We are, however, constantly put in mind of the fact that there are two parties to this treaty, and that our operations in regard to the Panama Canal are not conducted in a vacuum.

There is a community of interest between the United States and Panama in regard to the canal and an interdependency that must be taken into account when we are considering treaty matters.

Accordingly, in the negotiations we have sought a way for our defense and operational responsibilities to be carried out in a manner that is more acceptable to Panama, and less likely to result in the type of situation that is inimical to successful canal operations and our international relations generally. We have tried to keep in mind the changes that have occurred in the world since 1903 and to recognize that our real interest in Panama-the safe and efficient operation of the canal at reasonable rates-may be achieved in other and perhaps better ways than those now in use.

Negotiations looking toward substantial changes in our methods of operation in Panama began after the 1964 riots. After some consultation, a joint United States-Panama statement announced that certain areas of agreement had been found. Basically, the statement contemplated the replacement of the 1903 treaty with a new treaty intended to provide for "an appropriate political, economic, and social integration of the area used in the canal operation with the rest of the Republic of Panama."

Negotiators for the United States and Panama reached agreement on three new treaties to replace the 1903 treaty in 1967. The canal operation would have been turned over to a corporation which would be independent of both governments, although the United States would have retained the right to appoint a majority of the corporation's board of directors.

Panama never submitted these treaties for ratification, and consequently they were never submitted to the U.S. Congress. The government of General Torrijos has formally rejected the treaties.

In June 1971 the negotiations resumed. The United States, having in mind the objections to the 1967 treaties expressed by Members of the Congress and by the Government of Panama, proceeded along a somewhat different route. We proposed that we would retain for a fixed period of time the right to operate the canal by means of a U.S. Government agency. It would function in Panama with the treaty rights it needed to do the job. Congress would control tolls.

We also proposed that we would have the responsibility for defending the canal, its personnel and facilities, and that we retain appropriate defense facilities in the vicinity of the canal.

At the same time we proposed that on the effective date of the treaty Panama would begin to exercise various civil governmental functions in the zone, these functions to increase with the passage of time.

We proposed that private enterprise be given an opportunity to replace most of the commercial activities of the zone now carried on by the U.S. Government, provided that our employees could be assured of the necessary services.

Further, we offered to reduce the zone by the release to Panama of zone lands no longer necessary for the operation and defense of the canal, and to encourage, within the remaining area, Panamanian land use consistent with operational and defense requirements. We offered a substantial increase in financial benefits to Panama.

เอ

Last, we sought continuation of our right to add a third lane of locks to the existing canal, and a new right to build a sea level canal about 10 miles west of the existing canal.

The negotiations proceeded at a rapid pace during 1971. By the end of that year the United States had submitted draft treaty articles. or position papers on all of the major issues in the negotiations, and these, taken together, constituted a comprehensive and detailed U.S. offer.

Negotiations were specific, and were concerned with the details of drafting, as well as the broad principles of the treaty. In mid-December, 1971, the Panamanian negotiating team returned to Panama to consult with its government. For several months thereafter, although we had periodic discussions, we were unable to elicit any Panamanian position on our proposals, and no counteroffer was made by Panama. In December 1972 we were invited to travel to Panama for negotiations. At this meeting Panama furnished us a disappointing statement of its position in the negotiations. It reflected Panama's maximum aspirations as put forward at the very outset of the negotiations and seemed to repudiate the tentative steps toward compromise which had been taken during 1971. Although we replied informally to and discussed the position paper at length, we were unable to persuade Panama to deviate from its terms in even the slightest regard.

The United States formally replied to the Panamanian position in February of this year and concluded with the suggestion that negotiations resume at the earliest possible moment. We have not yet received other than an interim acknowledgement.

However, we should recognize that Panama has taken a position far from our own. On virtually every major issue there are serious differences. Panama wants a much shorter duration for the treaty than we have proposed, full control of zone lands, financial benefits that would necessitate an inordinately large toll increase, and the complete cessation by the United States within 5 years of canal functions which could be construed as being of a jurisdictional or sovereign nature. Nor does Panama offer tempting options in regard to the expansion of the existing canal, or the construction of a sea level canal.

As you know, the U.N. Security Council met in Panama during March. Ambassador Scali has already testified in considerable detail before the appropriate House Subcommittees concerning the events that took place there. I will not try to cover that same ground. I will observe, however, that the Security Council meeting did not improve the climate for negotiations.

