Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

the USA," Panama is the country. We created it 70 years ago—and today it is a stronghold of American free enterprise. Seventy major U.S. banks operate in Panama City-those which refuse to operate in Communist countries. Recently, when Panama needed increased revenues, she took the Chamber of Commerce approach-a value-added tax rather than an increase in income tax. Dictator Torrijos' economic team are all U.S. trained and educated. President Lakassix years in the United States, a graduate of Texas Tech. Planning Minister Nicholas Barletta, a classmate of Governor Hunt of North Carolina-both graduates of N.C. State. The Guardia Nacional, or army-U.S. trained. Like many other heads of state in Latin America, Torrijos has visited with Castro. But Panama does not recognize the Soviet Union and Panama refuses to recognize Red China-she recognizes Taiwan instead. In a population of 1,700,000— there are reportedly 600 Communists-but none in the government. The government is patterned after the United States with three branches-legislative, executive and judicial. And they have an American system of education. Now the important point of all this is that we have taught them one American traitpatriotism. The Republic of Panama has developed a nationalism of its own. The people are proud, they are patriotic. They have learned the cardinal principle of government—the right of the people to determine their own destiny. The ten-mile strip of foreign occupation in the heart of their country is viewed the same way as if the French had retained a five-mile zone on either side of the Mississippi. Every Panamanian schoolchild is taught the wrong that the United States did in obtaining the treaty in 1903. Everyone in the city and countryside of Panama feels it and as they showed in 1964, they are willing to die for it. But most importantly, in this section of the world where the United States lacks strong friends, the Panamanians are friends of the United States. Everything they feel or know comes from the United States. Pointing out to President Lakas the feeling that existed in the United States, that the people were tired of being pushed around, that somewhere, sometime we had to stand up and say "No"-the President responded quietly, "But why do it to a friend." Let me touch briefly on the certain aspects of the Panama Canal controversy:

1. SOVEREIGNTY

1. Legally, we don't have sovereignty;

2. Morally, we don't have sovereignty;

3. Realistically, we don't need, we don't want sovereignty.

Legally-Article III of the 1903 treaty grants to the United States certain rights as “. . . if it were the sovereign of the territory," This retained sovereignty in Panama. President Roosevelt's Secretary of War William Howard Taft, later to become President, said in a 1905 report: "The truth is that while we have all the attributes of sovereignty, the very form in which the attributes are conferred in the treaty seems to preserve the titular sovereignty over the Canal Zone in the Republic of Panama." The Supreme Court decisions cited by treaty opponents are like the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson segregation decision-totally untenable in this day and age. The real test is how the Government of the United States or Congress treats the Canal Zone-and it has not been as sovereign. If the Panamanian couple gives birth to a child in South Carolina or Louisiana or Alaska, under the Constitution that child is a U.S. citizen. If the same couple gives birth to a child in Guam or the Virgin Islands, then the child becomes a citizen, because Congress has treated these two areas as under our sovereignty. But if the same Panamanian couple gives birth to a child in the U.S. Canal Zone, that child does not become a citizen. So while the treaty said we could act as if sovereign, we were not and we did not.

Morally-No question, the United States rooked Panama back in 1903. We actively supported the revolution against Colombia by its Isthmus section after Colombia refused to ratify the treaty we wanted. We sent ships and troops and this guaranteed the outcome. Then we signed the treaty hurriedly before the official delegation objecting from Panama could even arrive in Washington. Signing for Panama was-not a Panamanian-but a French citizen who had not been in Panama for 17 years, and who returned to France immediately after the ratification. Further, it was made known that our military might would be withdrawn from the fledgling revolution in Panama unless ratification was promptly forthcoming. Such withdrawal would have left Panama at the mercy of a far stronger Colombia. This congeals hundreds of items, but it is interesting to note that the majority of the U.S. payment was retained by a New York bank and

invested in real estate in the City of New York. At the time, Teddy Roosevelt's Secretary of State commented. "You and I know too well how many points there are in this treaty to which a Panamanian patriot could object." Said Woodrow Wilson, who would soon be President, "Our acquisition of the Panama Canal Zone has been a scandal since the day of the fake "revolution" of November 3, 1903. . In every country to the south of us we are distrusted, feared, hated." Today this diplomacy is characterized by conservative columnist James Kilpatrick as a "national shame."

