of ballyhooing active-duty military support for the new treaties, when such support is so obviously generated by a desire for job security and personal advancement rather than out of loyalty to the national interest of the United States, at least as I perceived it.

Mr. President, from time to time I have spoken out against these treaties, and I have pointed out reasons for my opposition. I am going to continue, week in' and week out, until this matter comes before the Senate, with the approval of the distinguished majority leader and his graciousness in getting me this time, to speak out against these treaties and to give a backlog of information showing that approval by the Senate of these treaties will be contrary to our national interest.

I believe that the education process which the executive department is going to carry on in connection with trying to sell this treaty to the Senate and to the American people will be counterproductive insofar as getting approval of the treaties is concerned; and that public opinion will be stronger and stronger, as time goes on, against the treaties.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial to which I referredTM be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

USING THE CHIEFS

The administration's selling job on the new Panama Canal treaty has to be one of the major political spectaculars of recent memory.

While Congress was on vacation in August, the President worked to rally support for the pact among legislators, key people in the former administration, union leaders, governors, business people and others. The signing brought more heads of foreign governments to Washington than have been here since the last state funeral.

The political activity gives the impression that the treaty is about to take effect. In fact, it still faces Senate ratification and what amounts to House. endorsement through approval of related money bills. Heated debate on the issue is predicted.

The administration's effort may be good political strategy, but it tends to raise questions. If the treaty-actually two treaties are involved-is good, it may be asked, why the hard sell and why, until now, the lack of specifics?

We don't pretend at this point to know whether the treaty is the best arrangement the U.S. can make with Panama. Senate hearings and debate should' provide light as well as heat on the issues involved. But it should be evident that overwhelming pro-treaty arguments are going to have to be made to persuade lawmakers and perhaps a majority of the American public that the U.S. should relinquish its Canal rights.

For many Americans the treaty surfaces at the wrong time. The U.S. has: "lost" a war in Asia, and is preparing to withdraw ground combat forces from South Korea. Negotiating away American rights on the canal comes as the final straw.

One of the reservations we have about the administration merchandising of the treaty is the early use of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to promote ratification.

In addition, JCS chairman Gen. George S. Brown, supposedly on his own accord, met with ranking military retirees in the Washington area in an attempt to win their support for the treaty.

We accept the contention that the chiefs acted out of honest conviction in their protreaty effort. But their presence among political figures who are endorsing the treaty is cause for concern. Critics of the pact already are charging that the military leaders acted out of loyalty to the Commander in Chief. Brown has denied the charge but probably has not laid it to rest.

We would rather have seen the military views given in that forum instead of the White House extravaganza preceding it.

It is fair, in our view, to criticize the President for the service leaders' participation in the pre-debate "education" effort. When general officers have spoken out on other national policy matters, he and his representatives have been quick to remind them of the bounds of their military responsibilities.

In this case, however, the military leaders are showing approval of administration policy, not opposition. The difference may be difficult to explain and may result in some erosion in the military's traditional political neutrality.

TREATIES HELP PERPETUATE PRESENT

DICTATORIAL REGIME

[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 22, 1977-S15319]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES-No. 7

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, no doubt the Senate is aware by now of my very deep conviction that the proposed Panama Canal treaties are directly contrary to the national interest of the United States and the free world.

This is the seventh speech I have given in the Senate since the Panama Canal Treaties were signed by the President and the Panamanian dictator. I intend to make other speeches from time to time while this matter is before the Senate and before the country, I might say, Mr. President.

But, Mr. President, the more I study this matter, the more I am convinced that these proposed treaties are not even in the interest of the people of Panama. Stating the matter bluntly, these treaties seem chiefly to benefit the large multinational banks and the elitist dictatorial regime now in power in Panama, a regime which has repressed and subjugated the people of Panama since its inception in 1968.

Let us face it—dictator Torrijos and the clique surrounding him see these treaties not as a program for uplifting and improving the lot of the people of Panama, but rather as a means for perpetuating their own privileged position as a ruling class.

Dictator Torrijos in 1968 was an undistinguished left-leaning major in the Panamanian National Guard. Now, after a career based more on gangsterism than on military ability, he professes to hold the rank of brigadier general and is without argument titular head of one of the world's worst dictatorships.

