his rambling speeches throughout Panama and Central America and has given evidence of harboring a deep grude against us that would make reasonable dealings impossible. As the looters in the New York blackout, he would justify mistreatment of the U.S. by claiming that she was guilty of years of oppression and abuse toward Panama and it was therefore her day to retaliate toward the colossus of the North who had wrested from her her most valuable asset.

The present Panamanian government was established by a military coup when a democratically elected president, Arnulfo Arias, was ousted from office by the Guardia Nacional, Panama's army, because he planned to name a general of his own choosing as its head. There was no uprising of the people, and no anger against the existing government or its form. In fact, the people were happy with the election of their hero, who had been elected by them twice before.

The so-called "revolucion" was nothing but a power play by a group of men who had all of the guns and who just decided to take over the reigns of government and establish a dictatorship for their own benefit. Many of these men have become very rich and have unlimited power.

Just how President Carter can harmonize his advocacy of "Human Rights" by attempting a transfer of the canal to a government that has deprived its citizens of democratic rights, has eliminated freedom of the press, exiles native-born citizens and incarcerates its citizens without fair trials is beyond comprehension. I believe that he is the victim of a great deal of misinformation and is overpersuaded by his zeal to curry favor with the other southern countries and avoid conflict.

A recent report by Jack Anderson, political columnist is strongly indicative of the type of mentality that controls Panama's affairs. Anderson said, "There is disturbing evidence that Panama's strongman, Omar Torrijos, has struck a secret deal with Libya's wildman, Muammar Quaddafi, to give the Arab extremist a foothold in the Americas and to cooperate with the Arab boycott against the Jews. The erratic Kaddafi is regarded as one of the world's most irresponsible rulers.

He has armed radical terrorist groups, tried to purchase nuclear weapons, subsidized Uganda's zany Idid Amin and engaged in various harum-scarum intrigues." The article dated June 6, 1977 said further that two months ago Torrijos and Qaddfi pledged allegiance to each other and recent antisemitism has been reported in Panama. All this because Torrijos is so badly in need of funds to run his government that he might turn against the Jews in return for Arab petrodollars.

CANAL NOT OBSOLETE

The tales indulged in by those who would surrender the canal are to the effect that it is obsolete and no good anymore for the world's ships are too large for it. Nothing could be further from the truth says David McCullough. In his recent best seller, "The Path Between the Seas," he wrote that the supertankers that can't go through represent a tiny fraction of the ships at sea. "If there is a problem with the canal, it's that too much traffic wants to go through it. There are 14,000 to 15,000 ships a year going through the canal today. Far more than ten years ago and less than will be ten years from now."

Canal Zone's Gov. Harold Parfitt said at a recent hearing of a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate, about 92% of the ships of the world can transit the canal. This certainly gives the lie to those who prate of the antiquity of the "big ditch."

SECURITY OF UNITED STATES

It is interesting to see that President Carter and his negotiators are stressing the fact that the new treaties will benefit the security of the U.S. This is one of the imponderables that the propagandists would thrust upon us.

We now have full control in perpetuity.

We have our troops there who can be armed, massed and used at our discretion. Our technicians, our engineers, our pilots and other U.S. citizens are there to insure the safe operation of the canal. Our police and our courts are in control of law enforcement. Lt. Gen. McAuliffe, Commanding General of the Southern Command in his testimony before the Senate Subcommittee July 22, 1977 said that with a few more men he could defend it.

As publicized, under the new treaties Panama will have much control in 3 years and she will have control of 70% of the land immediately. This land has long been considered vital to the operation of the canal and the safety and security of the people living in the Zone. Millions of dollars will be paid out to Panama as loans and grants and as a part of the tolls when the canal is already losing money. How in the world can anybody in his right mind think that our security is insured with these changes and with a Communist-minded dictator in control of the government receiving these benefits.

The dictator has been rattling the saber in every speech he has made about the canal. He has constantly threatened the Zone with invasion and promised to lead this generation to take the canal by force. Now we would turn it over to him and pay him great sums of money in protection and our leadership talks of increased security.

