any position. And our Government will consider all practical solutions to practical problems that are offered in good faith. Certainly solutions can be found which are compatible with the dignity and the security of both countries as well as the needs of world commerce. And certainly Panama and the United States can remain, as they should remain, good friends and good neighbors. Document III-52 "There Is No Problem That Exists... Between Two Countries That Should Not Be Reasoned Out": REPLY MADE BY THE PRESIDENT (JOHNSON) TO A QUESTION ASKED AT A NEWS CONFERENCE, JANUARY 25, 1964 35 I think we hope, out of all of these conferences [conducted by the Inter-American Peace Committee], that the Peace Commission has rendered' very outstanding service, and there will be a meeting of the minds as to our position and we hope that they agree. There is no problem that exists between two persons or between two peoples or between two countries that should not be reasoned out if there is a difference of opinion. We are willing to do that. The question is the procedures we employ, and they are working very diligently on them. Within the hour I have spent a good deal of time talking about that. I had a very fine meeting with the Peace Commission. I salute them for their fine work, and I am positive that the Panamanians will want to give them their views, and I am hopeful that after both views are carefully considered they can come up with a solution that is satisfactory to both of us. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64, vol. I, p. 231. Take Cognizance of the Acts of Aggression Against Panama, and Meetings of the Council on January 31 and February 4, 1964* REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PANAMA (Controversy between Panama and the United States) 1964 On January 29, 1964, the Representative of Panama on the Council of the Organization of American States, Ambassador Miguel J. Moreno, Jr., addressed the following note to the Chairman of the Council: I have the honor to confirm the text of the cable sent by my government in the early hours of January 9, 1964, as follows: HIS EXCELLENCY JUAN BAUTISTA DE LAVALLE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES PAN AMERICAN UNION WASHINGTON DC TODAY THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF AN UN- GALILEO SOLIS MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS As Your Excellency is aware, my government requested the intervention of the Inter-American Peace Committee as mediator in the extremely serious situation created between my country and the United States of America as a result of the attacks upon the civilian population of Panama. Nevertheless, my government, *Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance Applications. Vol. II 1960-1964. Washington, Organization of American States, 1964. F1405.9.1493, pp. 215-225; and American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1964, pp. 358-361. in accepting the mediation of the Inter-American Peace Committee, maintained its previous request for the convocation of the Organ of Consultation in order that that Organ might be informed of the aggression against Panama. Since the friendly intervention of the Inter-American Peace Committee has ceased, my government considers that, in conformity with Articles 9 and 6 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the convocation of the Organ of Consultation continues to be urgent and undeferable, in order that the aforesaid Organ may take cognizance of the acts of aggression against Panama and, in respect of them, may take all the measures that, in conformity with the provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the Charter of the Organization of American States, may be appropriate and effective in ensuring the maintenance of peace and guarantee that there will be no repetition of the acts of aggression that, in the opinion of my government, may take place again, since the acts and situations that gave rise to them continue to exist. Furthermore, the Organ of Consultation should agree upon measures designed to obtain compensation from the United States of America for the damage and injuries sustained by Panama as a result of the aggression. Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration. (s) M. J. Moreno Jr. Ambassador, Representative of Panama His Excellency Juan Bautista de Lavalle Chairman of the Council of the Washington, D. C. The Council considered this request on January 31, 1964 The Council of the Organization of American States considered the Panamanian request at the special meeting held on January 31, 1964. After reading the foregoing note, the Representative of Panama delivered the following statement: Mr. Chairman: Permit me to reiterate before the Honorable Council, the Pan American vocation of the Republic of Panama and the will of its government and its people to contribute to the fulfillment of the mission of the Organization of American States in safeguarding peace in the continent. My government has requested the convocation of the Organ of Consultation in order that this high international body may take cognizance of the aggression committed by the United States of America against my country and, furthermore, in order that it may decide upon the appropriate and effective