BRILLIANT U.S. NEGOTIATORS IN DIPLOMATIC COUP SECURED "CONCESSION" ALREADY PROVIDED IN 1903 TREATY

[From the Congressional Record, Oct. 12, 1977-S 16987]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES-No. 15

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, this is the 15th speech I have made on the Senate floor in opposition to the Panama Canal Treaties. I do not believe that in the course of my remarks I have been redundant, because there are so many defects in the treaties that I have been able to point out something new in each of the speeches I have made.

Mr. President, during my testimony in opposition to the Panama Canal Treaties before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, one of the distinguished members of the committee, Senator, SARBANES, raised an issue to which I have since given considerable study. The distinguished Senator inquired whether Panama could now grant to a third country the right to construct a canal between the Caribbean and the Pacific through the territory of Panama, excluding obviously the United States territory comprising the Canal Zone. I did not then know the answer to the distinguished Senator's inquiry, although I did indicate that to the best of my knowledge, the treaty of 1903 did contain some provision affecting the ability of Panama to grant a canal concession to a government other than the United States. Having since looked into the matter, I can now report that under article V of the treaty of 1903, the United States has already in perpetuity a monopoly on any interoceanic canal construction across Panama, either inside or outside the Canal Zone.

Mr. President, the Department of State has repeatedly touted the brilliance of our negotiators in securing from the Panamanians an alleged agreement not to construct any new canal in the territory of Panama without the consent of the United States, at least not until after the year 1999. This so-called major diplomatic coup is embodied in article XII, paragraph 2 of the canal treaty wherein appears the following:

"The United States of America and the Republic of Panama agree on the following:

"(a) No new interoceanic canal shall be constructed in the territory of the Republic of Panama during the duration of this Treaty, except in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, or as the two Parties may otherwise agree;" That is in the proposed new treaty.

I find this provision ambiguous, but the Department of State asserts that our negotiators obtained this so-called concession from the Panamanians in return for our incredible agreement not even to negotiate with a third state for the construction of a new interoceanic canal anywhere in the Western Hemisphere without express Panamanian consent. In other words, Mr. President, the Department of State asserts that the quid pro quo for our agreement not to construct any new canal except in Panama without the consent of the Panamanian dictator-the quid pro quo for that incredible concession is, or purports to be, this clause I have just quoted, which allegedly would prevent the Panamanians from constructing a canal with Soviet assistance or the assistance of some other unfriendly government.

But, Mr. President, the United States already, in perpetuity, can prevent any third nation from constructing a new canal in the territory of Panama. So we have gained absolutely nothing from this supposed Panamanian concession. They are not conceding anything. It is already provided in the 1903 treaty. Mr. President, the plain fact is that the Department of State has set up a sham argument to justify its folly in allowing the Panamanians to tie our hands throughout the term of this proposed canal treaty and to excuse the-and I am going to be blunt about this, Mr. President-to excuse the stupidity of requiring the consent of a petty dictator before the United States of America can even negotiate with another nation for an interoceanic canal in the Western

Hemisphere. This purported justification, this quid pro quo, is a sham because it is not a concession made to the United States by Panama, simply because the United States already has full authority to insist that no other nation construct in Panamanian territory a canal between the oceans.

Article V of the Isthmian Canal Convention of 1903, the Hay/Bunau-Varilla Treaty, reads as follows:

"The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity a monopoly for the construction, maintenance and operation of any system of communication by means of canal or railroad across its territory between the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean."

Mr. President, there is no ambiguity there. When treaties were drafted in those days, the documents spoke for themselves. The executive department in those days apparently did not have much tolerance for sloppy draftsmanship, but we here in the Senate today feel somewhat like Wendy and John wandering around in never-never land, trying to figure out just what these proposed new treaties actually do mean.

Mr. President, the Senate did not have that problem in 1903, and there is no doubt that under the treaty of 1903, the United States can already insist that no third nation construct a new canal in Panama. In addition, Mr. President, there can be no doubt that the right given to the United States, the monopoly given to the United States, is in perpetuity.

