STATEMENT OF HON ALAN CRANSTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA*

I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my views to the Inter-American Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the continuing controversy over whether the United States should maintain its sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

I would first like to discuss the notion that the United States owns the Panama Canal Zone. It does not. It never has. It doesn't even have sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

By treaty agreement with the Republic of Panama in 1903, the United States "has the power and authority within the zone which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory."

For the past 68 years we have exercised that power and authority— causing hard feelings, bitterness and scorn between Panamanians and other Latins on the one hand, and the Americans on the other. It led to tragic riots in 1959 and 1964, and to suspension of diplomatic relations between our two countries after the latter incident. I believe it is time to acknowledge that it is no longer to our advantage to maintain this supposedly sovereign position.

We have heard statements to the effect that we must stay supreme in the Canal Zone to protect the canal, and maintain the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. We have heard statements to the effect that giving up our alleged sovereignty over the Canal Zone is tantamount to relinquishing control of the canal itself. If we place these statements in the context of hard facts-facts which do not get very much publicity or news analysis-we will see that this Nation has been upholding in the Canal Zone the remnants of the "big stick" policy which succeeding administrations have sought to eliminate elsewhere in the hemisphere. We have sought to eliminate this policy with Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy, and later with John Kennedy's Alliance for Progress. Yet we remain in the Canal Zone, waiting for the next riots to occur.

The Canal Zone is a strip approximately 50 miles long and 10 miles wide-5 miles on either side of the canal which bisects it. It was created on the presumption that the United States should have an area within the Republic of Panama over which it could have complete jurisdiction-this because of the great influx of American civilian and military personnel who were anticipated to supervise the construction and later to operate and defend the canal.

Whether or not there was any justification for insisting on a U.S.controlled zone to insure the safety and comfort of Americans who were building the canal in 1903, that justification hardly remains in 1971. There is no question as to the legality of our presence in Panama. It was fully agreed to by the Panamanian Government. For $10 million and $250,000 a year the United States was leased the Canal Zone in

Commentary by Hon. Daniel J. Flood, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, on excerpts from Senator Cranston's testimony appear on p. 170 of the appendix.

ne sanz Marcoesmerized primarily in aimin The Amr formes in the wx Toe vree of me sfactory battalion on the Atlantic end of low one methanized infantry battalion on the Pacis side. contine Armits located in the zone can be grgret, So85 19 46 pement in combat and combat support, and 54 were sport, headquarters, or military assistance

It je gazrd to note that in case of an attack on the Canal Zone, Gen. Boto WT:

"Pai phorismogne for the zone would ence from the pool of Army and Air Force voity twigued to the TR. Strike Command MED AFR. Fa. and Marine $56 Nava. Purt's argued to the CINC, Atlantic Command in Norfolk, Va.

Clearly, the Canal Zone, and the forces residing there, do not provide significant protection for the canal. The real muscle comes from forces based within the continental United States. The Canal Zone-based forces provide little more than police protection in case of an invasion from within the Republic of Panama.

How then can we justify our grand presence in Panama? How does the presence of a colony of civilians help contribute to the stabilization of this area of the world? Very little. On the contrary, it is my firm belief that the continuing existence of the Canal Zone provides much fuel to the militant factions in Panama and elsewhere in Latin America who point to the Canal Zone as a colonialistic outrage, fenced apart from the horrible slums which neighbor alongside.

I believe the United States should not relinquish its jurisdiction over the zone. The State Department and the President of the United States have recognized that a new arrangement must be effected between our two governments-an arrangement which is fair and equitable, and which does not jeopardize our security or commercial interests. I support these efforts for a new treaty, but I feel that the negotiating team is not seeking to go as far as is necessary to eliminate the wrongful situation which continues to fester like an uncared for wound. The U.S. negotiating team now believes that the Canal Zone should be vastly reduced in size, with commercial interests in the zone assigned to Panama. It does not propose, as has been alleged, to turn over the entire Canal Zone, including the Panama Canal, to Panamanor do I propose such a step. The team has also called for a gradual phase-out of American legal jurisdiction over cases involving Americans in the area.

The idea seems to be that more and more Americans will leave as Panamanians assume more jurisdictional control. I question the need for any continued American control over the affairs of civilian Americans in the Republic of Panama. Does the United States exercise control of this nature in any other area of the world where Americans choose to work and reside? The answer-except in diplomatic missions and on military bases-is no, not even within the Republic of Panama. Why should Americans living in the Canal Zone and working on the Panama Canal be treated any differently? If an American chooses to work abroad elsewhere, he does so knowing that he must abide by the laws and live according to the rules of the host country.

The United States does not need the Canal Zone in order to operate the Panama Canal. Because we permit unrestricted passage to countries of all political allegiances, including North Korea and Communist China, it cannot be said of us, as has been said of Egypt in the case of Suez, that we exclude our enemies.