I wish that I could, in conclusion, offer you a firm prediction as to when and how our differences will be settled. I cannot, for much depends upon the course that Panama chooses to follow. If Panama elects to return to the table and negotiate seriously, in a spirit of compromise, we may in time be able to submit to the Congress a sound proposal that protects the interests of both countries. You may be assured that we will continue to consult with the Congress, including this committee, as events in the negotiations unfold.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ward.

96-673 - 77-94

Talks, November 1973*

Department Announcement1

Ambassador at Large Ellsworth Bunker will leave for Panama on November 26 for talks with the Foreign Minister of Panama Juan Antonio Tack on a new approach toward reaching agreement on a modernized Panama Canal Treaty.

The United States and Panama have agreed to resume canal treaty negotiations. This will be Ambassador Bunker's first visit to Panama and will afford him an opportunity to become acquainted with Panama and its leaders, thus providing the basis for later substantive negotiations.

*Department of State Bulletin, v. 69, December 10, 1973, p. 711. 1Issued on Nov. 23 (press release 424).

Colombia, Designate Settlement of the Panama Question as an
Important Topic in the "New Dialogue" With the United
States, November 16, 1973*

BOGOTÁ AGENDA

LETTER FROM THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF COLOMBIA TO THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, NOVEMBER 28, 1973

His Excellency HENRY A. KISSINGER,

BOGOTÁ, November 28, 1973.

Secretary of State of the United States of America, Washington, D.C.

YOUR EXCELLENCY: As Chairman of the Latin American Foreign Ministers Conference for Hemispheric Cooperation held at Bogotá on November 14-16 last on the initiative of the Government of Colombia, I have the honor to inform you that, pursuant to your statements, the Conference approved the "Bases for a New Dialogue between Latin America and the United States" which I am happy to inclose.

During my meeting with Your Excellency on November 30 I shall also be happy to reiterate to you, on behalf of the Foreign Ministers who attended the Bogotá Conference, our very sincere desire to establish a "New Dialogue" between the Latin American countries and the United States for the purpose of discussing matters of interest to the Western Hemisphere.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary, the assurance of my highest and most distinguished consideration.

ALFREDO VÁZQUEZ Carrizosa,
Minister of Foreign Affairs.

REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA, MINISTRY OF FOREIgn Affairs

The Latin American Foreign Ministers Conference for Hemispheric Cooperation, held at Bogotá, approved the following document on November 16, 1973:

BASES FOR A NEW DIALOGUE BETWEEN LATIN AMERICA
AND THE UNITED STATES

On October 5, 1973, at the invitation of Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State of the United States of America, representatives of Latin American countries attending the Twenty-Eighth Session of the United Nations General Assembly met with Dr. Kissinger.

On that occasion the Secretary of State, in proposing to Latin America “a friendship based on equality and respect for the dignity of all," offered to open a “new dialogue" with the Latin American countries for the purpose of discussing matters of interest to the Hemisphere.

In view of that initiative, the Government of Colombia extended an invitation to Secretary of State Kissinger, who indicated that he expects "to be able to participate actively and personally in such a dialogue at the opportune moment." The Government of Colombia then called a Conference of Foreign Ministers for the purpose of exchanging opinions on how best to establish the bases for a new dialogue.

The Conference was held at Bogotá on November 14-16, 1973 and was attended by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Barbados, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Trinidad-Tobago, Guyana, and Colombia and the Special Representatives of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Jamaica, Bolivia, Haiti, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina.

The Conference reiterated the validity of the principles and concepts which the countries of Latin America have committed to various public documents, such as the Consensus of Viña del Mar of 1969 and other documents which have been approved subsequently, as well as the need to take the necessary steps to implement such principles and concepts.

*Printed in Report on Western Hemisphere Foreign Ministers Conference: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 93 Congress, 2nd Session, March 26, 1974, pp. 21–22.

1 Note: Order of precedence established by lot.

Bearing in mind that in that "new dialogue" which is to be conducted in the near future with the Secretary of State it will not be possible to examine exhaus tively each and every one of the current problems of interest to Latin America, the Conference concluded that it would be advantageous to initiate an exchange of opinions on the following subjects and positions:

SETTLEMENT OF THE PANAMA CANAL QUESTION

In view of the news that the bilateral negotiations begun in 1964 between the Republic of Panama and the United States of America concerning the Panama Canal question will soon be resumed, the other Latin American countries, reaffirming their solidarity with the Republic of Panama, state that settlement of that question is a matter of common interest and high priority for Latin America and express the hope that the already delayed negotiating process may reach a settlement which will satisfy the just aspirations of the Republic of Panama.