ARTICLE V

After the termination of the Panama Canal Treaty, only the Republic of Panama shall operate the Canal and maintain military forces, defense sites and military installations within its national territory.

ARTICLE VI

1. In recognition of the important contributions of the United States of America and of the Republic of Panama to the construction, operation, and maintenance, and protection and defense of the Canal, vessels of war and auxiliary vessels of those nations shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Treaty, be entitled to transit the Canal irrespective of their internal operation, means of propulsion, origin, destination, armament or cargo carried. Such vessels of war and auxiliary vessels will be entitled to transit the Canal expeditiously.

2. The United States of America, so long as it has responsibility for the operation of the Canal, may continue to provide the Republic of Colombia toll-free transit through the Canal for its troops, vessels and materials of war. Thereafter, the Republic of Panama may provide the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica with the right of toll-free transit.

ARTICLE VII

1. The United States of America and the Republic of Panama shall jointly sponsor a resolution in the Organization of American States opening to accession by all States of the world the Protocol to this Treaty whereby all the signatories will adhere to the objectives of this Treaty, agreeing to respect the regime of neutrality set forth herein.

2. The Organization of American States shall act as the depositary for this Treaty and related instruments.

ARTICLE VIII

This Treaty shall be subject to ratification in accordance with the constitutional procedures of the two Parties. The instruments of ratification of this Treaty shall be exchanged at Panama at the same time as the instruments of ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, signed this date, are exchanged. This Treaty shall enter into force, simultaneously with the Panama Canal Treaty, six calendar months from the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification.

Done at Washington, this 7th day of September, 1977, in duplicate, in the English and Spanish languages, both texts being equally authentic.

ANNEX A

1. "Canal" includes the existing Panama Canal, the entrances thereto and the territorial seas of the Republic of Panama adjacent thereto, as defined on the map annexed hereto (Annex B), and any other interoceanic waterway in which the United States of America is a participant or in which the United States of America has participated in connection with the construction or financing, that may be operated wholly or partially within the territory of the Republic of Panama, the entrances thereto and the territorial seas adjacent thereto.

2. "Vessel of war" means a ship belonging to the naval forces of a State, and bearing the external marks distinguishing warships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government and whose name appears in the Navy List, and manned by a crew which is under regular naval discipline.

3. "Auxiliary vessel" means any ship, not a vessel of war, that is owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, exclusively on government noncommercial service.

4. "Internal operation" encompasses all machinery and propulsion systems, as well as the management and control of the vessel, including its crew. It does not include the measures necessary to transit vessels under the control of pilots while such vessels are in the Canal.

5. "Armament" means arms, ammunitions, implements of war and other equipment of a vessel which possesses characteristics appropriate for use for warlike purposes.

6. "Inspection" includes on-board examination of vessel structure, cargo, armament and internal operation. It does not include those measures strictly necessary for admeasurement, nor those measures strictly necessary to assure safe, sanitary transit and navigation, including examination of deck and visual navigation equip ment, nor in the case of live cargoes, such as cattle or other livestock, that may

carry communicable diseases, those measures necessary to assure that health and sanitation requirements are satisfied.

PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY CONCERNING THE Permanent Neutrality and OPERATION OF THE PANAma Canal

Whereas the maintenance of the neutrality of the Panama Canal is important not only to the commerce and security of the United States of America and the Republic of Panama, but to the peace and security of the Western Hemisphere and to the interests of world commerce as well;

Whereas the regime of neutrality which the United States of America and the Republic of Panama have agreed to maintain will ensure permanent access to the Canal by vessels of all nations on the basis of entire equality;

Whereas the said regime of effective neutrality shall constitute the best protection for the Canal and shall ensure the absence of any hostile act against it; The Contracting Parties to this Protocol have agreed upon the following:

ARTICLE I

The Contracting Parties hereby acknowledge the regime of permanent neutrality for the Canal established in the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal and associate themselves with its objectives.

ARTICLE II

The Contracting Parties agree to observe and respect the regime of permanent neutrality of the Canal in time of war as in time of peace, and to ensure that vessels of their registry strictly observe the applicable rules.

ARTICLE III

This Protocol shall be open to accession by all states of the world, and shall enter into force for each State at the time of deposit of its instrument of accession with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States.

THE TRANS-CANADIAN SYSTEM COULD COMPOUND A

FOLLY

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Senate will eventually be obliged to take under consideration the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty. I hope that it will not be ratified. I have been very open in my opposition of the treaty and have expressed this opposition from the floor on several occasions.

I do not know what your feelings may be or how you intend to vote on this important issue. However, there is a second and in someways similar matter concerning this Nation's relation with a foreign power which will also be considered by this body in the very near future. I am speaking of the selection of a system to deliver natural gas from Alaska. We have two proposals for consideration-a Trans-Canadian system or an all American system. Should we adopt a delivery system requiring agreements with Canada for an overland pipeline through that Nation, we cannot overlook the comparisons with the original Panama Canal agreement and particularly the safeguards accruing to this Nation at the time the agreement was adopted.

First, as to the Panama Canal, the United States exercised sovereign rights over the entire right-of-way. If we adopt a Canadian overland route we will enjoy no rights-sovereign or otherwise over any of the right-of-way.

Second, an American company built, owned, and operated the entire canal facility. The proposed Canadian overland route would

be built, owned and operated exclusively by companies which are foreign controlled.

Third, all tariffs and taxes relative to the Panama Canal were under exclusive U.S. control. Canada, on the other hand, would exercise full control over taxes and tariffs within its national boundaries. Because of the relationship between the Canadian central government and provincial authority, it is not clear how these taxes and tariffs would be levied or controlled. There is, in fact, considerable argument in favor of the right of the province to levy taxes regardless of the wording of any national agreement.

