Page images
PDF
EPUB

mately far more important in terms of our country's relationship with the rest of the world, and surely in terms of its relationship with Latin America.

As has been pointed out before, there are elements in the history of the canal that we cannot and should not look upon with pride. We cannot be proud that we fostered the Panamanian revolution from Colombia in 1903 and then concluded the original canal treaty with a Frenchman who never returned to Panama. We cannot be proud that that original treaty was never signed by a Panamanian.

But we have every reason to be proud of the way in which we have operated the canal. That operation has always been marked by scrupulous neutrality, and we have never operated the canal as a money-making venture. Rather, we have maintained it as a nonprofit service to world shipping. And obviously, the canal stands as an incredible technological feat today, to say nothing of the era in which it was built. Indeed, in this regard it ranks with the building of the pyramids and the landing of a man on the

moon.

Despite this record of operation, the canal remains a constant reminder of an earlier, less enlightened era in our foreign policy. The memory is not a happy one for our American neighbors to the south and has proven to be a barrier to better relations with those neighbors. The Organization of American States unanimously supports the new treaties. To reject them would invite worsened relations with Central and South America.

But there is even more at stake than our relations with the nations of the Western Hemisphere. The entire Third World would regard rejection of the treaties as a further indication of our lack of commitment to political and economic justice for the developing countries.

Much has been written and said about how ratification of the treaties would play into the hands of the Communists. I believe the effect would be quite the opposite, for I suspect the Communists would rejoice at the loss in world opinion we would suffer if the treaties are rejected.

I will have more to say on these matters during the Senate debate on ratification as I plan to take an active role in that debate. Also, I will be sending my constituents a letter in which I will outline the arguments both for and against the treaties and detail my reasons for supporting them. I am sure most of them will be convinced of the merit of this decision.

This is not the most momentous issue of foreign policy that we face as a nation. Certainly the upcoming SALT treaty is of substantially greater world importance. But the Panama Canal treaties represent one of the most controversial questions in the country today. It is our responsibility to study and act on this issue rationally in the same way we would a more obscure bit of business. If that is our approach, it seems to me an inescapable conclusion that the option of ratifying these treaties will better insure the future operation of the canal than any military option available to us, and it will enhance the standing of the United States in our own hemisphere and in the world at large.

The greater and more powerful a country is, the greater the responsibility that country has to be just. The United States is the greatest and most powerful nation in the world-it can afford this act of overdue justice.

Mr. President, I yield back the floor.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senate yield?
Mr. LEAHY. I certainly will yield.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the Senator on his statement, on the logic of his statement, and on his courage in taking a position that is an unpopular one in any State, I would judge at this time. But the Senator has demonstrated this type of courage before, and he has demonstrated this kind of vision and understanding, and I am not surprised that he has taken the unpopular position in this instance, believing that in the long run his position is in the best interests of the country.

I applaud him and I salute him.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I might say that the decision is certainly made easier by the enlightened leadership on this position shown by the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished minority leader.

I discussed this matter with the President of the United States yesterday, and I made it a point to commend to the President the leadership of the Senate. There are many who, because of their office, because of their national office, such as the one that our distinguished majority leader holds, have far more at stake politically in taking the positions they have taken. Certainly that is a leadership position that commends itself to all of us.

I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his very, very kind remarks.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

PANAMA CANAL TREATY-EXECUTIVE N, 95-1

AMENDMENT NO. 18

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. HATCH, as in executive session, submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to Executive N, 95-1, the Panama Canal Treaty.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is an important consideration regarding the Panama Canal Treaties that has been overlooked thus far in our discussion of these agreements. In our efforts to unravel all of the mysteries associated with the precise meanings of various provisions of the treaties as they appear in the English text, we have neglected to examine the language in the Spanish text to determine whether it accurately reflects the language in our own documents. I am persuaded that there are a number of discrepancies which warrant our concern.

