G. Herzberg, dean of Georgetown University's Graduate School, and Dr. Timothy S. Healy, president of the university. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: ARTICLE ON PANAMA PLEBISCITE (By Donald G. Herzberg and Timothy S. Healy) On Sunday, October 23rd, at the invitation of the Government of Panama, we were official observers at a referendum held to measure popular support for the proposed Treaties with the United States on the ownership and operation of the Panama Canal. Our fellow-observers were the rectors and presidents of 20 Latin and North American universities. Deans and other senior officials from the National University of Panama were assigned to us as guides. In our best judgment the vote that Sunday was a fair one. The electorate was large but defined, the ballot was secret and access to the polls was adequately controlled. There was both good order and good humor throughout the process. One of the unexpected signs of honesty was that the two-to-one endorsement of the Treaties (which would be a landslide in the U.S.) was less than had been predicted by both the friends and the enemies of the Panamanian regime. The one-third negative vote, however, ought not to be read as showing any national division at all about the Canal. After talking with hundreds of Panamanians in the Capitol, its suburbs and in the countryside, all of us were convinced that while the vote indicated several varieties of political dissent, there is still near national unanimity that the time has come for Panama to begin taking responsibility for the Canal. That conclusion was hardly surprising. Other things we learned were more so. Panamanians have a sense of urgency about these Treaties which is totally lacking in the United States and which has not been adequately reflected in our press. The Treaties have been in the process of negotiation for some 14 years. The object of all that talk is, moreover, a source of enormous national pride in Panama. To anyone who looks at it the Canal is awesome; and the pair of us gaped as we realized that the great clockwork locks were built in 1913 with no expectation of planned obsolescence. But this engineering wonder surprises Panamanians every bit as much as it does us. They show it off with pride and obvious pleasure. They resent that in 60 years only two Panamanians have been found qualified as pilots and take exception to the Canal Company's notion that it would take 14 years to train one. But these were details. Panamanians are aware of the international importance of the Canal. They are proud of it and care for it. We met no one who did not speak of it as a national trust well worth the keeping that it takes. The Canal Zone is a wholly different matter. It cuts a foreign swathe, from ocean to ocean, from north to south, some ten miles wide across the country. Were we to have a similar zone in the United States, it would run 1100 miles from Duluth to Galveston and slice a band 64 miles wide through seven states. "La Zona" is really a little U.S.A. It claims more scout troops and P.T.A.'s than any parallel stretch at home. Some of its civilian population boasts that they have never set foot on Panamanian soil. The Panamanians distinguish sharply between military and civilian Zonians. With Latin grace they concede to the former the warrior's tribute of isolation, pampering, PXs and some splendor. It is against the civilians that the rancor is felt. It is staggering to pass from the deep and crowded slums on one side of Central Avenue to the suburban fronts of the Chase Manhattan Bank, the UMCA and the Provident Loan Society on the other side, with their fresh paint, awnings and deep lawns. When the high school students who led the attack on the Canal Zone in 1964 set out, all they had to do to enter the enemy's territory was cross a street and scale a fence. Panama doesn't expect both sides of the street to be the same. It does want both sides to be Panamanian. Another surprise was that everybody who spoke to us about the much agitated defense aspects of the Treaties was reassuringly realistic. The United States is acknowledged to be a great power and expected to act like one. Any threat to the Canal would automatically provoke our intervention-and this is as understood as it is expected. Panamanians know well that there is no possibility of their defending either the Canal or themselves against a serious attack. The presence of Uncle Sam on the other end of a hotline is thus a reassurance and not a threat. Panamanians would not, indeed, much object to serving as a southern distant early warning system. One university dean remarked to us, "every now and then the little birds can warn the rhinoceros." Panamanians are constantly reminded that the other nations of Latin America need the Canal as much as we do. Nobody gains if world trade is chased around Cape Horn. The government which did this would find both North and South America united against it. Panama is well aware of the pressures it will feel to guarantee the neutrality which both halves of the Hemisphere expect and demand of the owners of the Canal. Every Panamanian schoolboy knows that the Canal depends not on the endless salt flow from either oceans but upon fresh water, agua dulce, in which alone the great locks can work. The fresh water can be shut off at the will of any Panama nian government. We found, however, in all our conversations with both ordinary people and with politicians, almost no posturing, no threats, no rattling of sabers or spigots. The appeal Panama makes to North America is for fair play. Perhaps it is not for nothing that one of our major exports to Panama was baseball. Again, and again, we heard the plea that the United States play the treaty game fairly and according to the best American rules. Panama has had the experience of dealing with northern bullies before and hardly cherishes the memory. One United States Senator facetiously spoke of our having "stolen the Canal fair and square." Latin Americans hear clearly the word "steal." We were repeatedly asked why in this one instance the United States could not be true to the best in our own history and tradition. These questions took on added bite for both of us when they were presented in terms of President Carter's stand on human rights. At first our guard was up; but we soon found we were dealing not with sarcasm but with a real grasp of the reach of the President's dream. One astute Latin politician asserted that President Carter was so far out in front on this issue that the Washington establishment would try either to tame him or destroy him. When we asked which he thought would happen, he remarked, "Your new President does not seem to me to be the kind of man who tames easily." This was only one of the exchanges in which we saw how deeply the President's stand on human rights has reached and touched the hearts of many in Latin America. In a surprisingly relaxed and salty exchange with the group of observers General Torrijos, the head of the Panamanian government also spoke of the United States and human rights. He said he hoped the North Americans would hear, behind the vote of the Panamanian people, the voice of 300 million Latin Americans. Through these Treaties he clearly feels he is dealing with the growth of a symbolic relationship and an understanding