I might add parenthetically, Mr. President, that although the treaty of 1955 did in some respects modify article V of the treaty of 1903, the modifications in the treaty of 1955 only affect the monopoly given to the United States over railroads constructed between the two seas and do not in any way affect our existing monopoly with respect to any new strategic interoceanic canal which might be contemplated. Incidentally, too, Mr. President the treaty of 1955 itself, in extinguishing the provision of article V with respect to railroads, still provides as follows:

"In view of the vital interest of both countries in the effective protection of the Canal, the High Contracting Parties further agree that such abrogation is subject to the understanding that no system of interoceanic communication within the territory under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Panama by means of railroad or highway may be financed, constructed, maintained, or operated directly or indirectly by a third country or nationals thereof, unless in the opinion of both High Contracting Parties such financing, construction, maintenance, or operation would not affect the security of the Canal."

Therefore, even after allowing the abrogation of article V of the treaty of 1903 insofar as it affected railroads, our negotiators in 1955 nevertheless insisted that the United States be given a veto over any proposed construction of any railroads or, for that matter, highways, which connected the two oceans and which might in the judgment of the United States adversely affect the security of the canal.

Mr. President, Senators ought to review these past treaties-and I am sure many, if not all, have already done so because a review of these past treaties shows the great care that negotiators for the United States have taken-at least up until now-in protecting the security of this vital international waterway. Our negotiators in the past have not taken lightly their responsibility to secure to the United States the control and defense of the Panama Canal, because our past negotiators have fully recognized the dire adverse strategic impact of permitting the effective control of the Panama Canal to fall into the hands of another nation or for that matter even permitting the effective control of any means of transit through the Isthmus of Panama to fall under the control of any power unfriendly to the United States.

But we have a new breed of negotiators working for us now, Mr. President, and they have seen fit to negotiate away our right to construct a sea level canal or a second canal in Nicaragua or in any other country, for example, in Mexico, at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, all in return-and I use that term advisedly-all in return for the sham concession of the Panamanians in agreeing not to permit another country to build a canal in Panama for the 23-year term of the proposed Canal Treaty. Quite a concession, Mr. President. We extinguish a monopoly in perpetuity and they agree, in a rather loosely drafted provision, that no new canal will be constructed in Panama except in accordance with the terms of the proposed Canal Treaty-terms which do not in themselves forbid Panama to grant to the Soviet Union or some other country a right to construct a canal in Panama even within what is now the Canal Zone.

Then, too, Mr. President, Senators should note that the proposed Canal Treaty would abrogate entirely the treaty of 1955 which grants to the United

States de facto control over the construction in Panama of interoceanic strategic highways or railroads which might in some way tend to damage the security of the canal or harm the security interests of the United States. Should this proposed Canal Treaty receive Senate consent, nothing whatsoever, even during the 23-year term of the treaty, would prohibit the Marxist dictatorship in Panama from entering into an agreement with Cuba, or with the Soviet Union, or with Red China, or with East Germany, or with North Korea, or with any other regime now opposed to the interests of our country-nothing-nothing would prevent Panama from agreeing to the construction of a major strategic highway or rail system with corresponding port facilities at either terminus for the purpose of threatening whatever defense forces of the United States might remain in Panama during this proposed 23-year term of surrender.

The good work of the conscientious negotiators for the United States who have represented us in the past in dealings with Panama would pretty much go down the drain if these treaties are implemented. The careful drafting of so many past treaties, protocols, and conventions designed to protect our strategie position in Panama would be, with the stroke of a pen and a two-thirds vote in the Senate, destroyed for all time.

The provisions of these proposed treaties which would destroy this past good work have not received to date sufficient attention. In our rush to examine the provisions of the treaty purporting to give us rights to defend the canal and rights to maintain the neutrality of the canal, many of us have overlooked the grave damage done to the existing fabric of our relations with Panama by the wholesale abrogation of virtually all important agreements reached with Panama over the past 74 years. Using more or less a meat-ax technique, our negotiators have wiped the slate clean, eliminating presumably both the good and the bad by specifically abrogating the treaty of 1903, the treaty of 1936, the treaty of 1955 and:

"All other treaties, conventions, agreements, and exchanges of notes between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama, concerning the Panama Canal which were in force prior to the entry into force of this Treaty; and ***"

In other words, anything good in the past treaties will be wiped away, any concessions made are going to be wiped out, and we are going to start anew. Listen to this, Mr. President, just to make sure there are no scraps or pieces around that might protect the interests of the United States:

"Provisions concerning the Panama Canal which appear in other treaties, not just these particular treaties with direct reference to Panama but in other treaties, conventions, agreements, and exchanges, "conventions, agreements and exchanges of notes between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama which were in force prior to the entry into force of this Treaty."