Fourth, the tariffs and all bills paid for the use of the canal by international shipping companies were paid by these international shipping companies. The U.S. consumer will pay all costs for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an overland pipeline through Canada.

Mr. President, I question the advisability of this Nation giving serious consideration to embarking on a new $10 billion project across Canada which at the outset has none of the safeguards we found so necessary in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Panama Canal. The decision we make will affect our natural gas delivery for at least 40 years. It does not make sense to place our dependence for this vital energy fuel in the hands of a foreign power when we have an alternative. I recommend that we approve the all American alternative thereby assuring that our natural gas will remain under our control.

[From the Congressional Record-Senate, Sept. 12, 1977]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, in the September 11 issue of the New York Times appeared a most interesting and informative article by Capt. Paul B. Ryan, USN retired, a research associate at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University.

From this article it can be seen that there are two areas, at least, in the Panama Canal Treaty on which the American negotiators placed one construction and the Panamanians placed another construction.

Both of these provisions or the construction of both of these provisions is most important to the rights the United States would have in the event this treaty is approved by the Senate.

The first has to do with the right of the United States to defend the canal. The article points out:

But does this ostensibly forthright interpretation of treaty terms—

That is, the United States would have the right to defend the canal

Which presumably protect vital United States strategic interests, coincide with that held by Panama? The answer is no, if you listen to its chief treaty negotiator, Dr. Romulo Escobar Bethancourt, who analyzed the treaty's provisions at a news conference in Panama City on Aug. 24.

Dr. Escobar's comments were broadcast by radio and subsequently published in the Daily Report of our Government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Surprisingly, Dr. Escobar's astonishing views, which directly contradict the White House's, appear to have been given very little publicity or entirely overlooked by the United States news media.

Dr. Escobar roundly rejects the Carter Administration's claim that the United States may send in troops.

Mind you, this was the chief negotiator on the part of the Panamanians.

Quoting from his interview:

"The treaty does not establish that the United States has the right to intervene [that is, send in troops] in Panama," he said. He denied that the treaty gives the United States the right to decide when neutrality is violated or not. Neither, in his view, do United States warships have the right of expeditious transit without conditions.

As Dr. Escobar inelegantly put it: "If the gringos

Referring to the people of the United States

with their warships say, 'I want to go through first,' then that is their problem with the other ships there." Presumably, Panamanian officials would look idly on while United States Navy captains, during an international crisis—

And that is a word for war or close proximity

haggled with merchant skippers for a place at the head of the waiting line of ships. So much for the United States right to unimpeded transit and the defense of the waterway!

Faced with Panama's refusal to allow "privileged passage," the Americans finally accepted the term "expeditious transit," in order, said Dr. Escobar, to "sell" the treaty to the Pentagon. "Now they [the United States diplomats] could explain that this means privileged passage. * Do not believe that we mean that," he empha

sized.

So you have two different constructions placed on two different sections of the treaty: one, the right of the United States to defend the canal, and Dr. Escobar says the United States will not have the

right to say when the neutrality is being violated nor, he says, does she have the right to send in troops.

How are we going to defend the canal if we do not have the right to say when neutrality is in danger or if we do not have the right to send in troops? So if they do not have a meeting of the minds, Mr. President, if the Panamanians and the United States negotiators differ on these two most important points, how is it we can say this treaty is in the best interests of the people of the United States?

So I am hopeful, of course, when this matter does come up-and I see the distinguished majority leader here on the floor-I am hopeful, even though the distinguished majority leader says he wants to carry this matter over until next year, it will be brought up this year, and that the Senate will be allowed to express its will, that is, decide to give or not to give its advice and consent to the treaty.

So I am hopeful we can have action on this treaty this year. But if we do not have a meeting of the minds between Panama and the United States as to what these important provisions_mean-these are just two of them, I do not know how many other instances there are-but this is Dr. Escobar himself saying he has a difference of opinion with the U.S. negotiators, so if we do not know what the treaty means, if there is a sharp difference of opinion about what it means, how can the Senate be called upon to give its advice and consent to the approval of this treaty?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be placed in the Record, and also an article this morning in the Washington Post by Congressman Philip Crane "Our Standing in the World Would Diminish"; and an article by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Helms, in the Washington Post of this morning, "This Alternative to the Carter Proposals."

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Sept. 11, 1977]

THE CANAL TERMS, ARGUED FROM DIFFERENT PREMISES

(By Paul B. Ryan)

STANFORD, CALIF.-In his frenetic blitz to gain public approval of the two Panama Canal treaties, President Carter has stressed that he wishes to dispel misinformation by laying out the facts. Thus, he and his chief negotiators, Ellsworth Bunker and Sol M. Linowitz, repeatedly have assured the public that the United States would have the permanent right to defend the canal by sending troops into Panama in time of crisis. Additionally, the White House says that United States warships would have "the permanent right to transit the canal expeditiously and without conditions, for an indefinite period."

But does this ostensibly forthright interpretation of treaty terms, which presumably protect vital United States strategic interests, coincide with that held by Panama? The answer is no, if you listen to its chief treaty negotiator, Dr. Romulo Escobar Bethancourt, who analyzed the treaty's provisions at a news conference in Panama City on Aug. 24.

Dr. Escobar's comments were broadcast by radio and subsequently published in the Daily Report of our Government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Surprisingly, Dr. Escobar's astonishing views, which directly contradict the White House, appear to have been given very little publicity or entirely overlooked by the United States news media.