that will set the tone of North-South American conversations for years to come. For many Panamanians more is at stake in these documents than the issue of who owns the Canal or even than the righting of an historic wrong. As each voter dropped his sealed ballot in the box he was handed a large campaign-type button. It showed two young Panamanians scaling the chain-like fence that surrounds the Zone. It was meant to remind Panamanians of the assault and the deaths of 1964. It ought also to speak to North Americans. We have built too many walls in Latin America. We would do well to remember Robert Frost: "Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out And to whom I was like to give offense. Something there is that doesn't love a wall Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, there is no question that the amendment is one which runs contrary to our concept of democracy and against our concept of two free states dealing with each other that one should dictate to the other how and when the treaties should be ratified. Mr. President, no thinking American would ask that we impose upon another nation what we ourselves would never have other nations impose upon us. For this reason, I urge the defeat of the amendment. I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a sufficient second. Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. [The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.] Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that he order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I withdraw my motion to table it this time and I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Allen) my be allowed to proceed for 10 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent hat I be recognized after the Senator from Alabama has had his 10 minutes for the purpose of making a motion to table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for making this request. Of course, under the rules any time an amendment is pending any Senator getting recognition may move to table. It is also customary that that motion be withheld if another Senator wishes to make brief remarks with respect to the pending question. I do appreciate his courtesy in withholding his motion to table in order that I might make brief comments on some of the points made by him. In the first place, he used the expression as though it had been the expression of some of us opposing the treaties in referring to dictator Torrijos as a tinhorn dictator. The Senator from Alabama has never referred to dictator Torrijos as a tinhorn dictator because he believes he is a very powerful dictator and a very able dictator, for that matter, one who did work out a most beneficial treaty for his government and for Panama with the American negotiators, and further his will has pretty well prevailed here in the U.S. Senate except the one slipup on the part of the managers of the bill wherein the DeConcini amendment was accepted which was contrary, of course, to Mr. Torrijos' wishes. . Further, the distinguished Senator spoke about the regularity with which the plebiscite back in October was held. No one is questioning that the plebiscite was handled properly. But that is not the point. The point is that the treaties have been changed tremendously since that time. The apparent view of the people of Panama has changed with respect to the treaty. That is the reason a new plebiscite is needed. Not only that, but the distinguished Senator spoke of our imposing a requirement on Panama that was not provided for by them, or words to that effect. But we are not imposing something on them that is not part of their regular constitutional process. Their Constitution says treaties must be approved by the people in a plebiscite. The point I am making is their court has held that anything that has not been approved by plebiscite with respect to a treaty is unconstitutional. Therefore, they may be in position of claiming that these reservations are unconstitutional under their law, and that would provide for a further difference of opinion between our two countries. I also read the opinion of the counsel for the State Department saying that another plebiscite is not necessary. Well, what did you expect the counsel for the State Department to say if he expected to hold his job? I just wonder if this was the same employee or same counsel to the State Department who gave advice to the administration on taking the DeConcini reservation. If his opinion is no better on the DeConcini amendment, which has caused such a furor here in the Senate and in Panama, I would not expect too much of his opinion on whether a plebiscite is necessary in Panama. We are not imposing, under this provision, something strange or foreign to the Panamanian people. That is part of their Constitution. The only point is that we want to see that their constitutional processes are followed so that we will have a valid treaty. We are not imposing something new or foreign on them but merely requiring that their constitutional processes be followed. That is all the amendment would do. It does not impose any great burden on the people, and it would give us a compact with the Panamanian people where, without that, all we have is a compact with the Panamanian dictator. I hope the Senate will vote against the apparent motion to table the amendment. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a sufficient second. Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. MATSUNAGA. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. [The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.] Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MATSUNAGA. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING Officer. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. [The yeas and nays were ordered.] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Hawaii to lay on the table the amend ment of the Senator from Alabama. The clerk will call the roll. [The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.] Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Abourezk), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Eagleton), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Long), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sparkman), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Williams) are necessarily absent. Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Baker), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Bartlett), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Griffin), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Packwood), and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Young) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), would vote "nay." [The result was announced-yeas 59, nays 29, as follows:] [So the motion to lay amendment No. 101 on the table was agreed to.] Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. [The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.] Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope that last vote would show that the Senate of the United States recognized the sovereignty of Panama. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator please suspend? The Senate is not in order. Will the Senators who are conversing retire to the cloakroom? The Senator from Vermont. |