Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

but to improve these documents, which bear so heavily on our national interests.

I, like many members, studied the canal treaties. I had a briefing by the State Department. I had my first phone call from President Carter. I talked with Governor Reagan and former President Ford. I might say that President Carter was very cordial and he thanked me for the courageous stand that President Ford and I took on the treaties in last year's campaign, whereupon I reminded President Carter that I had not, that I could recall, taken a stand last year, but that I understood President Ford had. I said I would pass on the information.

The point is that mine has not been a "knee jerk” reaction insofar as the treaties are concerned.

The Panamanians have understood our ratification system all along. They were certainly aware of the Senate's responsibilities of review, and its right to modify.

I say that we should amend, if necessary, and register reservations, if necessary, and at that point the ball will be in Panama's court. If they refuse to reconsider these points, then the blame is theirs and not ours. But I suspect that they will be ready to renegotiate rather than to lose these treaties which give them so much.

One thing should be made very clear: simple understandings by the Senate will have no legally binding effects on the canal treaties. Certainly the committee members understand this.

Understandings merely constitute interpretations of this or that point in the treaties, and do not necessitate renegotiation.

However, they are our interpretations, not Panama 's. When an issue or dispute arises in years to come, we will point in vain to our understandings. The Panamanians will say: "That may be the way your Senate interpreted it, but this is what the treaty says, and we interpret that differently."

So, if we really feel strongly, unless we just want to rubberstamp the treaty, if we really feel strongly about some areas that need to be clarified, then I think we should be bold enough to correct them in a straightforward and nonapologetic manner. If we must amend a treaty provision to remove all doubt about its meaning, then so be it.

If we simply buy time now by deceiving ourselves with understandings that have no binding impact, the next generation may have to bear the consequences. It will, of course, be easy to soothe our consciences by attaching weak interpretations to the canal treaties. Politically, it may be a very easy thing to do.

But I say this. If we end up next year ratifying these treaties with nothing more than a bunch of meaningless, half-baked understandings attached, we will have failed our constitutional duty to the national interest and the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I have already asked permission to insert at the end of my statement excerpts from several authoritative sources comparing the effects of treaty amendments, reservations, and understandings.

SENATOR DOLE'S AMENDMENTS AND RESERVATIONS

Mr. Chairman, in accord with my feeling that the Senate has a responsibility to modify these treaties where necessary, I have introduced a series of six amendments and two reservations.

[ocr errors]

The amendments would directly modify, or add to, the language of the treaties, while the reservations express specific conditions under which our agreement to ratify would be made.

All of these would, in my opinion, better protect the Nation's vital interests and substantially improve upon both the basic canal treaty and the treaty on permanent neutrality.

I will not spend a lot of time describing these proposals, since I believe you have all had an opportunity to review my statement of September 23. I will ask that the amendments and the reservations be made a part of the record at this point.

Senator CHURCH. Without objection, that will be done. [The information referred to follows:]

“SENATE MODIFICATIONS TO TREATIES SUBMITTED FOR RATIFICATION"

(From "Foreign Affairs and the Constitution,” Louis Henkin, The Foundation Press, Inc., 1972) -Consul, U.S. Department of State 1945–46, 1948–57; currently professor of law, Columbia University

RESERVATIONS

In many cases the Senate has given its consent (to a treaty) with reservations. Whether the Senate insists on a modification in the terms of a treaty, or on a particular interpretation of it, or on some limitation of its consequences, reservation usually requires renegotiation . one might say, the Senate withholds consent from the treaty presented to it but indicates what revised treaty will earn its consent, and gives it in advance to a treaty as so revised.” (Pp. 133– 134.)

UNDERSTANDINGS

“Sometimes the Senate can be persuaded to achieve clarification or even some modification of a treaty provision without entering a reservation, by expressing instead its 'understanding of the provision. If that understanding is communicated to the other party and is accepted or acquiesced in there is no issue and the treaty need not be reopened. There is danger, however, of failure of communication that may engender doubt and controversy as to whether the parties agreed to the same terms." (P. 136.)