Recently, the Senate steering committee, of which I am a member, prepared a comparative analysis of the English and Spanish versions of the treaties. This study is entitled "The English and Spanish Texts of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaties: A Comparison.' It was written by Silvia Castellanos, a bilingual staff member of the committee, with the assistance of linguists and legal experts

drawn from the universities and the Library of Congress. The study contains a line-by-line analysis of the language in the two versions of the treaties, and concludes that "inconsistencies abound in the documents."

On January 25, 1978, my distinguished colleague from Alabama (Mr. Allen) inserted in the Record the overview section of this study, which summarizes the basic problems of translation in the documents. I commend Senator Allen for calling our attention to this study, and urge Senators to examine it closely. Copies of the full study are available at my office, 6317 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, these inconsistencies create a second layer of problems for the United States. Their presence means that we must contend not only with conflicting interpretations of the English text, but also the Spanish meaning of every word in the documents.

Why the State Department did not carry out its responsibility of insuring that the two versions of the treaties are substantively the same is a question that I cannot answer. I do know, however, that these discrepancies indicate carelessness on the part of the State Department, and arouse skepticism in my mind regarding State Department assurances in the past about the proper interpretations of the agreement and the intentions of the negotiators.

In anticipation of serious disagreements between the United States and Panama about these matters, I am today submitting an amendment to the treaties which would establish needed guidelines for the resolution of controversies pertaining to the proper interpretation of these agreements. The amendment provides that the English text shall prevail whenever there are differences of interpretation between the United States and the Republic of Panama. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be printed in the Record.

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

AMENDMENT No. 18

In the signature clause thereof, strike out "both texts being equally authentic" and insert in lieu thereof "but, in case of divergence, the English language text shall be binding on the two Parties".

SECRETARY VANCE CLARIFIES U.S. ECONOMIC COMMITMENT UNDER THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES Mr. STONE. Mr. President of great concern to many Americans has been the question: What economic commitments to Panama is the United States entering into under the Panama Canal treaties? Many people have been concerned that our financial commitments will be quite extensive and I have shared their concern.

For this reason I questioned the Department of State extensively during Senate Foreign Relations Committee markup of the treaties and proposed: First an amendment eliminating language from article XIII paragraph 1 of the main treaty requiring the United States to turn over the canal to Panama in the year 2000 "free from liens or debts" and second an understanding that no financial obligation

29-400 0 - 78 - 61

from the United States to Panama is established by ratification of the treaties other than the specifically stated toll revenue provisions of article XIII.

In response to my concerns, Secretary of State Vance today sent me a detailed letter stating clearly that:

First, there are no "hidden or secret" financial agreements or obligations between the United States and Panama arising from these treaties.

Second, the only financial obligations of these treaties are specifically stated in the treaty. Economic and military assistance to Panama would continue only by the regular annual appropriations process involving the Congress.

Third, there will be, at the end of fiscal year 1978, no Panama Canal Company outstanding long-term obligations. Any future liens and debts which may arise would be subject to United States control and approval.

This letter is a useful and informative declaration summarizing the nature of the economic relationship between the United States and Panama arising out of the Panama Canal treaties. It has clarified my concerns and will be a useful addition to the record for the Senate debate and a historical document for interpretation of this economic relationship between our countries in future generations. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

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

Hon. RICHARD STONE,
U.S. Senate.

SECRETARY OF STATE,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR DICK. This is with reference to the concerns which you raised during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings of January 27, and the proposals you made to clarify the nature of the U.S. financial obligation under the proposed Panama Canal Treaty. It is understood that the intended purpose of these two proposals is to ensure that ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty would impose no "hidden" financial obligations of the United States to Panama.

We wish to assure you that all proposed financial commitments to Panama under the new Treaty have been fully disclosed. There are no "secret" agreements. Moreover, we wish to set forth the following specific assurances with regard to the particular concerns you raised.