We should make clear to Panama that in giving up jurisdiction over the zone we are not giving up our military bases, nor the right to defend the canal from alien aggressors or from aggressors within the Republic of Panama, even if our forces must cross over Panamanian soil to do so. Those rights should be an inherent part of the new treaty, and it is a small price for Panama to pay. It will also assuage the fears of those who feel the United States will lose the Panama Canal by making such concessions.

In summary, I believe the United States should return all aspects of sovereignty in the Canal Zone back to the Republic of Panama: and that the United States should continue to own and operate the canal as a world utility, retaining all rights to defend the canal, eveL to the point of moving our armed forces into the Republic of Panama to do so.

We in the United States might look toward our own country to seek an analogy to the Panama Canal Zone situation. What if the British had built the Erie Canal in the early 1800's and set up a zone of their own to run it? How then would the Americans of today feel toward a British colony living alongside of Buffalo, New York, and Cleveland? Is the only difference really the fact that we Americans are a vast world power, capable of removing such unwanted colonies, while the Panamanians are helpless to do anything about their own situation except make noises which are faint on the world scene?

If we are to behave as the greatest nation in the world-and we must-then we must set a proper example for nations large and small. rich and poor, around the world. We must solve such frictions before they become major confrontations. We must in effect initiate solutions before the guns are fired, and blood is drawn. Too often, we have been a nation of reactors. Let us act in a preventive way, and gain friends who will know that it was the United States that took the first step forward—not a step backward in retreat.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DOWDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, I am unalterably opposed to allowing the Republic of Panama sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone. The United States acquired its present right to govern and control this vital passageway in much the same way many of our States were acquired. Few, if any, land areas over which we have dominion, means as much to us in both wartime and peacetime as does the Canal Zone. It is a vital lifeline which we must hold and maintain with the same vigilance as we do New York City or Houston, Tex.

Turbulence and revolution seem to be a way of life in many Latin countries. From time to time, and it seems to be the case at present in Panama, governments unfriendly to the United States come to power. Many Latin American governments, at least for considerably periods of time, come under the influence of various foreign powers which are unfriendly to the United States. If our own interests would not otherwise justify our retention of sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone, which they do, this fact of instability in Panama and much of Latin America dictates that we must retain our control over the Canal Zone. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge that our present control over the Panama Canal Zone be retained.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSHUA EILBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the House Inter-Amer ican Affairs Subcommittee: I submit this statement in support of

House Resolution 369 which expresses the sense of the House of Repesentatives that the United States maintain its sovereignty and jurísliction over the Panama Canal Zone. This resolution, of which I am - cosponsor, and the many identical resolutions introduced this session by my distinguished colleagues from all parts of our Nation deserve your support.

Considering the recent announcement by our Goverment that negociations have been renewed between the United States and the Government of Panama toward the achievement of a mutually acceptable accommodation over the future status of the Panama Canal and Canal Zone, it has again become necessary, as it has countless times in the past, that the many Members of the U.S. Congress who oppose this dangerous and ill-advised action on the part of our Government unite to express our strong determination that no new agreement with Panama shall be accepted which affects a giveaway of the rights of this Nation to absolute sovereignty and jurisdiction over the canal territory.

The facts involved in this volatile issue have been stated time and again, yet it seems that they have gone unheeded by members of this administration and its predecessors. For the record therefore, I should like to state again the major points at issue.

By terms of the 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty between the United States and Panama, this Nation obtained the exclusive right, "in perpetuity" and the concurrent power and authority which it would possess and exercise "if it were the soverign of the territory" to a 10-mile strip of land across the Isthmus of Panama for the construction, maintenance, operation, and protection of a lock canal to facilitate international commerce. According to the treaty obligations which this Nation assumed, we built the canal and over the years have continued. to operate it, maintain it, improve it, and defend it at highest levels of efficiency, both in peacetime and wartime, to the indispensable benefit of world maritime commerce.

According to the obligations which this Nation assumed, we have continued to pay to Panama an annual annuity for rights obtained, a sum which has been increased through treaty in response to Panamanian demands. Moreover, over the years, this Nation has voluntarily liberalized many provisions of the original treaty to afford Panama what it considered more just arrangements regarding U.S. operation of the canal and occupation of the Canal Zone.

The Panama Canal is of vital importance to the United States commerically, as a lifeline for U.S. trade around the world, as borne out by the fact that at least 70 percent of all canal traffic originates or terminates in our ports.

The Panama Canal is of vital importance to the United States strategically, as a defense and communication center, an indispensable link in the protection of our own national security and that of all the nations of the Western Hemisphere.

Continued absolute U.S. control of the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone is essential to preserve for world commerce an interoceanic link between the Atlantic and Pacific accessible to ships of all nations at fair rates, efficiently run, and effectively defended.

In harsh reality, Panama does not possess the technical and managerial capacity or the skilled personnel which are required to maintain canal operations at necessary levels of efficiency.