So that ought to pretty much do the job, Mr. President. Whatever has been done on behalf of the United States during this 74-year period is going down the tubes. Part of the package is the provision giving to the United States a monopoly over canal construction in Panama. Also stated for elimination are the provisions allowing us a right of refusal over any strategic interoceanic communications system which might damage the national security interests of our country or pose a threat to the canal.

Finally, Mr. President, Senators might rightly insist that we must have gained something in return for abrogating or nullifying three-quarters of a century of diplomacy. In my judgment, we have gained only ambiguous provisions which can be interpreted as either party chooses-either to commit the Panamanians not to construct a new canal with Soviet aid only during the 23-year term of the proposed canal treaty or to permit construction of a new interoceanic canal in Panama not inconsistent with the terms of the new proposed treaty, which terms do not in and of themselves prohibit such construction and which terms, with complete clarity, only commit the United States and Panama to study jointly the feasibility of a new sea level canal project.

Thus, Mr. President, we receive again only ambiguities to replace ironclad protections. Perhaps this proposed provision is interpreted by the present Panamanian Government in the same manner it is interpreted by our own Department of State. But what of it? The Panamanians have thus far shown little inclination to accept the interpretations given to these documents by the Department of State, and even assuming there has been a meeting of minds on this particular provision, its lack of clarity would no doubt be a seed of dispute planted in the fertile soil.

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

HEROIN CONNECTION

[From the Congressional Record, Oct. 13, 1977-S17161]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES-No. 16

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am going to count this my speech No. 16 on the Panama Canal since the treaties were signed by the two heads of state.

Mr. President, I read today in the Washington Star a very interesting article touching on a matter about which perhaps all Senators should become knowledgeable. The article reports that U.S. Department of Justice sources have confirmed that there is a sealed narcotics indictment in the eastern district of New York against one Moises Torrijos, brother of the present Panamanian Dictator Omar Torrijos. The Washington Star newspaper story does not state the substance of the indictment, but it does report that the indictment has never been disclosed allegedly, because Moises Torrijos has not returned to the United States since the time the indictment was issued, apparently some time during 1972.

You know, Mr. President, I wondered at the time of the signing of the Panama Canal treaties why Moises Torrijos was not in attendance inasmuch as he is currently Ambassador to Spain and presumably would have wished to share in the celebrations held down at the Pan American Building. At the time, it did seem strange that since diplomats from every Spanish-speaking country in the world did seem able to attend, yet the brother of the present head of the Panamanian Government found it inconvenient to share in the festivities.

Sometimes, Mr. President, I am slow to get the full picture, but I am beginning to understand the answers to some of the questions that have been troubling me, and there have been plenty of questions, Mr. President, about these treaties. Since reading the article in the Star, I have had brought to my attention certain other bits and pieces of information which perhaps should be further highlighted or recalled. Apparently, Mr. President, back some time in early 1972 or perhaps late 1971, Rafael Richard, the son of the Panamanian Ambassador to Taiwan-I believe the correct date was July 8, 1971-was arrested in New York carrying luggage containing some 150 pounds of heroin. Mr. Richard, who was fairly young for a diplomat, was traveling on a diplomatic passport signed by Mr. Juan Tack, whom Senators will recall negotiated with then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for the Kissinger-Tack agreement which formed the framework for subsequent negotiations leading to these proposed treaties now being considered in the Senate. But Mr. Richard was not on his first visit to the United States; he was instead on his fifth visit. And according to a New York Times article by Benjamin Welles, dated March 15, 1972, Mr. Richard had brought into the United States 150 pounds of heroin each trip. But. Mr. President, let us see what happened to Mr. Richard. According to the New York Times-and, of course, that is the only information I have to go on as to this particular item, the information available in the newspapers-Mr. Richard was given the full privileges of diplomatic immunity and apparently allowed to leave the United States without further question.