Already certain Panamanian factions are disgruntled because the canal will not be completely surrendered immediately. They are grousing because our troops will be left in certain territories and there are words in the treaties that would let the U.S. perpetually protect the neutrality of the canal after Panama gets full control. I was in Panama the time of the Remon-Eisenhower Treaty of 1955 and the ink was not dry before dissident factions were shouting against the U.S. and the same will happen this time. Our people apparently will never learn to cope with the communist-type mentality that is never satisfied and constantly clamors for more and more and more.

There is only one way to deal with people of this kind and it is not in the payment of protection money nor in the ceding of rights. The only way is by a strong position that will be respected. The constant assumption of guilt, the tearful cries that we have mistreated Panama over the years and admissions to false charges of colonialism that have been accepted by our State Department are not the methods to guarantee our security. We will not only endanger our position but we will lose the respect of the nations of the world. They know we bought it, built it, and should continue to operate it unhampered for our benefit and theirs.

COLONIALISM AND TREATY OUT OF DATE

Those sponsoring a new treaty with Panama label the opposition as red-necked chauvinists who are clinging to a relic of the colonial period of the U.S. and who would mistreat a friendly little country.

In the language of our liberal press, those who feel that a relinquishment of the canal would endanger the security and welfare of the U.S. are "jingoistic demagogues" who in some unknown but positively malicious and vicious manner hope to realize personal gain from their position. They write that the 1903 treaty is antiquated and that its provisions are archaic and a revision is long overdue.

Well, a few of those charged with chauvinism are the four retired chiefs of Naval Operations I have named, Admirals Moorer, Burke, Anderson and Carney. Another suffering the same charge is Herman Phleger, one of the most distinguished lawyers in the country, legal advisor to the Department of State under Eisenhower and architect of the far-reaching Antarctic Treaty. His position, well taken, that the U.S. operated under duress.

Those who would gain materially are not the little so-called "red necks" but the big American banks that have loaned millions to the dictator and need to be bailed out as he is on the verge of bankruptcy. The big businessmen that feel they stand to lose by being ejected from Panama and sympathetic countries, also view new treaties as opportunities to improve their positions.

For those bleeding hearts that say solemnly that the treaty "drafted in 1903 is badly outdated" have just failed to read their diplomatic history. Panama and the U.S. have been negotiating almost without interruption since the original treaty was signed.

A "Claims Convention" adjusting claims between the citizens of the two countries was celebrated in 1926 and modified in 1932.

Another Claims Convention was celebrated in 1950 and an arrangement for customs and space was celebrated in 1960 with an addendum in 1962.

In 1942 there was an agreement for the lease of defense sites which had to do with roads, airbases, lands, buildings, etc.

In 1904 there was a treaty for the mutual extradition of criminals which was amplified in 1906.

Also in 1904 there was a monetary agreement celebrated between the countries wherein the U.S. agreed to keep the monetary units of Panama at a parity with the U.S. dollar and that agreement was negotiated and amended in 1930, 1931, 1936, 1946, 1950, 1953 and 1962.

In 1936 a "General Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation" which was motivated by the "desire to strengthen further the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the two countries", was celebrated.

In 1942 they celebrated the "General Relations Agreement."

In 1955 with much ceremony and publicity was celebrated the "Treaty of Mutual Understanding and Cooperation" abrogating and changing many points of difference in the treaty of 1903.

After the riots and border incidents of January 9, 1964 the parties began another series of negotiations and in 1967 the negotiators had agreed. When this three-part treaty was made public there was a general roar of opposition voiced by the vocal elements in Panama and as a consequence it was never ratified.

TEDDY ROOSEVELT'S STATEMENT

Many who attack the U.S. control point to statements made by Teddy Roosevelt before Congress or in the heat of a political campaign when it was popular for us to have undertaken the tremendous effort to build the canal, when he was reputed to have said, "I took the Isthmus" or "I took Panama." They scornfully state that such statements were an indication of "big stick" tactics and that now we should humbly make reparations and apologize.

In Roosevelt's autobiography which describes the faithlessness of J. M. Marroquin, the dictator of Colombia at the time and the impossibility of completing a treaty with that country, he says,

"No one connected with the American Government had any part in preparing, inciting, or encouraging the revolution, and except for the reports of our military and naval officers, which I forwarded to Congress, no one connected with the government had any previous knowledge concerning the proposed revolution, except such as was accessible to any person who read the newspapers and kept abreast of the current questions and current affairs. By the unanimous action of its people and without the firing of a shot, the State of Panama declared themselves an independent Republic."

