Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will Senator Javits yield to me just briefly at that point without it charging against his allotted time? Senator JAVITS. Certainly. Senator BAKER. The majority and minority leaders of the Senate are ex officio members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Case is the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. This matter was gone into by the Senate Intelligence Committee at some length, and I would advise Senator Javits, as Senator Case already knows, that I asked Senator Inouye and Senator Case if they would make arrangements to fully brief this committee on all of the information and data they had, including the source material, and Senator Inouye and Senator Case, I understand, have agreed to that, not because it necessarily will change anybody's point of view, or introduce a new element into the proceeding, but just to make sure that this committee has access to the same material that the Senate Intelligence Committee had so at some early future time this commitee will be briefed in executive session on the information to which Senator Javits alluded. Senator JAVITS. Thank you. Senator CASE. If the Senator would just yield to me further- Senator CASE. In the meantime, it is appropriate to put on the record the fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee having looked into the matter made this statement, which all members of that committee approved, that the committee had found no evidence or reason to believe or conclude that U.S. intelligence activities in any way have affected the final result of the Panama Canal treaties. Senator JAVITS. Very good. The CHAIRMAN. May I say in that connection that on September 19, Senator Inouye issued a statement. It was very brief, and I think it might be well to read it. The Select Committee on Intelligence received testimony from Ambassador Bunker and Ambassador Linowitz, the Director of Central Intelligence, Adm. Stansfield Turner, officials of the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community concerning certain aspects of the Panama Canal Treaties. The committee has no evidence or reason to believe or conclude that U.S. intelligence activities have in any way affected the final results of the Panama Canal Treaties. I wrote a letter to Senator Inouye following that and I sent a copy to Senator Case. I think it might be well to have it included in the record. Senator JAVITS. I ask that that be done. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. [The information referred to follows:] Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, SEPTEMBER 22, 1977. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you may know, the Committee on Foreign Relations will begin hearings on the Panama Canal Treaties on September 26. During the course of the extensive hearings that have been planned, the committee will attempt to bring out all information that may be pertinent to the committee's and the Senate's consideration of this important matter. The committee is aware of the recent study made by the Intelligence Committee concerning allegations of electronic surveillance and related events dur ing the negotiations of the Panama Treaties. I would appreciate your providing the committee with any information developed during the course of the committee's study which may be of value to the Foreign Relations Committee in its work on the treaties. In particular, we would be interested in any conclusions that may have been reached by your committee as to the impact, if any, the alleged events may have had on the negotiations. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. JOHN SPARKMAN, Chairman. POSSIBILITY OF TREATY'S BEING REPUDIATED Senator JAVITS. Gentlemen, now to get to more substantive questions, one of the things that is worrying people about this treaty is whether it will be repudiated after a few years and an effort will be made to renegotiate it. General Torrijos, I believe, has behaved in a statesmanlike way in respect of the making of this treaty. However, he is not an elected president. He is designated chief of government, but he is there by military takeover, not by election. The people of Panama will vote on this treaty. That is an important consideration, but after Torrijos came in, he, as I remember it, rejected a treaty which was then in contemplation with the United States, a treaty which was in contemplation in 1967, which had been negotiated with his predecessor. How do you gentlemen feel about this risk? We will start with the Secretary himself. There is a risk in everything. I understand that. We cannot be immune from acts of God and man, but how does the United States look at it and calculate the chances of this treaty holding up? What do you see as we look ahead? Secretary VANCE. I think it is very clear that under these new treaties the chance of any repudiation attempt to abrogate the treaties is very much less than it would be under the current situation, and for several reasons. First, the economic stake, the political stake, which the Panamanians will have under the new treaty, is much greater than it is under the current treaties, and it will be in their national self-interest to continue that treaty in effect. Second, under the new arrangement, one of the most difficult and exacerbating issues has been removed, and that is the issue with respect to how the U.S. presence will be handled there and the question of the Canal Zone itself and the question of sovereignty. As a result of these factors, it is my very strong belief that we will be much better off in the future than we have been in the past if these treaties are ratified or come into effect. Senator JAVITS. Ambassador Bunker? Ambassador BUNKER. I think we will be better off, Senator, as the Secretary has said, not only for our own interests but from the viewpoint of all Latin America. I think they are behind Panama on the issue primarily of sovereignty. Once that has been settled, I think the major issue as far as Latin America is concerned is taken care of. If Panama should attempt to reopen it again, I do not think they would have the support of the rest of the hemisphere as they have now. [Secretary Vance nods affirmatively.] Ambassador Linowitz nods affirmatively.] Senator JAVITS. Ambassador Linowitz? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Senator, let me add just two more points. First, it is important to recognize that, though there were many great temptations to do so, Panama has never abrogated the 1903 treaty. In other words, Panama's record of living with the treaty executed in good faith, even though under the difficult circumstance, the 1903 treaty is very good. Second, if Panama should under some circumstances undertake to abrogate the treaty, then of course it would free us from the obligation to turn over the operation of the canal in 23 years. One party can't abrogate one part of a treaty and then expect the other to live by the terms. So, it is in Panama's highest interest to live by this treaty in order to assure that by the year 2000 it is able to take over operation and control. Senator JAVITS. I think those are very important and persuasive arguments, Mr. Secretary. EVIDENCE OF LATIN AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR PANAMA CONCERNING TREATY Ambassador Bunker said Latin America "supports Panama in this treaty." What is the evidence on that? Of course, we had how many, 20 chiefs of state here when the treaty