measures that should be taken, in view of this aggression, to guarantee the termination of such acts and to ensure the maintenance of peace in conformity with the provisions of the InterAmerican Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the Charter of the Organization of American States. In the view of my government and of the people of Panama, there may be a recurrence of these acts as long as the causes that motivated them persist. I must therefore place before the Council the regrettable events that led to our representations, and describe the manner in which they occurred. I shall begin by pointing out a very important antecedent: The Joint Communiqué dated January 7, 1963, contains the commitment entered into by the parties 1. The Inter-American Peace Committee traveled to Panama on January 10, 1964, and remained in that country for several days. Later, the Committee continued its activities in Washington, D. C., until January 29, the date on which the Government of Panama requested the convocation of the Organ of Consultation in accordance with the Rio Treaty. that the Panamanian flag would be raised in the Canal Zone at all the places where the administration raised the flag of the United States. In the process of complying with this commitment, the authorities of the Canal Zone adopted a policy of reducing the number of places where it was customary to raise the flag of the United States. For example: among the places eliminated were the residence of the Governor, the district court, port captaincy, and the high schools of Balboa, in the Pacific sector, and Cristóbal in the Atlantic sector. Then, a rebellious attitude arose among the students of the Balboa High School, where a majority of the pupils are United States nationals, and, defying orders given by their own authorities, they decided to raise their flag in front of the school building. The news appeared in the press and immediately caused an adverse reaction in the republic. A few young Panamanians, students at the National Institute, which is the principal institute of secondary education in the capital city, conceived the idea of going to Balboa to raise the national flag in front of the high school. In a conversation they had with the Assistant Director of the school, he asked them not to take offense at the attitude of the United States students. The young Panamanians accepted a proposal from a captain of the Zone police force to the effect that only a small delegation would step forward and sing the national anthem of Panama while the others, a group of approximately 150 to 200 youths, would be kept at a distance by the Canal Zone police. When the group representing the Panamanian students approached the flagpole, they were received with catcalls and insulting shouts. Not satisfied with this, the Zone students and their parents assaulted the Panamanian youths, aided by agents of their own police. During the scuffle, the Panamanian flag was insulted and torn by the United States nationals. Immediately afterward, the National Institute students were forced to return to the territory under Panamanian jurisdiction, pursued by Zone civilians and police. It was approximately six o'clock in the afternoon. The news of what had taken place spread in the Capital, and, at the spectacle of the national flag torn, and the young Panamanians abused, groups of citizens who made common cause with the students congregated spontaneously at the borderline between Panama and the Zone and tried to enter the Canal Zone for the sole purpose of placing Panamanian flags on this strip of national territory. There the way was closed to them by the combined fire of the police and United States civilians. The first wounds were inflicted. The news spread alarmingly throughout the city and other groups set off unarmed for the Canal Zone for the purpose of raising the Panamanian flag, and were again attacked violently by armed Zone police and civilians. The first dead fell and the number of wounded increased. The Panamanians were obliged to retreat to the neighborhood of the Legislative Palace and the surrounding streets. Little by little, at approximately eight o'clock at night, the U. S. Army forces stationed in the Canal Zone went into action with a combat team on the boundary avenue. General O'Meara, Chief of the Southern Command of the United States Army, took supreme command in the territory of the Canal Zone. The inhuman attack of a well-armed force did not break the patriotism of the Panamanians. The people, already inflamed by the brutal and unjustified aggression of the powerful army, formed into new groups that insisted upon entering the Zone with Panamanian flags. The criminal action of the war tanks and heavy arms made the situation more desperate. The long-range arms were fired from the boundary avenue taking the lives of Panamanians congregated several hundred meters from the boundary; the constant pattern of fire of the powerful army made it almost impossible to assist the wounded and transport them to hospitals. To this must be added the flagrant violation of Panamanian air space by helicopters and planes of the U.S. Air Force, which flew at low altitude over the capital, thus helping to increase the confusion and restlessness among the people. During the night of