First, the only financial obligations to the Republic of Panama resulting from the Treaty are those specifically set forth in the Treaty and the two Agreements in Implementation. The contemplated economic and military cooperation programs described in my note to the Panamanian Ambassador of September 7, 1977, would not come into being unless and until (a) a further exchange of notes is entered into between the two Governments and (b) all applicable legislative and program criteria have been met with respect to each proposed project, including the availability of appropriated funds where necessary. These contemplated programs were intentionally made the subject of a separate instrument not legally related to the Treaty to assure that the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Treaty would not be contingent in any way upon the contemplated programs. In short, ratification of the Treaty would establish no obligation on the part of the U.S. with respect to these programs or any similar financial transactions that may be proposed in the future. Rather, these programs are to be addressed on their own merits in accordance with applicable U.S. law and program criteria.

Second, you expressed concern that the U.S. obligation under Article XIII(1) to turn the Canal over to Panama upon the termination of the Treaty in operating condition "and free of liens and debts, except as the two Parties may otherwise agree" be clarified. This provision was included in the Treaty in recognition of the fact that until the termination of the Treaty on December 31, 1999, the Canal will be operated and managed by a United States Government agency in accordance

with U.S. law. Accordingly, the U.S. will retain the authority to structure the financial management of the Canal operation as it sees fit.

Our management authority under the Treaty is so broad that the U.S. could, for example, authorize the new Commission to borrow funds from private sources. Accordingly, it was considered appropriate to provide Panama the assurance contained in the quoted phrase that the U.S. would turn over the Canal free and clear, and not subject to a mortgage to which Panama did not consent.

In this connection, I would note that the U.S. has always operated the Canal on a self-sustaining basis, and that the Panama Canal Company has never had to exercise the authority granted it by law to borrow from the U.S. Treasury. In FY 1976 it did use its legal authority to defer $93 million of certain statutorily required payments to the Treasury. It has already paid part of this deferred amount and will pay the remaining $39 million in FY 1978. Once this payment has been made, the Company will have no outstanding long-term obligations and will have continued its record of meeting all its expenses from operating revenues.

The Treaty does, however, provide that if the two Parties agree, liens and debts may be carried over. For example, during the last years of U.Š. operation, a major capital improvement might seem desirable, but the U.S. might not wish to finance all of the expenditures required given the remaining length of its tenure as Canal operator. In these circumstances, the Parties could agree to an arrangement whereby Panama would assume responsibility for amortizing the debt involved in the investment when it took over management of the operation. Thus, the Treaty embodies a balanced and responsible approach to the problems involved in a transition from one manager to another.

I trust that the foregoing clarifications and assurances will fully meet the important and legitimate concerns you so clearly defined during the Committee hearings. With warm regards,

Sincerely,

CYRUS R. VANCE.

THE PANAMA CANAL

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have before me an excellent article which appeared in the Tuesday, November 29, 1977, New York Times on the Panama Canal controversy.

It was written by one of our most respected diplomats and statesmen, our friend John Davis Lodge.

Mr. President, this is a scholarly article which should be brought to the attention of each Member of the Senate before the debate begins on the canal treaties, and I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

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

THE CANAL: A RamparRT

(By John Davis Lodge)

WESTPORT, CONN.-The principal arguments veliemently raised in support of the Panama Canal treaties are not altogether convincing.

It is alleged in screeching tones that we stole it. That is contrary to the record. It was an act of constructive statesmanship by one of our great Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt. It constitutes a notable public service by the United States to the entire world. We should not be apologetic but proud of this unprecedented engineering achievement. We succeeded where the French failed. But for us, the Panama Canal would not exist. In one way or another it has been paid for by us many times over. Should we now say that the Louisiana Purchase, by which President Thomas Jefferson bought one-third of the United States from Napoleon for $15 million, was a steal and that therefore we should return this vast area to France? And how about Alaska? And Hawaii?

It is asserted that the Panama Canal constitutes an anachronistic vestige of colonialism in a decolonializing world. Certainly the British, French, Spaniards and Portuguese have been shedding their colonies. But how about the Russians and their satellites? Are these satellites not in effect colonies?

« PreviousContinue »