I choose to believe the autobiographic statement made in an atmosphere of reflection, as to what actually occurred rather than polemic declarations made during the violent discussions that were the order of the day when Teddy was running for office.

FRIENDLY NEGOTIATIONS?

We are told by the Department of State and the American negotiators that we should do justice to a friendly little country and that the proposed treaties have been negotiated in an atmosphere of friendly cooperation. We then learn that Sr. Romulo Escobar Bethancourt, chief negotiator for Panama, has said to a group of government officials in a speech since agreement has been declared, that if the U.S. Congress rejects the treaty the Panamanians will "take the road to violence" and he said further, "Omar Torrijos has tried to get the negotiations to work out because we did not want on our conscience the deaths of our youths." These are naked threats quite obviously made to incite the Panamanians and to frighten the U.S. Congress.

Panama is small with less than 2 million people but it has a well-armed, welltrained fighting force skilled in the arts of guerrilla warfare and sabotage. These threats are made by a group of ruthless opportunists who not only are demanding the surrender of U.S. property but have the monstrous gall to demand that the U.S. pay them to take it. It is reported that Castro urged Torrijos to scale down his demands and accept what the American negotiators offered. So much for our naivete.

The canal has always been vulnerable to sabotage but wrecking it would certainly not be to Panama's advantage. If attempts at sabotage are in mind, a treaty that delays full control to Panama for 20 or more years will not deter the radical saboteurs.

The dictator and his crew are engaging in psychological warfare when they threaten invasion and hoping that an America sickened by Vietnam will weaken to avoid a similar tragic mess. The obvious answer is that Panama has no such size or resources and no neighbors willing to support her.

Panama needs tourist trade and foreign investments and to develop a situation of guerrilla activity like in Ireland and other parts of the world would be most destructive to her and her people and would soon overthrow Torrijos and sue for peace.

UNITY OF CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES IN SUPPORT OF PANAMA

Torrijos would have us believe that the Central and South American countries are united behind Panama in her demands and the U.S. negotiators hold over us the specter of loss of trade opportunities and rapport with those countries in the event we fail to cede. Nothing could be further from the truth. At a recent meeting in Colombia to express solidarity only five leaders were present: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama and Mexico.

Anyone familiar with the history of Central and South American countries with their border wars and revolutions knows that all is not sweetness and light between them and their leaders will do exactly what they think is right for themselves. Unity between them is a myth that should be given no credence by responsible men. Marilyn Guardabassi, who writes "A Woman's View" stated in her column of Aug. 22, 1977:

"Carter's insistence that Latin American countries are in favor of our relinquishing the canal or that such a move would enhance our image is false. Three quarters of all Latin American countries wholeheartedly support our maintaining our sovereignty, particularly those located on the Pacific Coast, for they realize that American control is their only guarantee that the canal will remain open to world shipping. This giveaway, and especially under duress from a two-bit dictator, makes us look ridiculous, not only in this hemisphere, but in the eyes of the world." Dr. George W. Fontaine, Director of Latin American studies at Georgetown University in an article opposing the treaties written for the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 22 states:

"Yet even though no Latin American regime publicly supports the United States, the depth of pro-Panamanian feeling varies considerably from country to country. It is strongest in Venezuela, Colombia and possibly Mexico; it is weakest in the southern cone of South America. For example, Brazilians, heavy users of the canal, have privately expressed deep misgivings over Panamanian control."

Latin Americans are highly intelligent people. Many are internationalists, educated in Europe, the U.S. and other parts of the world. Each nation is separate and distinct, and proud of its own culture and traditions. Many customs have been handed down from the "Mother Country, Spain", but they have developed their own dances, music, art and literature. Some say that their national sport is revolution. They cannot be lumped together as they have different climates, ethnic groups and geography and they must be dealt with individually. Nicaragua is a great friend of the U.S. but I can remember when we sent Marines there to protect our interests and we were thoroughly hated. Costa Rica was a short time ago our great friend but now she has been weaned away and although she and Panama once had a border "war" she now sides with Panama against us.

Brazil was once against us and she is now a good friend, Chile and Peru were once our friends and now they are not nor are they friendly to each other.