Mr. Richard's uncle was not quite as lucky. As reported in the Times, his uncle, Guillermo Gonzalez, and I quote, "an intimate and former bodyguard of Moises Torrijos," was convicted of a felony charge related to heroin smuggling and sentenced to seven years in prison. If Mr. Gonzalez is in prison, perhaps he would know more about this matter, but I do not know whether he has been required to serve his full term and is, therefore, still incarcerated.

About this same time, Mr. President, three American narcotics agents were ordered expelled from Panama by Mr. Juan Tack on 24-hours notice. Mr. Tack asserted that the men, who were agents of the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, were interfering with "the internal affairs of Panama." Some internal affairs, Mr. President. I might say, and some diplomats.

So, Mr. President, today we learned that there is a sealed indictment waiting for Mr. Moises Torrijos, Ambassador to Spain, waiting for Mr. Moises Torrijos

up there in the eastern district of New York, waiting up there for some 5 years now with no public disclosure whatsoever that Ambassador Torrijos was being sought by our Government. Mr. Moises Torrijos may have known he is being sought by our Government. He found it convenient not to be in the United States over a 5-year period on any occasion. But, Mr. President, the American people did not know and the American people have got to have sharp eyes to pick this story up off the fifth page of the Washington Star to try to piece together just what is going on.

Now, there has been another recent sealed indictment, not 5 years old, but a fairly new sealed indictment which has recently been made entirely public. That indictment involves one Mr. Tongsun Park. Tongsun Park has shown no great inclination to return to the United States either, and quite properly the citizens of the United States have been advised that Tongsun Park is under indictment. Yet, Mr. President, Moises Torrijos is treated differently.

I hold no brief for Mr. Tongsun Park, but it does seem he received one type of treatment and Moises Torrijos another.

On Wednesday, I talked to some extent about the ironclad language used by our negotiators in securing the Panama Canal Treaty in 1903. I pointed out that our negotiators back in those days could and did draft a document which reflected a meeting of the minds, a document without ambiguity, and a document which could be enforced. I am pleased to report to the Senate. Mr. President, that the year following the negotiation of the treaty of 1903, our Government took the prudent step of negotiating with Panama a document entitled “A Treaty for the Mutual Extradition of Criminals." This extradition treaty of 1904 is also an ironclad document without ambiguity. The preamble reads this way, Mr. President:

"The United States of America and the Republic of Panama, being desirous to confirm their friendly relations and to promote the cause of justice, have resolved to conclude a treaty for the extradition of fugitives from justice between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama."

So, they set forth the purpose of this treaty pretty clearly there in the preamble. Article I of this treaty reads this way:

"The Government of the United States and the Government of the Republic of Panama mutually agree to deliver up persons who, having been charged with or convicted of any of the crimes and offenses specified in the following article. committed within the jurisdiction of one of the contracting parties, shall seek an asylum or be found within the territories of the other: Provided, that this shall only be done upon such evidence of Criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his or her apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense has been there committed."

We have been advised by the Washington Star that there is a sealed indictment handed down by a grand jury in the eastern district of New York against Ambassador Moises Torrijos, but we do not know what the charges are, we do not know what the evidence is. So. Mr. President, we are left to speculate whether this treaty of 1904 would apply. Presumably, the crime charged would be a felony. Presumably, the crime charged would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense charged had been committed in Panama. Mr. President. I do not know where Ambassador Moises Torriios is located today. Perhaps he is at his post in Spain, and perhaps the Department of Justice ought to see if we have an extradition treaty with Spain as we do with Panama. But one thing is certain. Mr. President, when I have referred to the regime in power in Panama as a gangster dictatorship. I have not used the term lightly.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Stor and an article from the New York Times be printed in the RECORD.

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

UNITED STATES INDICTED BROTHER OF TORRIJOS, SOURCE IN JUSTICE Department SAYS

The brother of Panamanian chief of state Omar Torrijos was indicted in New York five years ago on federal narcotics smuggling charges but U.S. authorities have never been able to arrest him. Justice Department sources have confirmed. "There is a sealed narcotics indictment in the Eastern District of New York" against Torrijos' brother Moises, a knowledgeable department official said yesterday.