[From the Congressional Record-Senate, Dec. 15, 1977] THE AMERICAN LEGION SPEAKS ON THE PANAMA CANAL ISSUE Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, within a few months after the Senate reconvenes we will probably be called upon to pass upon the treaties negotiated between the executive departments of our government and the Government of Panama. In this connection, the National Commander of the American Legion, in the December issue of the American Legion magazine, has again expressed his opposition to ratification. As some Senators may not have read the national commander's statement, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record for the information of the Senate. There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows: WE HAVE AGAIN STUDIED THE TREATY; WE STILL SAY "No" Why is The American Legion so vehement in its opposition to the Panama Canal Treaty? Does it want to alienate all of Latin America? Does it want to invite sabotage against the canal? Does it really believe the canal is still vital to U.S. security? The questions have dogged me in my first months as your national commander. I believe I should use this forum to reply so every American Legion member understands our position before Senate debate. First, our opposition is directed at the treaty, not at the people of Panama. The American Legion has consistently supported fair and equitable payments to Panama for the canal, generous social and material assistance for its people and constant modernization of the canal for the economic and military well-being of the entire Western Hemisphere. Debaters avoid these economic and security factors. Isn't it disturbing that although this treaty has been negotiated by four U.S. administrations, the text was not made public until the eve of the gala signing ceremony at the White House? We were treated to a spectacle in which virtually every hemisphere chief of state signed a protocol for a treaty they had not read! Subsequently, it became apparent that Washington and Panama City did not even agree what the text meant. Worse, the controversy has centered on circumstances under which the United States could exercise its military might to protect the canal and the hemisphere. President Carter and President Torrijos finally met and announced that they agreed on the interpretation of the treaty's vague language-but they did not clarify the language in the treaty. An "understanding" between two heads of state is fine, but it lacks the force of law. What happens when Mr. Carter and or Gen. Torrijos have left office? The American Legion does not believe such questions should rest on a reed called "understanding." In 1975 alone, 14,000 ships transited the canal. Forty-five percent of these voyages originated in the United States. These ships were loaded with the agricultural and manufactured exports vital to our balance of trade and payments. Any increase in tolls by Panama could have devastaitng effect on the world market position of the American farmer, laborer, businessman. The Mississippi Valley, Plains States and the east coast are vulnerable. Should the canal ever be closed to U.S. ships, the Commerce Department estimates a $932 million jump in the price of U.S. exports, a $583 million jump in the price of imports. The impact would be chaotic. On military issues there have been honest differences of opinion between highly qualified men who have debated the importance of the canal, but none has denied that loss of the canal in a time of emergency could be disastrous. Yet the very provisions of the treaty that are supposed to guarantee our right of intervention are those that cause anguish among left-wing Panamanians. It's true that our biggest aircraft carriers cannot transit the canal. But 95 percent of U.S. fighting ships can, including powerful nuclear forces. There's a lot more to the Navy than its giant flattops And what about Panama, this government headed by Gen. Torrijos? His friendship for Castro is disquieting. His henchmen and propagandists have flayed the United States for years with phoney "colonialism" charges. Yet who has advertised the human rights survey of Panama by the respected Freedom House? That survey ranks Panama as the most dictatorial regime in the Hemisphere. When Torrijos seized power in Panama in 1968, the country had a debt of $167 million. Today it owes over $1.5 billion and there has been precious little improvement in the lot of the average Panamanian. Under the treaty, the United States-in addition to huge annual payments to Panama-would encourage banks to loan Torrijos another $300 million. Faced with all this, we are asked to endorse: 1. Surrender of control over a vital waterway built by American ingenuity and American money on land fairly purchased by the United States. 2. Surrender of all defense rights within 22 years, sooner should Panama exercise full sovereignty. 3. Surrender of U.S. sovereignty over the canal and the Canal Zone and the exposure of the human rights of U.S. citizens to Torrijos' law. 4. Granting veto power to Panama over any potential U.S. plan to build another Atlantic-Pacific canal anywhere in Central America. 