The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. The next witness will be Prof. Donald Dozer of the University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif. We are very glad to hear from you, sir. BIOGRAPHY OF DONALD MARQUAND DOZER Dozer, Donald Marquand, educator; b. Zanesville, O., June 7, 1905; s. Perley Walter and Minnie Bell (Marquand) D.; A.B., Coll. Wooster, 1927; A.M., Harvard, 1930. Ph. D., 1936; postgrad. Ohio State U., summers 1927, 28; m. Alice Louise Scott, August 2, 1941 (dec. Oct. 1972); children-Charles, Jane, Hilary. Tchr. history and debating Wooster (O.). High Sch., 1927-29; asst. history dept. Harvard U. and Radcliffe Coll., 1930-34; instr. history Boston U., 1934–35; jr. archivist, Nat. Archives, Washington, 1936-37; instr. history U. Md., 1937-42; research analyst Coordinator of Information, OSS, 1941-43; liaison officer Office Lend-Lease Administrn., 1943-44; fgn. trade analyst FEA, 1944; research analyst and asst. chief div. Am. Republics Analysis and Liaison, Dept. State, 1944-47, acting chief, div. research for Am. Republics, Office Intelligence Research, 1947– 49, coordinator spl. intelligence project involving Latin Am. area for joint Chiefs of Staff in Office of Intelligence Research, 1949-51, asst. to chief Div. Hist. Policy Research, Hist. Div., Office of Pub. Affairs under Asst. Sec. Pub. Affairs, 195156; State Dept. rep. spl. conf., Panama, C.Z., 1948; asst. tech. sec. U.S. delegation 9th Internat. Conf. Am. States, Bogota, Colombia, 1948. Lectr. Strategic Intelligence Sch., Nat. Mil. Establishment, Washington, 1949-51; lectr. Latin Am. Area study program Dept. Internat. Relations and Orgn. and Dept. History, Am. U., Washington, 1949-59; cons. on Latin Am. Brookings Instn., 1950-51; lectr. dept. history Coll. Spl. and Continuation Studies, U. Md., and Montgomery Jr. Coll., Takoma Park, 1956–59; asso. prof. history U. Cal., Santa Barbara, 1959-64, prof., 1964-72, prof. emeritus Latin Am. history and inter-Am. relations, 1972-. Cons. Center for Strategic Studies, Georgetown U., 1964, 66-67; vis. prof. Am. Grad. Sch. Internat. Mgmt., Glendale, Ariz., 1973–74. Thunderbird program Autonomous U., Guadalajara (Mexico), summer 1974, Boeki Kenshu Center (Inst. for Internat. Studies and Tng.), Kamiide, Fujinomiya-Shi, Japan, 1975. Past mem. alumni bd. Coll. Wooster. Relm Found. fellow, 1963, 66; Fulbright lectr. in history to Argentina, 1971. Recipient Alberdi-Sarmiento prize La Prensa, Buenos Aires, 1972. Mem. Conf. on Latin Am. Studies, Am. Hist. Assn., Pacific Coast Council on Latin Am. Studies (governing bd. 1964-67, chmn. 1969-70). Am. Revolution Bicentennial Commn. of Cal. (vice chmn. 1968-75, acting chmn. 1975-). Geog. Soc. Lima (corr.), Mont Pelerin Soc., S.A.R. (nat. Americanism com. 1975-), Phi Beta Kappa, Omicron Delta Kappa (hon.), Delta Sigma Rho. Christian Scientist. Author: Are We Good Neighbors?, 1959, 61; Latin America: An Interpretive History, 1962; (with others) Trouble Abroad, 1965; The Monroe Doctrine: Its Modern Significance, 1965; (with others) Latin America: Politics, Economics and Hemisphere Security, 1965; Editor: The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran, Dept. State, 1961; also numerous articles Am. fgn. policy, Latin-Am. Relations and hist. subjects in jours. and revs, Home: 421 Miramonte Dr., Santa Barbara, CA 93109. STATEMENT OF DONALD MARQUAND DOZER, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF LATIN AMERICAN HISTORY AND INTER-AMERICAN RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA Mr. DOZER. Mr. Chairman and members of this important and influential committee, I think that in the interests of time I shall skip the personal data which I presented on the first couple of pages of my written statement. The CHAIRMAN. Your statement will be printed in the record in full and you may handle it as you see fit. Each member has a copy. Mr. DOZER. Thank you. 99-213-77—9 I will just say in that connection that I have been interested in interAmerican relations for over 40 years. I have traveled in almost all of the Latin American countries. I have friends in these countries and other excellent sources of information. I do want to mention that in 1972 I was presented with the AlberdiSarmiento award by "La Prensa" of Buenos Aires for outstanding contributions to inter-American friendship. I was the second U.S. citizen to be thus honored by this award, which was originally established in 1954. TOLLS INCREASES EFFECT On my recent trip to Latin American countries this last January and February I talked with government executives, business leaders, journalists, and other leaders who expressed their apprehension about the adverse effects on their national economies of the increased tolls authorized in this new canal treaty for the unjust enrichment of Panama. The Carter-Torrijos canal treaty will require a substantial increase in tolls to provide the Torrijos government with an average of $80 million per year to service Panama's debts to a consortium of foreign lending institutions. In the new canal treaty, Panama assumes no binding obligation, like that which rests upon the United States, to keep the canal free and open at reasonable charges. COLOMBIA'S TREATY RIGHTS Latin American leaders also expressed indignation over the cavalier treatment of Colombia. The Thomson-Urrutia Treaty of 1914 granted Colombia free use of the canal for certain products