“SENATE AMENDMENTS AND RESERVATIONS"

(From "Conduct of American Diplomacy,” Elmer Plischke, W. Nostrand Co.,

Inc., 1967)—Professor and head, Department of Government and Politics,
University of Maryland

"Most of the treaties that fail to be approved as submitted are modified by amendments or reservations rather than completely rejected. To 1945, some 167, or about 16 percent of the 1,046 submitted by the President, were treated in this fashion. Although it has been argued that there is an increasing tendency on the part of the Senate to resort to this procedure, this does not appear to be entirely borne out in the twentieth century. As a matter of fact, there was a marked decline in this practice in the years preceding and during World War II, although the trend was again reversed after the hostilities. It is relatively easy for the Senate to adopt such qualifications, because only a majority vote is necessary for their approval, but when a treaty is so modified the two-thirds vote still is required for final acquiescence.

“Amendments and reservations are differentiated in that the former constitute actual textual changes and, as such, even if acceptable to the President, require renewed negotiations to induce other signatories to accept them and thereby mutually incorporate them into the authentic text of the treaty ...

"Reservations, on the other hand, are formal declarations accepting the treaty subject to specified interpretations, limitations, qualifications, or conditions, rather than requiring textual changes. ... While other signatories must also be willing to accept the reservations, they do not need to consider a draft revision, and the acceptance may be either express or tacit.” (Pp. 394–395.)

[95th Cong., 1st sess., as in executive session, Senate of the United States)

PANAMA CANAL TREATY

RESERVATION

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dole to the resolution of ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, done at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

Before the period at the end of the resolution of ratification, insert a comma and the following: "and subject to the reservation that before the date of entry into force of this Treaty, the Congress has adopted appropriate legislation to transfer the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama, in exercise of the power of Congress under article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, relating to the disposal of territory or other property belonging to the United States".

[95th Cong., 1st sess., as in executive session, Senate of the United States!

PANAMA CANAL TREATY

AMENDMENT

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dole to the Panama Canal Treaty, done at Washington at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

Paragraph 2(b) of article XII is amended to read as follows:

“(b) During the duration of this Treaty, the United States of America may negotiate with any third State for the right to construct an interoceanic canal through such third State on any other route in the Western Hemisphere.".

[95th Cong., 1st sess., as in executive session, Senate

the

ed States ]

PANAMA CANAL TREATY

AMENDMENT

Intended to be proposed by Mr. DOLE to the Panama Canal Treaty, done at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

In article XIII, paragraph 4, strike out subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c), and insert in lieu thereof the following:

“(a) An annual amount to be paid out of Canal operating revenues computed at a rate of fifteen hundredths of a United States dollar ($0.15) per Panama Canal net ton, or its equivalency, for each vessel transiting the Canal, after the entry into force of this Treaty, for which tolls are charged.

“(b) An annuity of ten million United States dollars ($10,000,000) to be paid out of Canal operating revenues and as an expense of the Panama Canal Commission, except that such sum shall be reduced by the proportion which the number of days during the calendar year the Canal is not navigable bears to the calendar year.”.

[95th Cong., 1st sess., as in executive session, Senate of the United States]

PANAMA CANAL TREATY

AMENDMENTS

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dole to the Panama Canal Treaty, done at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

In the second sentence of the first paragraph of article XI, strike out "for thirty calendar months" and insert in lieu thereof "until such date as is agreed upon by the members of the Panama Canal Consultative Committee, but not before January 1, 1990”.

In paragraph 2 of article XI, amend subparagraph (a) to read as follows:

“(a) The authorities of the United States of America shall have the primary right to exercise criminal and civil jurisdiction over employees of the Panama Canal Commission who are citizens of the United States and their dependents, and members of the United States Forces and civilian component and their dependents, in the following cases :".

În paragraph 2(a)(i) of article XI, strike out “offense committed” and insert in lieu thereof "act or omission".