5. Acceptance of nebulous language-backed by imprecise personal agreementsthat U.S. warships would have priority use of the canal during any emergency. The American Legion cannot endorse such a treaty. We pray that the Senate shares our fears. SENATE NEEDS EARLY OAS REPORT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONDITIONS IN PANAMA Mr. STONE. Mr. President, at hearings on October 13 of Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the proposed new Panama Canal treaties, my colleague, Senator Case (pages 9-45 to 9-46) said: I am disappointed in the reports so far from the Secretary of State in regard to the condition of human rights in Panama. It does not seem to me to meet the requirements of the statute or the Congressional intent with which it was passed. I intend to pursue that myself. That date's hearing summary pointed out that Senator Case asked the Department of State to give the Foreign Relations Committee an updated report on human rights conditions in Panama. On October 11, 1977, before the House International Relations Committee, the respected and prestigious civil rights attorney, David Carliner, expressed concern about that day's statement by William P. Stedman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for InterAmerican Affairs, who said: It is gratifying that on September 13 the Panamanian government invited the Inter-American Human Rights Commission to visit Panama to investigate the various charges of human rights violations which have been made and to report its findings. Torrijos promised that if any political prisoners were found, they would be released. Mr. Carliner commented: Incidentally, although the Inter-American Human Rights Commission has completed its visit, its report is not likely to be published for a few months, and even then, only if Panama or the Council of the Organization of American States authorizes publication. Mr. Carliner is a board member and associate treasurer of the International League for Human Rights. That oganization includes such present and past honorary president and vice presidents as Roger N. Baldwin, Rene Casin, Gunner Myrdal, Fenner Brockway, Jan Papanek, and Andrei D. Sakharov. On November 28, the Law yers Committee of the International League for Human Rights wrote to the Organization of American States as follows: Re Panama. Mr. CHARLES MOYER, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States, Washington, D.C. NOVEMBER 28, 1977. DEAR MR. MOYER: I am an attorney at law and a member of the Lawyers Committee of International Human Rights. I am sending this letter on behalf of the International League for Human Rights. We have reviewed a considerable amount of material and have conferred with several individuals who are familiar with the human rights situation in Panama. Based upon the foregoing, we have reason to believe that there are violations of human rights in Panama which warrant investigation by the mission which your organization will be sending to Panama. What follows is a brief summary of those alleged violations, together with copies of several supporting documents and references to other printed materials which are not annexed but which can be furnished at your request. On the island of Coiba it is reported that there exists a penal colony where prisoners are allegedly subjected to inhumane treatment. In Panama City is Carcelo Modelo, where prisoners are detained after arrest. Conditions there are reportedly brutal. Torture is reported to be practiced there as a matter of routine, particularly upon political prisoners. The National Guard appears to be beyond the reach of the law. Arbitrary arrest, torture and illegal detention by the National Guard appear to prevail throughout the country. Political prisoners can be held without trial for a period of 15 years. With the exception of the recent debates preceding the plebiscite which ratified the Treaty, public assembly has been severely curtailed. Political parties and professional and labor organizations which oppose the government are prohibited. New dissemination is subject to government approval, and in some instances broadcasts have been interrupted and newspapers closed down for presenting anti-government views. Many political opponents of the government have been exiled. Some have reportedly been assassinated; others have disappeared without explanation. The constitution adopted in 1972 guarantees most basic freedoms and due process of law. In practice, none of the constitutional guarantees applies to political prison ers. Article 277 of the constitution establishes General Torrijos as the "maximum leader" giving him full power for six years to make all major executive, judicial and military appointments. Three cabinet decrees promulgated in 1969 are applied independently of the constitution. Decree 341 prohibits public meetings in Panama City and Colon. Decree 342 authorizes detention without trial for 15 years. In a recent statement made on November 12, 1977, the President of Panama publicly admitted that this practice is "not right." (New York Times 11/13/77). Decree 343 imposes self-censorship upon all forms of media. In support of the foregoing, I have annexed copies of the following documents which should be studied carefully for factual details not fully set forth in this letter: 1. Manuscript of Leopoldo Aragon describing conditions at Colba. 2. Statement of Leopoldo Aragon of his intention to immolate himself in protest against violations of human rights in Panama. 3. Letter dated 9/20/77 from Rose M. Aragon. 4. Letter (undated) from the Panamanian Committee for Human Rights to Amnesty International. 5. Statement of Antonio Poore dated September 15, 1976. 6. Resolution of the Inter-American Press Association (dated October 1977) and Report of its Committee on Freedom of the Press and Information concerning Panama. 7. Excerpt from New York Times article (11/13/77, p. 1) containing an admission by General Torrijos that holding political prisoners without trial is "not right.” Reference is made to Volumes I and II published by the Panamanian Committee for Human Rights in 1976, particularly Chapters 1 and 5. Reference is also made to the testimony of Rose Marie Aragon and Winston Robles before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 12, 1977, and the testimony of Winston Robles and Eusebio Marchosky before the House Subcommit tee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations on March 30, 1977. This testimony is quite detailed and informative as to alleged human rights violations which have occurred and reportedly continue. We are still endeavoring to obtain further relevant information. If successful, we will forward such information to you. It is respectfully requested that the onsite investigation to be conducted in Panama be directed to the reported violations referred to herein. Very truly yours, RICHARD NADELMAN, Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I, too, have found the representatives of the State Department less than candid on human rights abuses in Panama. I take this occasion to call upon the Organization of American States to send us their report on their November 29 to December 7 factfinding mission to Panama as early as possible. PANAMANIAN INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING? Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I feel the time has come to comment on the lack of cooperation I have received in my efforts to secure information on the possible involvement of Panamanian General Omar Torrijos in drug-trafficking operations. My efforts to gain copies of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration files on this matter, through legitimate and customary channels, have met with delay and excuse at every turn. It is one of the best examples of "stonewalling" that I have had the misfortune to experience. It has now been a full 2 months since I first filed a "freedom of information" request for copies of specific DEA files. To date, not so much as a single paragraph from those files has been provided to me by DEA officials, despite their repeated verbal promises that my request could and would be complied with. Let me briefly review the events surrounding this case. EFFORTS TO SECURE INFORMATION Mr. President, the Members of this body will recall that, on October 13 of this year, I advised the U.S. Senate of certain allegations I had received of direct involvement by Gen. Omar Torrijos and other members of his regime in drug trafficking in the United States and elsewhere. I suggested that these charges, if true, could prove relevant to the Panama Canal treaty issue. Certainly, the credibility and the personal integrity of General Torrijos and his colleagues would bear upon their reliability as Panama's guarantors of the new treaty; and, since ratification of these treaties would definitely strengthen the political and financial status of the Torrijos regime, it is important for us to know in advance if we will be bolstering a corrupt government which facilitates the transport of illegal drugs to our own shores. For that reason, I stated that the Justice Department should make its findings on this matter known immediately to Congress, prior to consideration of the treaties. The following day, October 14, I filed a "freedom of information" request with the Drug Enforcement Administration, requesting access to 45 specific files which allegedly contain information on Torrijos' involvement with the drug-trafficking operations. At the request of the Administrator, I did not release those 45 file codes to the public media. One week later, on October 21, I sent a second letter to DEA Administrator Bensinger containing excerpts from documents that were represented to me as copies of documents in DEA files. Those excerpts made specific reference to Omar Torrijos as being involved with narcotics and contraband traffic. I asked the Administrator to confirm the authenticity of those documents, and to advise me in writing as to whether the reports on Torrijos had been verified or disproven by DEA investigators. I have never received a response to that letter. On October 26, I met with DEA Administrator Peter Bensinger on this matter. He advised me that some of the files in question had been turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mr. Bensinger further advised me that before any of the files could be turned over to me, they would have to be screened for removal of any information which might endanger national security or violate personal privacy rights. I acknowledged this, and reaffirmed my "freedom of information" request for those documents. A phone call to my office on November 8 from the DEA Administrator's office advised me that I could expect to receive approved documents during the week of November 13. A week later, another phone call from the Administrator's office informed me that the documents would not be forthcoming as promised. This was attributed to special difficulties in securing all of the information I had requested. At that time, the Administrator's office was unable to advise just when I might receive the first delivery of some of the files I had requested. Consequently, in accordance with established procedures under the Freedom of Information Act, I filed a formal appeal with the U.S. Attorney General on November 18. I advised the Attorney General at that time that I considered the information I had requested from the DEA clearly releasable under the Freedom of Information Act, and requested his review of the case. I also requested a written response from the Attorney General within 20 working days. Those 20 days have now elapsed without an official response to that appeal. I also want to emphasize that it has been a full 2 months since my initial "Freedom of Information" request was submitted. WHY THE DELAY? Mr. President, it seems totally unreasonable that, at the end of 2 months, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has not even been able to provide me with sanitized versions of the files which they agree I am entitled to under the Freedom of Information Act. And I think their delay and uncooperativeness on the matter can only fuel public suspicion about what those documents may say about the involvement of Panamanian General Omar Torrijos and his colleagues in illegal operations. As a member of the U.S. Senate who is being asked to pass judgment on proposed Panama Canal treaties, I think I am at least entitled to a direct denial of my request if these files are not to be |