Don't want sovereignty-After spending our history destroying colonialism from the beginning in 1776 thru to the Philippines, Cuba, World War II, Korea and Vietnam, let's not insist on colonialism in Panama. If there is one thing that President Carter and the United States have going for us in the world today, it is our stand on human rights—the right of people to determine their own destiny. We finally are getting the Soviets and others on the defensive about their denial of human rights, and things are beginning to move our way. Are we now going to say, "Yes, human rights for everyone except the people of Panama.

2. DEFENSE

Flying up and down the length of the Canal in a helicopter, Lt. General McAuliffe was pointing out the strategic points to be defended-the lakes, the power facilities, the bridge and most important, the dam at Gatun Lake filling from the Charges River. This lake is 25 miles across, the largest man-made lake in the world. The locks are filled by gravity flow taking 52 million gallons of water for each ship that goes through. If the dam was blown at any point emptying the lake, it would take two years to refill. "It would take 80,000 to 100,000 men to defend key points," said General McAuliffe. "This does not mean wall-to-wall coverage of the entire length, only the key places. And this would not include the hundreds of inspectors necessary to examine each ship going through-an almost impossible task." Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is a tip of land-easily defended. But the Panama Canal is open to ships from Cuba, Russia-all nations-and a lunch box of explosives could put it out of commission.

3. COMPETENCE

Can the Panamanians learn to operate the Canal efficiently? Presently there are 12,000 Panamanians helping to operate the Canal efficiently. Can they take over the jobs of pilots, engineers, etc? Yes. This could be done in short order. The Pan-American Airlines manager in Panama City, having operated in seventeen countries, said the best management and operating team of the seventeen was right now in Panama. Another friend, the Latin American manager of Intercomsa handling 85% of the communications from Latin America, came two years ago with an operating team of twenty-two U.S. experts. Already, he has sent back all but three to the United States-the Panamanians are doing the job. Let's remember the Egyptians readily learned to operate the Suez Canal.

4. TOOLS AND PAYMENTS

Can the Canal operate without further appropriations from the Congress? This year the Canal will operate at a $7 million profit. But for the past several years, the Canal has been subsidized by the American taxpayer. The first ship with Alaskan oil went through the Canal on August 30. This increase in traffic will permit the Canal Company to pay the added 30¢ per ton plus the $10 million required annually under the treaty. Tolls will have to be increased from $1.29 a ton to approximately $1.70. But if a pipeline connection for Alaskan oil is made from the West to the East Coast, then further increases in tolls could be counterproductive. This plus the loan guarantees may require us to subsidize again.

Treaty opponents cry, "It's bad enough to give it back, but why do we have to pay them to take it?"

Spain: $685 million for base rights for five years.

Greece: $700 million for base rights for four years.

Turkey Demanding $1 Billion for base rights for four years.
Philippines Demanding $1 billion for base rights for five years.

We have had a free ride in Panama for 74 years. Now Panama, like other allies, wants compensation for the military installations in her country-Fort Kobbe, Fort Amador, Howard Air Force Base, Fort Clayton, Albrook Air Station, Fort

Davis, Fort Gullick, Fort Sherman, the Jungle Warfare Range, etc. We are not paying to take the Canal back-we're paying for these installations. And most of the payments will be coming from toll revenues.

