other reason why the canal simply could not remain open. They did, indeed, bring up the question of what would happen if the canal were not operating in a profitable fashion. We did disagree with them on the position they asserted and therefore that was not included in the treaty. The position we took was should such a circumstance arise, we would have to talk with one another. But we did not agree that there would be anything in the treaty which would relieve them from the obligation to keep the canal open, and if circumstances should arise which would make that neces sary in their judgment, then we would be in a position to discuss it. Senator STONE. Yet Ambassador Escobar says quite clearly to the National Assembly by Panama after he initialed the treaty with you,. "We finally agreed to eliminate that article, and so Panama was freed of the obligation to maintain the canal open permanently." I will concede, of course, that that means only in those three circumstances, because there is no question that apart from those three circumstances, the first two being obvious to all students of law. An act of God does excuse the obligation. But what of this later feeling that if the finances take a turn for the worse-and after all, we have had on a number of occasions to subsidize the canal and now we are going to have to have increased tolls to pay increased revenues-but what happens if, after the year 2000, when they take it over, it is not profitable? Where, then, do we get our right to keep it open if, for financial reasons, under the interpretation of their chief negotiator to their National Assembly they decide that these terms aren't quite good enough and that for financial reasons they will close it? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I can only say to you, Senator, that after that colloquy and that disagreement, the words, "shall remain open," remain in the treaty. Senator STONE. So you disagree with his interpretation to Panama? Ambassador LINOWITZ. We never agreed that if financial considerations should force closing of the canal that they would be free to do it. Senator STONE. Yet you do say, Ambassador Linowitz, in your statement: "It is therefore clear that though the canal is still important, it has, to a substantial extent, become economically obsolescent." So, we are not talking about a hypothetical situation; it is a real possibility. Ambassador LINOWITZ. In which case we would discuss it, Senator. Senator STONE. Thank you. I see that I have time left, but I have not yet voted. I will yield my time to whoever has voted and will resume questioning in the next round. I thank you, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Glenn. Senator GLENN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. NO OTHER AREAS OF UNCLEAR INTERPRETATION Gentleman, on some of these interpretations now being placed on what was agreed to are extremely important. Are there any other areas of interpretation here that have not been clarified or brought out yet, of which you are aware? Are there other areas that you know of where interpretation is still not as clear between the two parties as it should be? Ambassador BUNKER. I don't think so, Senator. Senator GLENN. The ones brought out here this morning are the only ones? Ambassador BUNKER. I think so, yes. Do you agree, Sol? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I agree. IS ALL MATERIAL BEARING ON INTERPRETATION IN PUBLIC DOMAIN? Senator GLENN. I know we have said this morning, and you have so indicated, that you will be cooperative in getting any background information which the committee wants as far as documentation goes, but are there any other understandings, either verbal, or an exchange of notes, or anything else that bears on the interpretation of these treaties that has not been furnished to the committee or that is not in the public domain now? Ambassador BUNKER. Everything. Secretary VANCE. I will ask both Ambassador Bunker and Ambassador Linowitz to answer. Ambassador BUNKER. Everything has been sent to the Senate. Senator GLENN. There are no classified agreements or arrangements or anything? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Senator, I think we can assure you un equivocally that there are no express or implied agreements of any kind that have not been made public or will not be made public. Senator GLENN. Thank you. OBLIGATION TO PAY BALANCE OWING AFTER 1999 Article XIII, section 4(c), provides that in the event revenues are not sufficient to meet the payments provided for in that paragraph, the obligation will be carried over. In the event there is a balance owing at the end of the year 1999, what will be the obligation of the United States to pay that balance? Should there be any such obligation, will an appropriations bill be required to provide the funds for this? Ambassador BUNKER, No. There will be no obligation after the treaty expires, Senator. Senator GLENN. There will be no obligation? Ambassador BUNKER. NO. Senator GLENN. How about the obligation in the meantime? Say that would carry over from one year to another in a deficit financing situation, would we be responsible for those bills? Ambassador BUNKER. No. They only come out of any settlement, so we will not be responsible. Senator GLENN. OK. DETERMINATION OF POSSIBLE TOLL INCREASES Will the United States play a role in determining possible toll increases? How will reasonable increases be determined? I think this is becoming of increasing importance because just 7 or 8 days ago we had the first shipload of Alaskan crude arrive at its east coast destination. We are going to see a lot more of that occurring. Will we be party to setting the tolls on that so that we can't be held up, so that there will not be blackmail involved in coming through the canal? Ambassador BUNKER. We will have the power to set tolls during the time of the treaty, Senator. Senator GLENN. Beyond the year 2000, we will have no right to set tolls. Is that correct? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Under the neutrality treaty, article III indicates certain rules that apply in connection with the efficiency and proper maintenance of the canal. Subparagraph (c) says: "Tolls and other charges for transit and ancillary services shall be just, reasonable, equitable, and consistent with the principles of international law." So we do have a concern and have a role to play in the fixing of the tolls. Senator GLENN. Even beyond the year 2000 ? Ambassador LINOWITZ. After the year 2000, Senator. HOW FREELY GIVEN IS JCS SUPPORT? Senator GLENN. These treaties, I understand, have the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I would be curious as to whether there was any coercion used to obtain that agreement because immediately prior to their agreeing, four former Chiefs of Naval Operations, as you are aware, came out solidly against the treaty. I think it has been mentioned in the press, and I certainly think the members of the committee here would wonder how freely given their support of this is. We will have them before us to ascertain that, and we will ask them a lot of questions on this. Do you have any comment on the fervor of their support for this? Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir, I do. No coercion was used on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are all independent, strong men. You can ask them themselves. Ambassador LINOWITZ. May I add a word, please? Senator GLENN. Certainly. Ambassador LINOWITZ. There are two things that ought to be known. First, General Dolvin was a member of the negotiating team—he has been for several years-representing the Joint Chiefs and the Department of Defense. The second thing is it is worth knowing that the language of article IV, about which there has been so much discussion, originated in very substantial part with the Joint Chiefs and the Department of Defense. Ambassador BUNKER. If I may say, too, Senator, I have never presented any position to the Panamanians that did not have the acquiescence of the Department of Defense also. We worked very closely together. LEGAL REACTION TO U.S. NEUTRALITY-PRESERVING MILITARY INTERVENTION Senator GLENN. With the understanding that it is the understanding of both Panama and the United States that we have the right to intervene militarily under the neutrality treaty, should that become necessary to maintain the regime of neutrality, what, then, is the legal impact of this document under international law? What would be the legal reaction, for instance, of the U.N. and other nations to such an intervention? Have you had any comment from other countries on that? How does this impinge on international law? Can we make an agreement like this and have it binding upon other nations? Ambassador VANCE. The answer is I believe we can; yes. To my knowledge I have seen no adverse comment nor heard of any adverse comment from other nations under the treaty. If there is any such, we will, of course, convey that view to this committee. Senator GLENN. I was concerned that we are making a commitment here of neutrality, that we are guaranteeing it. Yet other nations around the world are not party to that regime. They are not party to when we would invoke that neutrality, and yet it is of vital concern to them obviously. Ambassador LINOWITZ. Senator, if I may say, in my statement I referred to the protocol to the neutrality treaty, which will be offered to the other countries of the world. There are two provisions in that protocol which I might read to you. "Whereas, the regime of neutrality which the United States of America and the Republic of Panama have agreed to maintain will ensure permanent access to the canal by vessels of all nations on the basis of entire equality;" and "Whereas the said regime of effective neutrality shall constitute the best protection for the canal and shall ensure the absence of any hostile act against it," they go on and approve this treaty. In short, any action we undertake thereafter would be with the knowledge and approval of the other countries who have indicated their support by adhering to the protocol. Senator GLENN. That will be submitted to all nations with whom we have relations around the world? Ambassador LINOWITZ. To all nations of the world. Senator GLENN. To all nations of the world, period, whether or not we have diplomatic relations with them? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Yes, sir. RESTRICTIONS ON SHIPS TRANSITING THROUGH CANAL Senator GLENN. Mr. Linowitz, in your testimony you emphasized very strongly the fact that U.S. warships could transit the canal with no restrictions whatsoever on what weapons they might have aboard. You emphasized it strongly enough so that the thought came to mind, what is the case with other nations? Let's say that Soviet vessels wish to transit the canal with many nuclear weapons abroad, for instance. Would they be prohibited from doing so, or would all nations of the world have the same right that you stressed in your statement that we have? Ambassador LINOWITZ. There is a special provision in article VI, paragraph (1), which covers the United States and Panama. You will see that it says, "Irrespective of internal operation, means of propulsion, origin, destination, armament, or cargo carried". It is true that there is another provision, which is article III, section 1(e), which does describe the right of other vessels of other countries with respect to passing through the canal. Again, it says that they may pass "irrespective of internal operation, means of propulsion, origin, destination, or armament," but it does not include cargo. U.S. AND OAS OPTIONS IF PANAMA RENOUNCES TREATIES Senator GLENN. If Panama were to renounce the treaties, what options would be available to us and to the Organization of American States? Ambassador BUNKER. To repudiate the treaty? Senator GLENN. If Panama were to renounce the treaties for whatever reasons, what options would be available to the United States and the Organization of American States? Ambassador BUNKER. Well, it seems to me that it relieves us of our obligations under the treaty. We would be free, if they abrogate the treaty, to take whatever action we would deem necessary or prudent. Senator GLENN. That would include military action, I would presume, if necessary? Ambassador BUNKER. Yes. Secretary VANCE. Yes. Ambassador LINOWITZ. [Nods affirmatively.] DEGREE OF CUBAN AND SOVIET INVOLVEMENT IN PANAMA Senator GLENN. The close ties that General Torrijos has expressed for some of his communist neighbors, for President Castro, or instance, have disturbed some people in this country. What do you feel is the degree of Cuban and Soviet involvement in Panama? Just as an additional item on that, the Soviet Economic Delegation, I understand, visited from July 11 to July 19 this year. Supposedly there is discussion of Soviet purchases of sugar, and certainly General Torrijos has made no secret of his admiration for Castro and for Cuba. Does this give you any pause as to the long-term commitment we have signed? Secretary VANCE. No. I think that there are unquestionably relationships between the two countries as there are relationships between the Panamanians and the Soviet Union. This, however, does not give me concern. I think we have all the rights that are necessary to protect ourselves, to protect our interests, and to protect the canal and keep it open to the world. Senator GLENN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Clark. Senator CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. LEGAL QUESTION ON COMMITMENTS OF TROOPS UNDER NEUTRALITY TREATY I would like to develop the legal question on commitments of troops under the neutrality treaty, about which Senator Javits spoke, a little bit further to illustrate its importance and I think perhaps the |