HEROIN CONNECTION

[From the Congressional Record, Oct. 13, 1977-S17161]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES-No. 16

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am going to count this my speech No. 16 on the Panama Canal since the treaties were signed by the two heads of state.

Mr. President, I read today in the Washington Star a very interesting article touching on a matter about which perhaps all Senators should become knowledgeable. The article reports that U.S. Department of Justice sources have confirmed that there is a sealed narcotics indictment in the eastern district of New York against one Moises Torrijos, brother of the present Panamanian Dictator Omar Torrijos. The Washington Star newspaper story does not state the substance of the indictment, but it does report that the indictment has never been disclosed allegedly, because Moises Torrijos has not returned to the United States since the time the indictment was issued, apparently some time during 1972.

You know, Mr. President, I wondered at the time of the signing of the Panama Canal treaties why Moises Torrijos was not in attendance inasmuch as he is currently Ambassador to Spain and presumably would have wished to share in the celebrations held down at the Pan American Building. At the time, it did seem strange that since diplomats from every Spanish-speaking country in the world did seem able to attend, yet the brother of the present head of the Panamanian Government found it inconvenient to share in the festivities.

Sometimes, Mr. President, I am slow to get the full picture, but I am beginning to understand the answers to some of the questions that have been troubling me, and there have been plenty of questions, Mr. President, about these treaties. Since reading the article in the Star, I have had brought to my attention certain other bits and pieces of information which perhaps should be further highlighted or recalled. Apparently, Mr. President, back some time in early 1972 or perhaps late 1971, Rafael Richard, the son of the Panamanian Ambassador to Taiwan-I believe the correct date was July 8, 1971-was arrested in New York carrying luggage containing some 150 pounds of heroin. Mr. Richard, who was fairly young for a diplomat, was traveling on a diplomatic passport signed by Mr. Juan Tack, whom Senators will recall negotiated with then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for the Kissinger-Tack agreement which formed the framework for subsequent negotiations leading to these proposed treaties now being considered in the Senate. But Mr. Richard was not on his first visit to the United States; he was instead on his fifth visit. And according to a New York Times article by Benjamin Welles, dated March 15, 1972, Mr. Richard had brought into the United States 150 pounds of heroin each trip. But, Mr. President, let us see what happened to Mr. Richard. According to the New York Times-and, of course, that is the only information I have to go on as to this particular item, the information available in the newspapers-Mr. Richard was given the full privileges of diplomatic immunity and apparently allowed to leave the United States without further question.

Mr. Richard's uncle was not quite as lucky. As reported in the Times, his uncle, Guillermo Gonzalez, and I quote, "an intimate and former bodyguard of Moises Torrijos," was convicted of a felony charge related to heroin smuggling and sentenced to seven years in prison. If Mr. Gonzalez is in prison, perhaps he would know more about this matter, but I do not know whether he has been required to serve his full term and is, therefore, still incarcerated.

About this same time, Mr. President, three American narcotics agents were ordered expelled from Panama by Mr. Juan Tack on 24-hours notice. Mr. Tack asserted that the men, who were agents of the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, were interfering with "the internal affairs of Panama." Some internal affairs, Mr. President, I might say, and some diplomats.

So, Mr. President, today we learned that there is a sealed indictment waiting for Mr. Moises Torrijos, Ambassador to Spain, waiting for Mr. Moises Torrijos

up there in the eastern district of New York, waiting up there for some 5 years now with no public disclosure whatsoever that Ambassador Torrijos was being sought by our Government. Mr. Moises Torrijos may have known he is being sought by our Government. He found it convenient not to be in the United States over a 5-year period on any occasion. But, Mr. President, the American people did not know and the American people have got to have sharp eyes to pick this story up off the fifth page of the Washington Star to try to piece together just what is going on.

Now, there has been another recent sealed indictment, not 5 years old, but a fairly new sealed indictment which has recently been made entirely public. That indictment involves one Mr. Tongsun Park. Tongsun Park has shown no great inclination to return to the United States either, and quite properly the citizens of the United States have been advised that Tongsun Park is under indictment. Yet, Mr. President, Moises Torrijos is treated differently.

I hold no brief for Mr. Tongsun Park, but it does seem he received one type of treatment and Moises Torrijos another.

On Wednesday, I talked to some extent about the ironclad language used by our negotiators in securing the Panama Canal Treaty in 1903. I pointed out that our negotiators back in those days could and did draft a document which reflected a meeting of the minds, a document without ambiguity, and a document which could be enforced. I am pleased to report to the Senate. Mr. President, that the year following the negotiation of the treaty of 1903, our Government took the prudent step of negotiating with Panama a document entitled "A Treaty for the Mutual Extradition of Criminals." This extradition treaty of 1904 is also an ironclad document without ambiguity. The preamble reads this way, Mr. President:

"The United States of America and the Republic of Panama, being desirous to confirm their friendly relations and to promote the cause of justice, have resolved to conclude a treaty for the extradition of fugitives from justice between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama."