of its soil and agriculture and also free use of the Panama Railroad under certain conditions. There is no protection of Colombia's treaty rights in either the new canal treaty or the new neutrality treaty. When Colombia protested this violation of its treaty rights, the State Department summarily dismissed the complaint with the statement that Colombia must negotiate with Panama. PAYMENTS TO PANAMA FOR DISCHARGING POLICE, SANITATION RESPONSIBILITY The diplomatic ineptitude of the negotiators of the new draft treaties in agreeing to pay Panama $10 million annually for discharg ing police and sanitation responsibility in the canal area ignores the sad experience of the United States which abrogated its police power in the cities of Panama and Colón in compliance with terms of the 1936 treaty and abdicated its responsibility for sanitation in the same two cities in accordance with terms of the 1955 treaty. Recent rioting in both Panama and Colón underscore the folly of the former concession and the failure of Panama to collect the garbage with the attendant problems of disease-bearing rats emphasizes the folly of the latter concession. Now it is proposed in the new treaty that the United States should turn over to Panama the sanitation and police responsibilities in the area of the Canal Zone when our past experience indicates that Panama is not able to fulfill that requirement. FREEDOM OF TRANSIT The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 binds the United States to defend the freedom of transit of the Panama Canal and keep it open to the vessels of all nations at charges which are just and equitable. May I say in that connection that the present treaties under consideration are not proposing merely to abrogate the basic treaty of 1903, but a complex of treaties which have been negotiated since 1903. During that period, the United States has made an unblemished record of honoring its commitment under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty and other commitments ever since opening the canal to world traffic in 1914. During the 63 years while the United States has operated the canal as an international public utility the citizens of all nations who have used the canal have acquired a vested right to free and uninterrupted transit under the flag and protection of the United States. The Isthmian Canal Convention of 1903 is the only treaty which binds Panama to articles III and IV of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty which makes the isthmian canal an international waterway. There is no time limit on this commitment. The national honor and integrity of the United States demand that we retain all the sovereign rights, power, and authority granted by Panama in perpetuity to us in 1903. Contrary to false statements made by the executive branch, the neutrality treaty does not give the United States the right to intervene in Panama to honor our international commitments to keep the canal free and open to user nations. In fact, the word "intervention" appears nowhere in either treaty and was deleted in capitulation to Panama's demands. Chairman Rómulo Escobar of the Panamanian People's Party who was Panama's principal treaty negotiator, has made it clear to this assembly of community representatives that the United States cannot intervene to defend the neutrality of the canal without committing an act of aggression. PUBLICLY STATED AIMS OF TORRIJOS GOVERNMENT The publicly stated aims of the Marxist Torrijos dictatorship of Panama are: First, to nationalize the Canal Zone; second, to order the U.S. defense forces to leave the Isthmus; and third, to confiscate the canal. If the Senate consents to ratification of the Carter-Torrijos canal treaty, the Canal Zone will cease to exist, not just in a period of 20 years or 22 years, but virtually immediately, as soon as the treaty goes into effect, which will be 6 months after ratification. Torrijos can then order U.S. troops off the Isthmus, just as Gen. Charles De Gaulle ordered U.S. forces off our defense bases in France. The Isthmian Canal Convention of 1903 specifically provides for the stationing of U.S. forces in the Canal Zone for the defense of freedom of the interoceanic canal. Under the new treaties and President Carter's contingency plan for keeping on the alert U.S. troops at Fort Bragg, a parachute drop on what will be again Panamanian soil will be an act of aggression. As long as we retain our present treaty rights in the Canal Zone, we can keep the peace and regain the respect of our Latin American neighbors by maintaining a strong defense in the Canal Zone. On the other hand, if the Senate consents to the new canal treaties, it will be necessary for the United States to commit an act of aggression in order to maintain the neutrality of the canal. What is best for the nations of the free world is also best for Panama. The wisest advice was given by nine members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services in February 1973 as follows, and I quote: In a long range, we must work with Panama to help her understand that the best guarantee of her sovereignty, security, prosperity, and nationhood lies in maintaining the historic grant of sovereignty to the United States in the Canal Zone. U.S. TRANSGRESSION AGAINST PANAMA IN 1903 The United States did not transgress in any way against the Panamanian people by guaranteeing their independence