« PreviousContinue »
SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
MEMBERS OF DELEGATION
Hon. Lee H. Hamilton, Member of Congress
Hon. David R. Obey, Member of Congress
Dr. Michael H. Van Dusen, Staff Consultant, Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on International Relations
Mr. Richard B. Howard, Department of State
Mr. Leslie A. Janka, National Security Council
Friday, November 21, 1975
1:10 p.m.-Arrived Tocumen Airport, met by Embassy Control Officer, John D. Blacken and Licdo. Fabian Velarde, Information Coordinator for Canal Treaty Negotiations, Office of the Chief of Government
2:45 p.m.-Called on Ambassador William J. Jorden, followed by briefing by Embassy staff
3:30 p.m.-Staff Briefing, American Embassy :
William J. Jorden, United States Ambassador to Panama
Raymond E. Gonzalez, Minister-Counselor, Deputy Chief of Mission
John D. Blacken, Political Counselor, American Embassy
Col. Paul P. Coroneos, Commander United States Military Group Panama George Rublee, Acting Director, Mission of the United States Agency for International Development
5:15 p.m.-Departed for Ambassador Jorden's Residence
5:30 p.m.-Met with Ambassador Jorden
7:10 p.m.-Departed Ambassador's Residence for Presidential Palace
7:30 p.m.-Dinner hosted by President of the Republic, Demitrios B. Lakas
Panamanians in Attendance at Presidential Palace
Ing. Demetrio Basilio Lakas, President of the Republic of Panama
Dr. Jorge Illueca, Foreign Policy Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Relations Licdo. Jose de la Ossa, Minister of Housing
Licdo, Luis Carlos Noriega, President of the Electoral Tribunal
Justice Julio E. Harris, Justice of Electorial Tribunal
Licdo. Nicolas Gonzalez-Revilla, Ambassador to the United States
Licdo. Ricardo de la Espriella, Director General of the National Bank of Panama
Licdo. Luis C. Pabon, Director General of the Savings Bank of Panama Licdo. Miguel Angel Picard Ami, Member of the National Legislative Commission
Ing. Ascanio Villalaz, Director of La Victoria Sugar Mill
Licdo. Mario de Diego, President of the Panamanian Chamber of Commerce Mr. Augusto Boyd, Businessman
Saturday, November 22, 1975
9:00 a.m.-Office call on Dr. Carlos Lopez-Guevara, Adviser to the Panamanian Treaty Negotiators
10:30 a.m.-Meeting with American Businessmen :
Mr. Joseph Quigley, Director, Bank of Boston
Alvin Robins, President, Metal Furniture Manufacturing Firm (MOPRESA)
Mr. Harold Sander, Architect, President, Sander Associates
12:30 p.m.-Luncheon at residence of John D. Blacken-Guests included: Guillermo Chapman, Economic and Management Consultant
Fabian Velarde, Chief Information Coordinator for Canal Treaty Negotiations, Office of the Chief of Government, Omar Torrijos.
Dr. Carlos Lopez-Guevara, Adviser to the Panamanian Canal Treaty negotiators
Dr. Jorge Illueca, Foreign Policy Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Relations Sherman N. Hinson, Political Section, American Embassy
D. Stephen May, Political Section, American Embassy
3:00 p.m.-Briefing by Panamanian Minister of Planning and Economic Policy, Nicholas Ardito Barletta
5:00 p.m.-Called on Archbishop of Panama, Msgr. Marcos McGrath
7:00 p.m.-Buffet Dinner at residence of the Deputy Chief of Mission, MinisterCounselor Raymond E. Gonzalez-Guests included:
Mr. John D. Blacken, Political Counselor
Mr. Dean Butcher, Canal Zone Labor Leader
Mr. Jorge Carraso, Journalist
Mr. Edwin Fabrega, Director of Power Company, former Public Works Minister
Mr. Roberto Gonzalez-Revilla, Businessman
Mr. George Rublee, Acting Director, AID
Sunday, November 23, 1975
8:30 a.m.-Left for Canal Zone
9:00 a.m.-Visits to Miraflores Locks and other Pacific side installations of the Panama Canal Company and meetings with Governor Harold Parfitt and Lt. Gov. Richard Hunt, including a briefing on the Panama Canal Company and its operations
12:30 p.m.-Luncheon hosted by Lt. Gen. Dennis McAuliffe, Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command
1:30 p.m.-Activities planned by U.S. Southern Command
2:00 p.m.-Helicopter trip around the entire Canal Zone
4:00 p.m.-Departed Howard Air Force Base, Canal Zone, for Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
Joint Statement by the Honorable Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of the United States of America, and His Excellency Juan Antonio Tack, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Panama, on February 7, 1974, at Panama.
