« PreviousContinue »
5 7 12 20 25
43 43 52
76 89 95 99 126 154 161
Rudd, Hon. Eldon, Representative in Congress from the State of
National Association for Uniformed Services, Arlington, Va..
Transportation Policy of the American Association of Port Authori
ties, West Sacramento, Calif... Insertions for the record:
Prepared statement of David McCullogh.
November 23, 1977-
December 6, 1977-
Panama Canal,” report of the Panama Canal Company Board of
pared for Panama Company by Ely M. Brandes and Betty
R. Samuel, dated January 1975-
and Standing Committee on World Order to Senator John Sparkman
from William D. Rogers, dated January 26, 1977-
by Cirilo A. McSween.
Congress of Hispanic American Citizens..
Harvey Gardiner, Research Professor of Latin American History
(emeritus), Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.-Appendix:
Statement of Hon. John Sherman Cooper, former U.S. Senator from
Kentucky, together with statement of September 2, 1977.----
New Hampshire, together with enclosed article, “Dawn or Dusk”.
341 373 393 408 413 459
461 472 475
491 503 509 515
522 524 533
585 Page 585
Letter and enclosed article entitled “Panama's Blacks: A U.S. Re
sponsibility,” to Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Re-
November 23, 1977.-
Congressional Relations, Douglas J. Bennet, Jr., dated December
together with joint statement of International Longshoremen's As-
chant Marine and Fisheries Committee.--.
executive vice president, Council of American-Flag Ship Operators,
PANAMA CANAL TREATIES
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1978
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Honorable John Sparkman (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Sparkman, Church, Pell, Clark, Glenn, Sarbanes, Case, Javits, Pearson, Percy, and Griffin.
Thé CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order, please.
This morning the committee will begin its final series of hearingsthat is, hopefully its final series-on the Panama Canal treaties. This series will consist of 3 days and will conclude on January 25.
Today we hope to hear from a panel of eminent historians and a panel of legal experts. Tomorrow's hearing will be on economic and transportation issues. The final day we will hear several public witnesses and groups and a Member of the House.
The committee has asked the panel of historians to testify today in order to establish the historical perspective necessary for a full understanding of the issues. We will be concerned with the developments leading to the 1903 treaty with Panama, the construction of the canal, and the subsequent events leading to the proposed treaties.
Our second panel will be composed of four legal scholars whom we have asked to provide us with their independent judgments on the complex legal issues arising from the treaties.
At this time I would like to call upon our first panel. That panel will be composed of Mr. David McCullough, author of "Path Between the Seas”; Professor Jules Davids of Georgetown University; Profes. sor Elting Morison of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Professor Richard Leopold of Northwestern University.
Mr. McCullough, the committee will be very glad to hear from you at this time. Would you come up to the witness table, please.
Your statement will be printed in full in the record. You may proceed with it as you see fit.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MCCULLOUGH, AUTHOR OF "PATH BETWEEN
THE SEAS," WEST TISBURY, MASS.
Mr. McCULLOUGH. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Foreign Relations Committee, it is a pleasure and an honor to ap
pear before you and I do so in the hope that my views may be of some help to you in your historic decision on the proposed treaties with Panama.
REASONS FOR SUPPORTING TREATIES
Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support the treaties that are before you. My feelings for the Panama Canal, for its physical grandeur, for its importance as a symbol of man's indomitable creative will, could not be greater. I am proud of the Panama Canal as an American, but even more as a human being, for I know what they were up against—the French, the Americans, the armies of black men and women from Jamaica and Barbados—all the many thousands from every corner of the world who went into the jungles to do the work.
But, one of the lessons of history, one of the fundamental lessons, surely, is that times change and the world moves on. Then was then and now is now.
When Theodore Roosevelt went to Panama to look the work over, it was the first time an American President had ever set foot outside our borders while in office. The population of all Latin America then was less than that of the United States.
Then was then and now is now. American history has become world history. Perhaps that is the most significant difference between our time and the era that built the canal.
I support the treaties because I support the canal. I know its importance; I know our interest in it is vital. As others have said, it is the continued use of the canal that matters, not ownership.
I support the treaties because of the very convincing case made before this committee by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I support the treaties because they are the synthesis of the expressed policy of four consecutive administrations, Republican and Democratic, and because our presence in Panama, as presently constituted, is an anachronism. More than this, it is asking for trouble.
A distinguished British historian tells us that the imperialist age ended 22 years ago with the Suez war of 1956. I think it is essential that we remember what our position was then before the world, when it was somebody else's canal at issue.
Inevitably there will be risks involved; but the risks of holding fast, of trying to hang on to what has been, cannot help but be greater. Things simply can't go on as they are in Panama.
It is a source of some pride to me that spokesmen for both sides in the present debate have cited my book as support for their case. The book has been offered as proof of why the canal is ours and why it is not; of why we must hold the line in Panama and why the new treaties are 60 years overdue.
This is as it should be, for history, if nothing else, is contradictory.
The legitimacy of our sovereignty in the Canal Zone, as an example, can be both justified and undercut by reading the historical record.
When I began my research 7 years ago, the Panama riots had occurred, and negotiations for a new and different arrangement with Panama were already underway. But my contention then, as now, was