was signed? Secretary VANCE. Twenty chiefs of state, foreign ministers, and others. From the conversations that we have had with the heads of state, plus the continuing communication that we have had in the past, there is no question at all that, as has been said earlier here today, probably the most exacerbating fact in the relationship between the United States and the Latin American states has been the question of Panama, and with this question resolved, the situation, in my judgment, will be vastly improved, and it will have an effect that goes far beyond just the question of a new treaty for Panama. It will improve, in my judg ment, our relations and our ability to cooperate with and work with the nations of Latin America in a major way. Senator JAVITs. Is this based upon the Secretary's and the President's conversations with heads of state and foreign ministers of the Latin American countries? Secretary VANCE. It is, yes, sir. NATIONS WHICH WILL SUBSCRIBE TO NEUTRALITY Senator JAVITS. Do we have any assurances as to which nations will subscribe to the neutrality, treaty under article VII, and does that include the Soviet Union? Secretary VANCE. We do not yet have word with respect to what the Soviet Union may do. The President received a number of messages at the time of the Panama Canal treaties' signing. Some of those nations are some of the major nations of the world who are involved in trade and commerce, such as Japan, England, West Germany, and many, many others, as well as many nations of the Third World. So, although we do not know yet how many people are going to sign the protocol, the indications are that this not only has the support of the hemisphere, but has general support around the world. Senator JAVITS. Mr. Secretary, I have one legal question which to me is critically important which I would like to put to you. Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir. Senator JAVITS. I hope you can answer it. If you cannot, I hope you will supply the answer. DIFFERENCE IN REFERENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES IN TREATIES I see a very significant difference between article IV of the treaty, the critical article relating to protection and defense, and article IV of the Neutrality Treaty. The difference is this. In article IV of the treaty, each party shall act in accordance with its constitutional processes. That relates to the unilateral action, if necessary, to which you have testified. Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir. Senator JAVITS. Article IV of the Neutrality Treaty says: The United States of America and the Republic of Panama agree to maintain the regime of neutrality established in this Treaty . . .", but without any reference in the text to constitutional processes. Now, is that an oversight? Is that intentional? What does it mean? Secretary VANCE. I will let my colleagues, who were the negotiators, speak to the actual wording. But let me tell you what my opinion is and what is the opinion of the Legal Adviser to the State Department with respect to the issue which you have raised. Article IV obligates the United States, as well as Panama, to maintain the neutrality of the canal. However, the article leaves to each party the determination of what steps it will take in order to maintain the security of the canal and keep it open and neutral. Therefore, we would then proceed according to our normal constitutional processes, which would mean that the President could act, but that the war powers legislation would apply, so that after the stated period of time after the President acts, then the Congress could take the necessary action under the War Powers Act. UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES Senator JAVITS. As a followup question, would you see any objection to an understanding to the resolution of ratification to that effect? Secretary VANCE. I would see no problem with an understanding. Let me stress the difference between understandings and reservations, which you made. I wholeheartedly agree that any reservations would create a tremendously difficult problem because it would involve a renegotiation of the treaty. An understanding is a different question, and it would not bother me to have an understanding. Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Senator CASE. Would the Senator yield? Senator JAVITS. I think my time is up. Senator CASE. I want to follow up this one point. In this particular matter, an understanding in regard to our obligation is just as good as a reservation? Secretary VANCE. I think it is, yes, sir. Senator JAVITS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pell. Senator PELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ACCESS OF UNFRIENDLY SHIPPING IN WAR TIME Let me follow up one point made earlier concerning the access of unfriendly shipping in the time of war through the canal. Did any Axis vessel in World War II or any Central Power vessel in World War I seek passage through the canal? Ambassador LINOWITZ. We are told by the Department of Defense and the Chiefs of Staff that none was presented for entrance in World War II. I am not sure about the answer for World War I. Senator PELL. Why don't we get that answer for the record. I think it will probably be none, too. Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir. [The information referred to follows:] TRANSITS BY SHIPS OF CENTRAL POWERS [Supplied by the Panama Canal Co.] A search of our records back to 1922 reveals no transits by Soviet naval vessels. Records prior to 1922 do not designate type of vessel or nationality. U.S. RIGHT OF ACCESS IN PERPETUITY Senator PELL. The thing that concerns me the most is whether we have in perpetuity the right to insure that our war vessels and merchant vessels have the right of passage through the canal. I understand from article IV of the second treaty, the Neutrality Treaty, that this right is understood by you to exist. But where is the evidence that the Panamanians have the same understanding in this regard. Ambassador LINOWITZ. Are you talking about article VI, Senator? Senator PELL. Article IV, the right of neutrality, the right of free passage through the canal at any time. Ambassador LINOWITZ. I think that free passage, Senator, is in article VI, expeditious transit. Senator PELL. I believe I mean article IV-the right of intervention pertaining to neutrality. Ambassador LINOWITZ. In other words, the right to maintain the neutrality of the canal. Where is the evidence? Senator PELL. Yes, that the Panamanians interpret it the same way you do. Ambassador LINOWITZ. Senator, we wrote the language; they know how we interpret it; I read you what General Torrijos said when he signed the treaties at the ceremony. They are certainly aware of what we are telling you today of our interpretation of this language, and we don't expect that interpretation to be contradicted. Senator PELL. The language itself does not really say that as I read it. Therefore, I would hope it would be abundantly clear-the one statement that I recall on Panama's part was that of General Torrijos at the time it was signed. Were there any other statements by the Panama Government to the effect that we have the right to intervene to insure our passage through the canal? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Not that I know of. Not since the treaties were signed. Senator PELL. Wouldn't it be a good idea if they did so that the Panamanians had the same understanding that we do? |