All of the countries have their individual economic problems that are frequently competitive and they are looking for markets and opportunities. If they feel that the U.S. will serve them better in the Canal Zone they will be for U.S. retention although some of their demagogues and radical elements will give lip service to Panama.

I am reminded of the statement about Europe that the Italians hate the Germans and the Germans hate the Italians. The English hate the French and the French hate everybody. An analysis of the Central and South American countries would reveal a comparable situation.

CONCLUSION

Our President has been badly advised by a group of State Department officials and emissaries of banks and big business. He is desirous of forming a new relationship with the Central and South American countries and he believes that the proposed new treaties will effectuate an era of friendship and cooperation. He is to be commended for his desires as a great deal must be done in this hemisphere. There was a time when American products led the way. Asiatic and European automobiles, appliances and products have captured the markets, not because of the canal problem but because they are cheaper, of good quality and are just outselling our products. There has never been any great love in Panama for the Asiatics but they are going great today.

Communist countries are constantly seeking footholds in the great South American continent with its tremendous natural resources and population explosion. If we lose the canal they will have acquired a great position of vital importance.

Weakness is not the answer and as publicized the present proposals are weak. They will only whet appetites for additional concessions tomorrow.

The talk of a sea level canal is smoke screen and the present treaties are not binding upon Panama to permit us preference that could be enforced except by some military intervention and it would be hard to imagine the U.S. going into Panama with an army to build a sea level canal.

Our country spent 17 million dollars exploring the possibility of constructing such a canal and suggested that it could be done in the rugged area of Panama near the Columbian border with nuclear devices but Panama was horrified at the thought.

Suggestions that such a canal could be built with conventional digging equipment were equally unwelcome as it would cause the death of the terminal cities of Panama City and Colon. The present lock canal provides those cities with great commerce from the ships that stop enroute through the locks and a sea level canal located anywhere would kill that trade.

The ecologists are up in arms about such a canal for the dangers to the great fishing industries. The present canal is a body of fresh water that successfully prevents mixing of the flora and fauna between the oceans. What would happen if a sluice way of salt water were to be opened between them is a matter of great concern to scientists and engineers.

The U.S. owns the canal and the surrounding lands. Why not keep them? Panama should probably receive additional benefits because of the overtures made by our government and our desire to retain her friendship but the people of the U.S. must recognize that as long as we have a presence there of any kind there will be outbreaks of hostilities. When she was part of Colombia Teddy Roosevelt recites that there were 53 revolutions in 57 years.

During my 25 years in office there were 2 strong attacks on the C.Z., 1959 and 1964, and there were many abortive attempts on the part of students and communists. Also, there were, of course, internal problems with the assassination of President Remon and the coup which put the present dictator in power.

We should not place the security and commerce of our nation in the hands of a hard drinking, meagerly educated, communist-leaning dictator who is threatening the U.S. with "give us the canal or else." This man lives by the sword and could die -by_the sword and a new leader could regard any treaty as just so much paper. There is the possibility of bloodshed under the present arrangement as there is under any new arrangement. History has demonstrated that such is the way of life in Panama.

There is no honor in appeasement and blackmail leads only to violence.

THE CANAL TREATIES: OTHER CONSERVATIVE VIEWS AND VOICES

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to consider the Panama Canal Treaties, I think it is important to point out that many traditionally conservative spokesmen have expressed their approval for these pacts. Columnist William F. Buckley, Jr. and actor John Wayne have indicated their support of these treaties. I might also add that the editor of the Indianapolis news, Mr. Harvey Jacobs, wrote a column for his newspaper on August 27 discussing the disadvantages of continuing the present treaty relationship with Panama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this material be printed in the Record. I think this is evidence that hard thinking Americans regardless of ideological persuasion realize that the Panama Canal Treaties serve our Nation's interest.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[From the Indianapolis News, Aug. 27, 1977]

CHOOSING UP SIDES ON PANAMA

(By Harvey Jacobs)

Take it from a military man who spent several years in Panama that the Americans who ran the Canal were a separate enclave who looked down their noses at the Panamanians.

He said it before the Canal treaty was even a gleam in Ellsworth Bunker's eye: "Sometime we'll pay the price of segregation in Panama, too."

This man left Panama several years ago; perhaps the attitude changed after his departure. But at least one man was not proud of our "ugly American" image in that place.

29-400 - 78 - 43