The United States of America and the Republic of Panama have been engaged in negotiations to conclude an entirely new treaty respecting the Panama Canal, negotiations which were made possible by the Joint Declaration between the two countries of April 3, 1964, agreed to under the auspices of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States acting provisionally as the Organ of Consultation. The new treaty would abrogate the treaty existing since 1903 and its subsequent amendments, establishing the necessary conditions for a modern relationship between the two countries based on the most profound mutual respect. Since the end of last November, the authorized representatives of the two governments have been holding important conversations which have permitted agreement to be reached on a set of fundamental principles which will serve to guide the negotiators in the effort to conclude a just and equitable treaty eliminating, once and for all, the causes of conflict between the two countries.
The principles to which we have agreed, on behalf of our respective governments, are as follows:
1. The treaty of 1903 and its amendments will be abrogated by the conclusion of an entirely new interoceanic canal treaty.
2. The concept of perpetuity will be eliminated. The new treaty concerning the lock canal shall have a fixed termination date.
3. Termination of United States jurisdiction over Panamanian territory shall take place promptly in accordance with terms specified in the treaty.
4. The Panamanian territory in which the canal is situated shall be returned to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Panama. The Republic of Panama, in its capacity as territorial sovereign, shall grant to the United States of America, for the duration of the new interoceanic canal treaty and in accordance with what that treaty states, the right to use the lands, waters and airspace which may be necessary for the operation, maintenance, protection and defense of the canal and the transit of ships.
5. The Republic of Panama shall have a just and equitable share of the benefits derived from the operation of the canal in its territory. It is recognized that the geographic position of its territory constitutes the principal resource of the Republic of Panama.
6. The Republic of Panama shall participate in the administration of the canal, in accordance with a procedure to be agreed upon in the treaty. The treaty shall also provide that Panama will assume total responsibility for the operation of the canal upon the termination of the treaty. The Republic of Panama shall grant to the United States of America the rights necessary to regulate the transit of ships through the canal and operate, maintain, protect and defend the canal, and to undertake any other specific activity related to those ends, as may be agreed upon in the treaty.
7. The Republic of Panama shall participate with the United States of America in the protection and defense of the canal in accordance with what is agreed upon in the new treaty.
8. The United States of America and the Republic of Panama, recognizing the important services rendered by the interoceanic Panama Canal to international maritime traffic, and bearing in mind the possibility that the present canal could become inadequate for said traffic, shall agree bilaterally on provisions for new projects which will enlarge canal capacity. Such provisions will be incorporated in the new treaty in accord with the concepts established in principle 2.
"THE PANAMA CANAL: POPULAR MYTHS AND POLITICAL REALITIES", ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE ELLSWORTH BUNKER, AMBASSADOR AT LARGE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BEFORE THE LOS ANGELES WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DECEMBER 2, 1975
I am here today to discuss with you the Panama Canal
It is a controversial subject that has evoked emotion and opposition.
But my travels in the United States, the letters I get from concerned citizens, the articles I read in the press, and my many consultations with Congressmen have convinced me that much of this opposition stems from a number of false impressions about the basis for our presence in the Canal Zone.
Because of this, I would like today to talk about the background of the problem we face and comment on some of the myths surrounding the canal treaty and negotiations.
And I want to talk about the political realities which make it desirable, in my judgment, to bring the negotiations to an early and satisfactory conclusion.
By speaking to you today I am departing from a practice I have long followed.
Previously, while serving as a negotiator, I have avoided making public statements.
I am here today because this negotiation is unique.
No effort to improve our policy concerning the canal can succeed without the full understanding and support of the Congress and the American people.
Our presence in the canal has a constituency among the American people but our negotiations to solve our problem there do not.
So, if we are to gain support, we must find it through candid and reasonable public discussion.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM
Our story begins 72 years ago.
In 1903 the newly-independent Republic of Panama granted to the United States in the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty a strip of land 10 miles wide and 50 miles long for the construction, maintenance, operation and protection of a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific.
The treaty also gave the United States in perpetuity the right to act within that strip of land "as if it were the sovereign."
It was quickly and widely acknowledged that the treaty favored the United States.
When Secretary of State John Hay submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification he said:
"We shall have a treaty very satisfactory, vastly advantageous to the U.S., and we must confess, not so advantageous to Panama."
For many years Panama has considered the treaty to be heavily weighted in our favor.
As a result, the level of Panama's consent to our presence has steadily declined.
And by Panama, I mean not simply the government, but the Panamanian people.
The Panamanians point out:
First, that the existence of the Canal Zone impedes Panama's development.
The Canal Zone cuts across the heartland of Panama's territory, dividing the nation in two.
The existence of the Zone curbs the natural growth of Panama's urban areas.
It holds, unused, large areas of land vital to Panama's development.
It controls all the major deep-water port facilities serving Panama.
And it prevents Panamanians from competing with American commercial enterprises in the Zone.
And for the rights we enjoy on Panamanian territory, we pay Panama only $2.3 million a year.
Second, that the Canal Zone infringes on Panama's
Panama says the privileges exercised by the United States deprive their country of dignity and, indeed, of full independence. Within the Canal Zone the United States operates a fullfledged government without reference to the Government of Panama, which is its host.