So, they set forth the purpose of this treaty pretty clearly there in the preamble. Article I of this treaty reads this way:

"The Government of the United States and the Government of the Republic of Panama mutually agree to deliver up persons who, having been charged with or convicted of any of the crimes and offenses specified in the following article, committed within the jurisdiction of one of the contracting parties, shall seek an asylum or be found within the territories of the other: Provided, that this shall only be done upon such evidence of Criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his or her apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense has been there committed."

We have been advised by the Washington Star that there is a sealed indictment handed down by a grand jury in the eastern district of New York against Ambassador Moises Torrijos, but we do not know what the charges are, we do not know what the evidence is. So, Mr. President, we are left to speculate whether this treaty of 1904 would apply. Presumably, the crime charged would be a felony. Presumably, the crime charged would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense charged had been committed in Panama. Mr. President. I do not know where Ambassador Moises Torrijos is located today. Perhaps he is at his post in Spain, and perhaps the Department of Justice ought to see if we have an extradition treaty with Spain as we do with Panama. But one thing is certain, Mr. President. when I have referred to the regime in power in Panama as a gangster dictatorship. I have not used the term lightly. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Star and an article from the New York Times be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

UNITED STATES INDICTED BROTHER OF TORRIJOS, SOURCE IN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS

The brother of Panamanian chief of state Omar Torrijos was indicted in New York five years ago on federal narcotics smuggling charges but U.S. authorities have never been able to arrest him, Justice Department sources have confirmed. "There is a sealed narcotics indictment in the Eastern District of New York" against Torrijos' brother Moises, a knowledgeable department official said yesterday.

"It has never been unsealed because we have never found him back in this country to arrest him," this source said.

The Miami Herald reported yesterday that Atty. Gen. Griffin Bell told President Carter about a variety of allegations that members of Torrijos' family have been involved in smuggling drugs to the United States.

Department spokesman Robert Havel confirmed that Bell discussed the matter with Carter on October 3.

After inquiries from members of Congress, Bell briefed Carter on the situation. The President agreed with Bell's recommendation that the Justice Department provide the same briefing to congressional leaders, Havel said.

HOUSE MEMBER CHARGES NARCOTIC SMUGGLING INQUIRY TOUCHES "HIGHEST LEVELS" OF PANAMA GOVERNMENT

(By Benjamin Welles)

WASHINGTON, March 15-Representative John M. Murphy charged today that an investigation into heroin smuggling into the United States had touched the "highest levels" of the Government of Panama.

Mr. Murphy, Democrat of Staten Island, who is chairman of a House subcommittee on the Panama Canal, named Juan Tack, Panamanian Foreign Minister, and Moises Torrijos, Panamanian Ambassador to Spain, as the officials allegedly involved in narcotics. Mr. Torrijos is a brother of Brig. Gen. Omar Torrijos, ruler of Panama.

José Antonio de la Ossa, the Panamanian ambassador here, issued a statement vigorously denying the charges. He suggested that Mr. Murphy was reviving old charges because he had been "cold-shouldered" by Panamanian officials during his recent inspection visit to the Panama Canal.

He suggested too that Mr. Murphy was using the drug charges to impede progress toward a new Panama Canal treaty which if negotiated, would restore "soverignty" over the Canal Zone to the Panamanian Republic.

Late yesterday Mr. Tack ordered the expulsion of three American narcotics agents from Panama within 24 hours. He asserted that the men, agents of the United States Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, had "intervened in the internal affairs of Panama."

The expulsion followed initial reports two days ago in the syndicated column of Jack Anderson linking Mr. Tack and Mr. Torrijos with narcotics smuggling. The first hint of the developument came a week ago in a brief allusion by the Panama Canal subcommittee to "confidential" information passed to the subcommittee by the Bureau of Narcotics.

United States officials involved in the treaty negotiations, which have been under way here since June, declined to speculate whether the flareup would jeopardize the talks. Panamanian diplomats who denied recent reports of an "impasse," said that they thought the talks would not be fundamentally affected. Mr. Murphy said in an interview today that he and other subcommittee members had been briefed here on Jan. 24 by Customs Bureau agents placed at their disposal by Myles Ambrose, then Director of the Treasury's Bureau of Customs and now President Nixon's special consultant for drug abuse enforcement. The subcommittee was then preparing to visit Panama and the Canal Zone.

A passage from the unpublished report of the subcommittee dated March 8 and entitled "Overview of the Narcotics Problem in Panama" cited a recent drug-smuggling case involving Panamanians and stated in part:

"The [customs] briefing team concluded that based on the customs investigation this case reached into the highest levels of Panamanian officialdom and included Moises Torrijos, the brother of Gen. Omar Torrijos and the Panamanian Foreign Minister, Juan Tack."

The subcommittee report also asserted that this involvement "was confirmed by B.N.D.D. officers in the Republic of Panama on Feb. 23 during the subcommittee briefing in that country."

The State Department said that the bureau had denied "in writing" that its agents had implicated Mr. Tack or Mr. Torrijos in its briefings of the House subcommittee.