In paragraph 2(a) (ii) of article XI, strike out "offense committed” and insert in lieu thereof "act or omission”.

In the text folowing clause (ii) of paragraph 2(a) of article XI, strike out “offenses committed" and insert in lieu thereof "acts or omissions".

In the annex entitled “Procedures for the Cessation or Transfer of Activities Carried out by the Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government and Illustrative List of the Functions that may be Performed by the Panama Canal Commission", strike out paragraph 4(b) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

“(b) Upon termination of the transition period provided for under article XI of this Treaty, governmental services such as:

(i) Police;
“(ii) Courts; and
“(iii) Prison system.".

[95th Cong., 1st sess., as in executive session, Senate of the United States)

PANAMA CANAL TREATY

AMENDMENTS

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dole to the Panama Canal Treaty, done at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

At the end thereof, add the following:

"ARTICLE XV

"HUMAN RIGHTS

"1. The United States of America and the Republic of Panama agree on the importance of maintaining and properly observing internationally recognized human rights, including civil and political rights, in the former Canal Zone and commit themselves to maintaining, observing, and protecting such rights during the duration of this Treaty.

"2. The Panama Canal Consultative Committee shall report annually to the national legislatures of the two Parties on the maintaining, observing, and protecting of such rights.

"3. The two Parties agree to permit unimpeded investigations of alleged violations of internationally recognized human rights, including civil and political rights, by appropriate international organizations including, but not limited to, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and groups or persons acting under the authority of the United Nations or the Organization of American States.".

In article V, strike out the second sentence.

(95th Cong., 1st sess., as in executive session, Senate of the United States)

TREATY CONCERNING THE PERMANENT NEUTRALITY AND OPERATION OF THE

PANAMA CANAL

AMENDMENT

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dole to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, done at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

At the end of article IV. add the following: “Nothing in this Treaty may be construed to prevent the United States of America, in accordance with its constitutional processes, from intervening militarily to maintain such regime of neu

trality when determined to be seriously threatened by the President of the United States of America or, through the adoption of a concurrent resolution, by the Congress of the United States of America.".

(95th Cong., 1st sess., as in executive session, Senate of the United States) TREATY CONCERNING THE PERMANENT NEUTRALITY AND OPERATION OF THE PANAMA

CANAL

AMENDMENT

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dole to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, done at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

Before the period at the end of the first paragraph of article VI, insert a comma and the following: "except that the Republic of Panama shall, upon request, afford privileged passage through the Canal to such vessels of the United States of America during any period in which the United States of America is at war".

[95th Cong., 1st sess., as in executive session, Senate of the United States]

PANAMA CANAL TREATY

RESERVATION

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dole to the resolution of ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, done at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

Before the period at the end of the resolution of ratification, insert a comma and the following: "and subject to the following reservations:

“(1) that the Republic of Panama demonstrate, during the duration of this Treaty, significant progress toward observing the internationally recognized human rights of its citizens, including the right of free speech and the right to a fair trial; and

“(2) that the Republic of Panama permit unimpeded investigations of alleged violations of internationally recognized human rights by appropriate international organizations including, but not limited to, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and groups or persons acting under the authority of the United Nations or the Organization of American States”.

(95th Cong., 1st Sess., as in executive session, Senate of the United States)

PANAMA CANAL TREATY

RESERVATION

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dole to the resolution of ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, done at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977, viz:

Before the period at the end of the resolution of ratification, insert a comma and the following: "and subject to the reservation that before the date of entry into force of this Treaty, the Congress has adopted appropriate legislation to transfer the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama, in exercise of the power of Congress under article IV, section 3, cause 2 of the Constitution, relating to the disposal of territory or other property belonging to the United States".

Senator DOLE. I do want to emphasize, however, that I feel very strongly about the treaty defects which prompted each of these proposals. My amendments and reservations represent sincere and earnest efforts to correct these problems in a manner that is legally binding.

« PředchozíPokračovat »