in 1903. The President of the Provisional Government of Panama, José Agustín Arango, and his associates had worked for 20 years for freedom from the tyranny of the unitary government imposed upon them by Bogotá. Whenever they undertook to reassert their independence, the United States had intervened to protect the freedom of transit across the isthmus and had supported the sovereignty of Colombia. The impudent rejection of the Hav-Herrán Treaty by Colombia was for Panama a stroke of fortune. Unwilling to see the Nicaragua Canal completed in accordance with the Spooner Compromise of 1902, the Panamanian patriots resumed their independence and offered the United States a canal treaty conforming in every respect to the requirements of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 between the United States and Great Britain, and the Spooner Act of 1902. When in 1911 Theodore Roosevelt boasted, "I took the isthmus." he should have added, "because Panama offered herself." We have the word of Dr. Manuel Amador, the first President of the Panamanian Republic: "It was our own act." President Roosevelt considered it fitting that the United States should, as he said, "be the first to stretch out the hand of fellowship to the newborn state." It is impossible to exaggerate, I think, the eagerness with which Panama grabbed the opportunity to negotiate a canal treaty with the United States which would assure that the canal would be built in territory adjoining the Republic, rather than at Nicaragua. In response to Colombian protests against Roosevelt's braggadocio. the United States paid Colombia the $25 million which their congress had demanded in 1903. Under terms of the Thomson-Urrutia Treaty of 1914, the United States purchased a quit claim by which Colombia recognized the independence of Panama and acknowledged that "title to the Panama Canal and the Panama Railroad now vests entirely and absolutely in the United States without any encumbrances or indemnity whatever." STATUS OF UNITED STATES IN ZONE Neither in the treaty of 1903 nor in any subsequent treaty concluded between the United States and Panama are the words "rental" or "lease" or any form of these words used to define the status of the United States in the Canal Zone. The continuing argument for a leasehold status of the zone rests entirely upon the spurious interpretation of article XIV in that treaty in which the United States agreed to pay Panama an annuity of $250,000 in gold coin starting 9 years after the signing of the treaty. A study of the history of the negotiations of 1903 shows that Bunau Varilla, in an effort to resolve a deadlock, persuaded Secretary Hay to assume the annual franchise payment of $250,000 which the Panama Railroad formerly paid to Colombia. This annual payment to Panama did not impose any limitation upon the sovereign status of the United States in the Canal Zone nor upon the ownership by the United States of the land of the Canal Zone. The Canal Zone has never been leased to the United States. It was granted in perpetuity, and in this relationship no justification can be found for a partnership arrangement with Panama for the administration of the canal. Let me call your attention to the fact that the treaty of 1903 granted to the United States "in perpetuity all the rights, power, and authority" in the zone required by the United States to the entire exclusion of the exercise of any such sovereign rights, power, and authority by the Republic of Panama in perpetuity. Contrary to false statements by the executive branch, article III, paragraph 6 of the 1936 treaty between the United States and Panama does not say that the Canal Zone is "territory of the Republic of Panama under the jurisdiction of the United States of America." This refers not to the Canal Zone, but to territory of Panama in the city of Colón, which was formerly known as New Cristóbal. U.S. jurisdiction over this parcel of territory was later abrogated under the terms of the 1955 treaty revision. Since then there has been no territory of the Republic of Panama under the jurisdiction of the United States of America. The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wilson v. Shaw, in 1907, that Panama ceded the Canal Zone to the United States is not a unilateral interpretation of the 1903 treaty as falsely alleged by our State Department. It merely affirmed decisions made by all three branches of the Government of Panama after 1903. In Secretary Hay's well-known letter of October 1904 to Panama's Minister, José de Obaldía, Secretary of State Hay cited the DavisArias boundary agreement of June 1904, by which the executive conceded that Panama ceded the Canal Zone to the United States by terms of the 1903 treaty. Hay cited law No. 88 enacted by the Panamanian National Assembly in July 1904, which used the words, "the zone ceded to the United States." Hay also cited numerous Panamanian court cases by which the judicial branch of Panama acknowledged the territorial cession of the Canal Zone to the United States. THEORY OF TITULAR SOVEREIGNTY The theory of titular sovereignty has no standing at law. Originally promulgated in connection with the Taft Agreement of 1904, it was dismissed out of hand by Secretary of State Hay as a "barren. scepter." Later, while Taft was serving as Chief Justice of the United States in 1930, he had an opportunity in delivering the decision of the Su |