5. NEW CANAL

A new sea-level canal will probably be built by Panama and the United States before the year 2000. An estimate in 1970 reported the cost at $2.7 billion. With inflation today that cost would be $5.7 billion. With hindsight now we realize that rather than working for thirteen years to renegotiate the old treaty, we should have insisted on a new sea-level canal. This would have been wide enough for all our warships as well as the largest oil tankers. Then the sovereignty, sabotage and other problems would have been moot. What is unexplainable is the provision that forbids us to negotiate a new canal anywhere but Panama.

6. IMPORTANCE OF THE CANAL

The Panama Canal is important to the commerce and defense of the United States. It is especially important to South American countries such as Columbia, Peru, Chile, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Colombia, for example, drills its oil on the Pacific side and refines it on the Atlantic side. The Canal is Colombia's lifeline. Over 4 of Nicaragua's trade passes through the Canal. The list goes on. I recently heard the statement that all Latin American nations wanted Panama to control the Canal. False. They feel that Panama should have sovereignty over its own territory, but time and again different leaders in South America told me that the United States is the only power in the Western Hemisphere strong enough to protect the Canal. They are worried about toll increases. They are worried about freedom of transit for their countries. They feel that the neutrality treaty is ideal in that Panama regains sovereignty and they all have freedom of transit-with a U.S. guarantee. Finally, they are worried about communism. More so than are treaty opponents, because attempts have been made on these leaders' lives. They all oppose any communist takeover of the Canal.

7. COMMUNISTS IN THE CANAL

Treaty opponents feel that once the treaty is ratified then in a couple of years the Canal will be turned over to the communists. No one knows or can guarantee what will happen in the years to come. All studied opinion holds firm that communism will have no issue upon which to take root if the treaty is ratified. However, they all feel that if the Senate turns the treaty down, then the communists will have a controlling issue not only in Panama but all over South America. Right now the communists in Panama are in the streets agitating against this treaty which they know will deprive them of their big issue. The best way to keep it from the communists in the future is to validate the neutrality treaty. And the best way to keep it from the communists today is to ratify the new treaty.

8. TORRIJOS

No question about it-he is a dictator. But not "tin horn" like opponents contend. Every head of state emphasized this fact-Torrijos is a man supported by his people. Previously, rulers of Panama were from the city, educated in Europe. But as President Lopez-Michelsen of Colombia said, "Torrijos is not a patrician. He is first and foremost a man of his people." Torrijos is from the countryside. He was educated in Panama and trained at Fort Sherman and the U.S. Army School of the Americas. He came to power after the uprising in 1964. At the time he was a major in the National Guard-and had the bitter task of subduing his own people. After the riots, he took over pledging to rid the Canal Zone of foreigners. When asked if the Senate's failure to ratify the treaty would weaken or strengthen Torrijos, all national leaders in South America plus the American business leadership in Panama City said it would strengthen him. Several immediately replied: "It would make him a hero."

What happens if the Senate ratifies the treaty-There is no guarantee that this would solve all of our problems in Panama or in Latin America. Brazil particularly has a chip on her shoulder. They favor the treaty but the Brazilians want the United States to know that this would not solve all the problems in Latin America.

During the twenty year transition period, the Panamanians will have a chance to prove themselves. No doubt ratification will be followed with free elections next year as promised. There is every reason to believe that with the United States and Panama working together under the new treaty, Panama could become a showcase of American free enterprise. Ratification could prove a dramatic turning point in U.S.-Latin American relations. For ten years now, we have ignored South America. Each President has promised a new policy-only to be followed with neglect. During this period, the countries down under have developed a nationalism. No longer are they client states of the United States. And the disregard for this development has resulted in a "Bad Neighbor" policy. With the new Panama treaty, the United States could once again start acting as a "Good Neighbor."