Mr. President, Freedom House, which is recognized internationally as an impartial monitor of the status of human freedom-and, I might add, counts Dr. Henry Kissinger as a member of its advisory council-rates Panama as one of the evergrowing number of nations in the world whose people are counted among the "not free." As a matter of interest, according to Freedom House, 67 nations are "not free," 48 are "partly free," and 42 are "free." So, Panama is in bad company, but certainly not alone.

But, Mr. President, in addition to these three major categories, Freedom House further breaks down and characterizes the governments of the world by rating political rights under those governments on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being least free. Panama is rated 7.

That is right at the bottom in the degree of freedom which the citizens of Panama enjoy or fail to enjoy under the dictator regime in Panama.

Civil rights or, if you prefer, human rights-are rated on a similar scale, and Panama receives a 6.

A 7 is the worst they can possibly receive under this rating system.

The sad case of the late Leopoldo Aragon is typical of the consistent pattern of gross violation of human rights by the military dictatorship in Panama. Aragon was a working journalist, an idealist, and politically a Social Democrat. Strongly anti-Communist, he had been forced to leave Czechoslovakia because of his opinions and was barred from virtually all socialist-Communist dominated countries. In Panama, rather than being expelled for his political activities, he was jailed summarily without trial for 15 months in Panama's infamous penal colony, Coiba-pronounced CO-E-BA. Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations finally prevailed on Dictator Torrijos to release this journalist-idealist, who had had the audacity to suggest that Panamanians should be permitted to enjoy basic human rights on the same footing as people of this country or of other free nations.

Of course, Mr. President, Senators know the sad end to correspondent Aragon's life, but I question whether many Members of the Senate are aware that our own

Department of State refused Aragon's application for a visa to enter the United States, presumably because the Department of State like dictator Torrijos, did not wish any dissent or opinion conflicting with its own view of what is best for Latin America and the Republic of Panama. I sometimes wonder where our own country would rate on the scales at Freedom House if the Department of State could impose its programs here as they are imposed abroad.

To be sure, Mr. President, the Panamanian dictatorship, in the present glare of international publicity, will pay lip-service to the forms of democracy. We will be treated to the spectacle of a plebiscite by the Panamanian people allegedly in ratification of these proposed treaties, we will see demonstrations of support and even expressions of patriotic affection for this guileful gangster dictator, and some of us will be reminded of similar plebiscites and expressions of support from another era and on another continent.

Yes, we will see the forms of democracy observed, but I trust that our own media, our own free press, will report substance and not sham. I trust, Mr. President, that our press, being free, will recognize the hollowness, indeed the perversity, of a plebiscite conducted in a country with a censored and controlled news media and with a legislature hand-picked and installed by a military dictator. Perhaps Senators wonder why the Panamanian dictator is even bothering to go through the motions of conducting a plebiscite. Some hint can be found in remarks made on August 19 in the dictator-controlled Panamanian National Assembly. So-called Representative Luis Castillo posed the following revealing question: "Mr. President, distinguished negotiators, dear comrade: I would like to ask the negotiators about the plebiscite. Since this is the means by which the Panamanian people will ratify the treaty and is related to the ratification by the U.S. Congress, I would like to ask whether a date has been set for the plebiscite and whether it has considered that it is important for the plebiscite to be held before the U.S. Congress ratifies the treaty. The idea is that once the results of the plebiscite are known-and we feel sure the Panamanian people will approve the treaty by a majority-this would have an impact on the U.S. Congress."

So, Mr. President, the real purpose of this plebiscite is going to be to add fuel to the propaganda fires here in the United States. The Panamanian plebiscite will have nothing whatsoever to do with the desires or interests of the Panamanian people. It will be conducted only for its impact on the U.S. Congress. Panama is a small country but the dictator and his henchmen understand our politics much better, apparently, than we understand the facts of political life in Panama. As chief negotiator, Romulo Escobar Bethancourt put the matter:

"As for the U.S. Congress, there is a big problem, to be frank with you. They (the U.S. negotiators) have a big problem, worse than you can imagine... Why? Because the U.S. Congressman, as a good politician, acts as an instrument of those electing him. He is always aware of how the voter of the district or state that elects him feels."

I might say parenthetically, Mr. President, if the Members of the Senate act according to the wishes of their constituents, in my judgment, there is no doubt whatsoever that the two treaties will be rejected by the U.S. Senate. Of course, I think that would be a most fortunate result of the treaty vote in the U.S. Senate. You see, Mr. President, this matter of elections is something of a novelty down there in Panama. Of course, Torrijos did not get there by an election. He took over in a coup.