A spokesman for the Customs Bureau said that it had nothing to add to what it had told Mr. Murphy and his subcommittee colleagues.

Charles W. Bray 3d, the State Department spokesman, said that the department considered the expulsion of the three agents, Wilbur Plase, Ruben Monzon and Charles W. Cecil Jr., as unwarranted.

Mr. Murphy, a graduate of West Point and a decorated infantry commander in World War II and the Korean war, cited growing drug abuse among American servicemen and dependents in Taiwan, Okinawa, the Philippines, Vietnam, and, especially, Panama.

The subcommittee recalled details of two recent drug-smuggling cases that, it contended, involved Mr. Tack and Mr. Torrijos.

One concerned the arrest in New York last July 8 of Rafael Richard, son of the Panamanian Ambassador to Taiwan. Mr. Richard who was 23, was travelling on a diplomatic passport signed by Mr. Tack, which gave him immunity from prosecution.

At the time of his arrest he was on his fifth visit to the United States, during each of which he had brought about 150 pounds of heroin, the report said.

He was with Guillermo Gonzáles, his uncle, an intimate and former bodyguard of Moises Torrijos.

Mr. Gonzáles, who was believed to be the ringleader, was convicted and sentenced to seven years. The report said United States sources believe that Mr. Tack and Mr. Torrijos were not only sanctioning but were abetting this smuggling.

The other case involved Joaquin Gonzáles, former international transit chief of Tocumen International Airport at Panama, who was indicted in the smuggling of $1-million worth of heroin to Dallas.

Mr. Gonzáles was arrested by the United States authorities Feb. 6, 1971, when he entered the Canal Zone to attend a baseball game. He was flown to Texas to stand trial and was sentenced to five years. Mr. Tack exerted strong but unsuccessful diplomatic efforts to have him released, the subcommittee said.

"In case of need or emergency, warships may go to the head of the line of vessels in order to transit the canal rapidly."

What this unsigned document does not say, however, is who gets to decide what is a case of need or what is a case of emergency. Panama might have one idea about what constitutes an emergency situation and we might have another idea. Why not say it, Mr. President, in simple terms? I suggest the following, which may well be offered as an amendment to the treaty when it comes up here, in the Senate:

"United States warships have the right of priority passage at any time and may at all times proceed ahead of waiting merchantmen."

No, Mr. President, I guess that is too simple so we have elected instead in this. unsigned, meaningless, nonbinding, and confusing document to foment still further potential disagreement by apparently leaving to the Panamanians the right to determine what emergency or which case of need is sufficient to justify priority passage by American war vessels. I think I shall change this word that I have suggested, "waiting merchantmen" to say merely "waiting vessels" rather than merchantmen; that U.S. warships have the right of priority passage at any time and may at all times proceed ahead of waiting vessels.

But listen, Mr. President, what former Ambassador Linowitz is reported to have said on this subject:

"We are hoping it will lay to rest the questions that have been raised so that we can go forward with the approval of the treaties. I don't think, personally, that any further action will be required.”

Former Ambassador Linowitz does not seem to be paying too much attention to what is going on over here on the Senate floor, Mr. President, because if he did, he would know that this unsigned, ambiguous document clarifies nothing and does nothing whatsoever to address the many, many other serious-indeed, fataldefects found throughout the proposed treaties.

I would suggest, Mr. President, that the Department of State pay closer attention to what is being said over here in the Senate because sooner or later, the Department of State has to face up to the simple fact that these treaties are so poorly drafted throughout that the Senate could not properly consent to their ratification. Even proponents of a canal giveaway recognize that fact. Even proponents recognize that both treaties must be rewritten in their entirety.

In my judgment, Mr. President, the Senate should undertake this onerous task. The Senate should, by amendment, rewrite these disastrous proposals now under study in the Committee on Foreign Relations. The Senate should, acting as the Committee of the Whole, sit down to the hard work of undoing the damage and unraveling the mystery of why the Department of State was incapable of reaching an agreement with the Panamanian negotiators which could, at a minimum, protect the vital national security interests of our country.

Unsigned documents clarifying nothing, understandings of no binding legal effect, reservations of rights not agreed to by the other party, are not going to be sufficient. Fanfare and hoopla in the press is not going to be sufficient. The only course of action is extensive and thorough page-by-page, paragraph-by-paragraph, sentence-by-sentence, word-by-word consideration and amendment of each and every provision of both treaties. Both treaties, Mr. President. This process will be long and tedious, very long and very tedious, but if these treaties are not soon withdrawn, it is a duty, Mr. President, we must soon undertake inasmuch as others have not. We must unfortunately also go ahead with the painful process of resolving all of the questions surrounding the peculiar manner in which the treaties were negotiated.

Mr. President, I feel that, as time goes on, we shall see other statements to clear up other ambiguities. I feel that, in the final analysis, we are going to have to amend these treaties here, on the floor of the Senate, and send this amended treaty back to the negotiators to serve as a guideline for further negotiation. Mr. President, I appreciate the Chair's lenience. I know I have consumed all my time. I yield the floor.

99-592-78- -16