January 9 and the early hours of the morning of the 10th, a virtual state of war existed between the United States Army and the civilian population of Panama, which in groups of thousands came to the Presidential Palace begging for arms. The machine gun blasts and rifle shots continually bombarded the area under Panamanian jurisdiction between Avenida Central and the boundary avenue. The casualties between the night of the 9th and the morning of the 10th totalled 17 dead and more than 200 wounded, among them a good number of students. The events in Panama City had their echo in the city of Colón on the Atlantic coast, and serious disturbances began there when the aggression committed in the capital was learned of. The civilian population made common cause with its brothers in Panama City and endeavored to enter the territory under U. S. jurisdiction, with the aim of raising the national flag there. The aggression was repeated in Colón, with the same fury as in Panama City, by units of the U. S. Army using automatic weapons. The number of victims of the aggression totalled 21 dead and more than 300 wounded. To the unprovoked armed aggression must be added economic aggression. Normal traffic was closed on the Bridge of the Americas, thus cutting the communications between the cities of Panama and Colón and the towns of the interior of the country, halting traffic between the urban centers and agricultural areas, and thereby gravely hurting the national economy. The closing of the Bridge of the Americas is an act in violation of Article 6 of the Isthmian Canal Convention of 1903, which reaffirms the right of Panama to free transit over the public routes crossing the Canal Zone. The U.S. armed forces also closed transit through the so-called "Colón Corridor, " which practically halted all communication between the cities of Panama and Colón. This corridor is under Panamanian jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention on the Colón Corridor signed in 1950. This act implies a clear armed intervention in Panamanian territory on the part of the United States. The closing of the Trans-Isthmian Highway, the only means of overland communication between the two cities, besides injuring the Panamanian economy, also interfered with the sending of blood plasma and the medical personnel that was so urgently needed on the Atlantic coast to attend to the victims of U. S. aggression. Mr. Chairman, allow me to add a few explanations to the facts that I have just recounted. It is essential that all the infamy involved in the aggression be known. Mr. Chairman, this Council is the court that the conscience of the Americas has established here to make sure that the crime committed in Panama against a weak and defenseless people will not go unpunished. It is for this reason that Panama wants all the details and the fury with which this crime was committed to be known. An aggression, Mr. Chairman, is an international crime condemned by all peoples, but that crime is even more serious if it is committed, as in this case, against a country that for years has been host to the aggressor, that has been its friend and its ally. The crime of aggression has left a tragic toll of dead and wounded in Panama, and I fear that faith in hemispheric solidarity may forever be buried by it. Throughout sixty years of relations with the United States in connection with the Canal, Panama has demonstrated its good faith and its loyalty to the ally that occupies that strip of its territory known as the Canal Zone. Panama has defended its rights, but always respecting the higher principle of hemisphere solidarity. No country of the world, no country of the Americas can have better proof of our loyalty to that principle than the United States. Despite our differences with reference to our relations, no act of sabotage in the Canal Zone committed by a Panamanian can be cited. We have never wavered in defending our rights, but we have done so with dignity and without pettiness. All America will understand what it means to Panama to have had its conduct as ally and friend repaid with unjustified aggression, to have had the claiming of its rights answered by the voice of the machine gun. The peoples of America cannot ignore the payment that Panama has received for its loyalty and its sincere friendship for the United States. Young students entering territory that is an integral part of the republic were received with gunfire and death. Something that could have been settled through police action, gave rise to an exaggerated deployment of military strength on the part of a great power, which flaunted its strength before a defenseless people. And I must insist on this vivid description, Mr. Chairman: on the one hand, an unarmed people and, on the other, an army that has the most powerful armament ever known. To gunfire, the Panamanian students, who had no place to obtain arms, answered with stones, while bullets sowed death among them. There was no provocation; they were in their own country; they only wanted to exercise the right for the Panamanian flag to fly over a territory that is an integral part of the republic. There is one aspect of this tragic situation, Mr. Chairman, that I wish to emphasize: the movement of the Panamanian students was not prepared, it arose |