Negotiator Bethancourt had to go to some trouble to explain the whole process to the "representatives" in the National Assembly. I can almost imagine their amusement at the thought of having to take account of the views of the people.

But they do have to ratify it, and that is the form that they are going through. It is absolutely meaningless. It will be 999 to 1, I dare say, in favor of the ratification of the treaty unless it would serve their best interests to show a closer vote, indicating that the treaties are not stacked in favor of Panama, which, of course, they are.

But, Mr. President, one representative in this appointed National Assembly of over 400 members did voice a little opposition to the dictator's treaties. Let us see what happened to him. This is Representative Luis Emilio Veces:

"I wish to clear up a point of order. * * *”

This fellow seems to have the same problems with the Chair that a number of us have experienced from time to time-not the present occupant of the Chair, I hasten to add.

This Representative continues:

99-592-78—13

"I wish to clear up a point of order, because the Secretary has declared that the vote was unanimous for the resolution approving the accomplishments of the Panamanian negotiators regarding the treaty."

One can almost imagine the situation. Over 400 dictator-appointed assembly members shouting approval of the actions of the dictator's negotiators, yet one brave voice insisting to be recorded as an abstention. Apparently, a direct vote against might have been viewed as treason. Representative Veces bravely continues:

"I wish to explain my abstention from voting. With the indulgence of those at the presidential table, the vice president, the cabinet ministers and fellow representatives, I wish to explain that I am incapable of bregrudging the merits with which the resolution credits those abroad who have expressed their solidarity with our country. However, there is a basic issue which has caused me to abstain from voting for that resolution. It is the fact that I cannot share the pleasure of those at this meeting or the pleasure expressed by the government team today for a treaty which I have not yet seen."

Apparently, they had the same problems in Panama, in this dictator-run national assembly, that we had here in the U.S. Congress-the same problems in discovering actually what had been negotiated on behalf of our respective Governments. But Representative Veces had an additional concern which caused him to abstain:

"According to the national press and the government team, we have ample guarantees permitting a debate on the new treaty draft. Nevertheless, the same government team has made a series of threats of a political nature against persons who oppose the treaty."

We have not had any such situation as that in this country, and I do not anticipate that we will have any, although, of course, the President and the Department of State are conducting what they call an educational campaign. I believe the more people are educated, though, on this question, the more against the treaty they are going to be. If there is any retaliation, it will not be on the part of the executive department, I am sure. If there is any at all against those who vote for the treaty, it will be by the voters back home, in my judgment. Says Representative Veces:

"I wish to state clearly that in such a situation it would appear that we are left only to take it or leave it."

We shall not have that situation here. We shall have an opportunity to amend the treaty. If we amend it successfully in a basic and fundamental way, that will have the effect of killing the treaty, because it would then have to be renegotiated. I am hopeful that we will be able to amend it.

For instance, one section, aside from the major question of whether we ought to give the canal away, one article says that, during the 23-year period of the treaty, the United States will not negotiate with any other nation regarding another Isthmian Canal. There has been suggested a route through Nicaragua. The House, at one time, back around 1903, favored and passed a resolution to that effect, for the Nicaraguan route. But under the treaty, we will not be able even to negotiate with another nation for another sea-level canal without the permission of Panama. Of course, they are not going to give their permission, because the Panama Canal would be a great asset.

Certainly, that ought to be knocked out of the treaty, and many other provisions, as well, should be knocked out, assuming that the treaty is going to be ratified in some form, which I oppose. The similarities between the Panamanian Assembly and our own Congress are sometimes startling. Veces continues:

"I am also worried about a number of ideas being expressed, such as that those who oppose the government or the treaty are traitors to the fatherland.” That was stated down in Panama, not here, because no one goes that far. "There are ideas which given the pretense that there is a democratic atmosphere, constitute a threat for anyone in this country who has the power to reason."

Certainly, that same situation would apply here. Those of us who have the power to reason and who can point out the defects in this treaty and the inadvisability of going ahead with it certainly are held up to some degree ofvilification possibly is too strong a word, but some degree of ridicule in the media. Representative Veces seems to be seeking to discover the limits of permissible dissent, and negotiator Bethancourt advises him in this fashion. Here is the propaganda line they are handing out in Panama