What happens if the Senate fails to ratify-The one group in Panama solidly opposed to the treaty are the communists. They realize that their principal arguing point will vanish with ratification. But they become an important movement if the treaty is rejected. Talking recently to a senior U.S. official in Panama, one who had served in combat at the DMZ in Vietnam-a man with guts and a lot of sense "Just remember," he said, "There's lots of jungle out here and the use and control of this Canal depends upon a friendly people. If the treaty is not confirmed, you will have another Vietnam on your hands." Maybe not a Vietnam, but at least an Ireland. The top CIA man in one South American country said, "Turn that treaty down and within hours, care will be overturned and this embassy will be firebombed." When asked how long this would last, he answered, "Just as long as the President of this country permits it—and, politically, he would probably have to let it go on for some time." I wondered who would be with us. Surely not the British and French after the way we treated them in the Suez Canal. The Free World and the Communist World would both be arrayed against us. We would have learned nothing from experience. Separatism cannot sustain. It held us back in the South; it is the trouble today in Africa; and that ten-mile wide strip of separatism in Panama is an embarrassment.

Listening and studying as carefully and thoroughly as one can, I am convinced that our future in the Canal, our credibility on human rights, our being true to ourselves, and the respect for the United States will all be advanced by ratification. By every count, the new Panama Canal treaties are in the best interests of every American. In short, ratification is in our national interest.

[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 23, 1977-S15423]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have asked for this time today to discuss what will be, perhaps next year, perhaps later, a very important issue in the Congress of the United States, and that is the discussion and debate and consideration of the Panama Canal Treaties.

I would like to take this time to define the defects, as the Senator from Kansas sees the defects, in the treaties presented to Congress, and suggest some amendments and some reservations to the treaties so that, perhaps next week, when the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations starts its deliberations these amendments and certainly there will be others submitted by other Members of the Senate can be properly considered.

There will be formal consideration starting on Monday, and then the proposals will be considered, although it is my understanding there will be no vote on ratification until early in 1978.

The Panama Canal Treaty issue is certainly one that will demand much of our attention in the weeks ahead. The American people look for and hope for an exchange of views and responsible consideration of our Nation's future security at every stage of debate on the matter.

Now that the pomp and ceremony associated with the treaties is over, and the foreign dignitaries have left, we in the Senate shall consider the proposed treaties in a thoughtful and responsible manner.

An issue such as this which bears so heavily on our national security and economic well-being cannot be passed on casually. I know that each of my colleagues will carefully examine all of the treaty provisions, and reflect carefully on them. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings will contribute in a valuable way to this process. Administration spokesmen, Defense establishment leaders, Members of Congress, and a variety of public witnesses will all have an opportunity to testify on the merits of the treaty proposals. I know that the committee will make a genuine effort to listen to all interested parties and make every effort to obtain all points of view on this highly controversial issue. The committee will, in turn, be expected to pass on its own recommendations to the full Senate for final consideration and judgment.

SEEK OUT INFORMATION

All of us have a responsibility to become as well-educated as possible on all aspects of the Panama Canal issue. Now that the treaty drafts are available for inspection, we should actively seek additional information and advice from a variety of sources. A well-informed public can provide guidance during our deliberations, as well as support for our decision once it is made. Because I believe the American people deserve the opportunity to hear the full range of arguments for themselves, I have already suggested to the majority leader that Senate debate on the Panama Canal treaties be televised. Television coverage would place the treaty issues before a far greater number of our citizens, and enable them to better understand and participate in the decisionmaking process.

At all times during the weeks ahead, we, in the Senate, must be attentive to any new developments which may bear upon the treaty issue. I am thinking at this moment of reports last week that surveillance activity may have taken place during the treaty negotiations. The Senate Intelligence Committee, after conducting hearings on the matter, concluded that our treaty negotiators had not been compromised in any way by the disclosures. But I raise this matter to make a point: No matter what our predisposition toward the treaties may be, all of us should remain receptive to updated information on the treaty matter as it becomes available.

During the past several weeks, I have made an active effort to familiarize myself with all points of view on the matter. I have discussed the treaties with President Carter, former President Ford, and Governor Reagan, and I received a

« PředchozíPokračovat »