They felt that the treaties are a symbol of American respect for the emerging nations, not only for Panama but really for all the Latin American nations. Now I do not claim to have talked to a great number, but that is the opinion I received. When we then went to Ecuador I asked this question about the treaties repeatedly. First of all, we were in Panama at the same time the negotiators were negotiating the treaties. When we flew into Ecuador the news had arrived before we did. There was intense interest on the part of the churchmen about the treaties and again my overwhelming impression was that they saw the new treaties as a sign that the United States may be willing to recognize the sovereignty of the emerging nations in a way we have not done heretofore. That was my overwhelming impression.

Merle Crouse, who has spent some years there do you want to comment on that?

Senator PERCY. Yes, of course.

MR. CROUSE'S BACKGROUND

Senator SARBANES. Could you identify yourself for the record, Mr. Crouse?

Mr. CROUSE. Merle Crouse, Latin American Secretary for the Church of the Brethren General Board.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you.

Mr. CROUSE. I have been related to Latin America since 1958. I spent 10 years in Ecuador and the last 8 years on the staff of the general board related to Latin America. For the most part we find ourselves in mission work and service work, involved with village people, poor people, with rural people, with what you might call the Pueblo oftentimes, the 80 percent of Latin America that really has been a people without too much opportunity.

SUPPORT FOR RATIFICATION BY LEADERSHIP OF POORER PEOPLE

The leadership that is given to respond to the aspirations of those people have come out very forthrightly and very hopefully that the Panama Canal Treaties will be ratified, feeling that that represents a turn in U.S. leadership and attitude toward Latin America.

There are a number of letters, public letters signed by key leaders from all over the hemisphere that have come in the past year and a half from people encouraging U.S. church constituency, U.S. church people, to bring to bear as much influence as possible on the Government that indeed a new government policy be developed.

FAMILIARITY WITH AND SUPPORT FOR TREATIES

Senator PERCY. My only other question is similar to one I put to groups who have appeared before us in opposition to the treaties. Some of them testified that they have opposed a new treaty for 10 years. They took official positions before they had even seen the treaties.

Now, I noticed that the Church of the Brethren's Annual Conference was held July 1976. That is well before the treaties were available. You took a position encouraging negotiation of the new treaty,

eventual turnover of the canal and return of the Canal Zone to Panama, and the ratification of the treaties by the U.S. Senate. Now you have seen the treaties; now you have looked at the terms, and you have heard the opposition. Is it still your position that without any qualifications whasoever, without any clarification of any misunderstandings that might exist and without any amendments, that you still support the treaties?

Professor MILLER. I think I understand the sense of the question from the questions to the previous person. I would say, first of all, there were the Kissinger-Tack agreements of principle and they were what the conference had in mind when it passed on the proposed treaty.

Now, the General Board of the Church of the Brethren is familiar with the proposed treaties and so it is on the basis of the general board familiarity that I say we are in favor of them.

I would say that where there is ambiguity, of course there needs to be clarification. No such clarifications or changes should be made, it seems to me, that violate the spirit and intent of the Kissinger-Tack principles. Whereas one cannot expect that any treaty will be a perfect instrument, one can say that the treaty is so much fairer in terms of principles of fairness I have outlined here, that we do strongly support it.

Senator PERCY. Thank you very much indeed. I do appreciate being allowed these questions before you finish your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your customary thoughtfulness.

Senator SARBANES. Professor Miller, we will include your statement in the record in its entirety, a good part of which I take it you had made, but I gather you may want to go on and complete it at this point. Is that correct?

Professor MILLER. Let me go further because there were several points I wanted to make as I spoke.

Senator SARBANES. Fine, why don't you go ahead and complete your presentation.

FIVE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL JUSTICE

Professor MILLER. I was speaking to the idea of Biblical justice and I lift up in my statement five principles.

(1) Biblical justice is concerned about the well-being of the whole community of nations.

(2) Biblical justice is willing to be fair to the weak and the poor. (3) Biblical justice is concerned for the new order that is coming into being.

(4) Biblical justice discerns rightly what will strengthen relationships between persons and communities, and (5) Biblical justice demonstrates a fundamental good will toward other groups.

Now what I would like to do is to illustrate those with reference to the canal treaties.

WELL-BEING OF COMMUNITY OF NATIONS

When we think of the well-being of the community of nations, in our judgment it is to the well-being of both Panama and the United

States for the two nations to have a greater degree of mutual respect than is embodied in the current treaty.

When the Secretary of State George Marshall initiated the Marshall plan after World War II, he declared our policy not to be directed against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, deprivation, and chaos.

That policy was in my judgment one of the most effective that the United States has ever taken.

During World War II, I was employed by the Church World Service at the time the Marshall plan was in effect. I think one could argue the United States was not required to initiate the Marshall plan. It was not necessary in any sense, but it was immensely fair, it was immensely just and it had a powerful potent effect upon the countries of Europe and around the world at that time. It seems to me there is a kind of parallel situation with the canal treaties, where an action by the United States recognizing sovereignty can signal to other developing countries around the world that the United States is acting in such a direction of recognizing them in a new way.

WILLINGNESS TO BE FAIR TO WEAK AND POOR

Going on then to the matter of the weakness of Panama, I should say Panama's lesser power in relation to the United States calls for a policy that enables the country to gain greater strength.

Panama considers the narrowness of the isthmus a natural resource and in our judgment that is true. This is not the time, it seems to me, to reassert a colonialism that aims to keep a dependent nation weak. Several speakers have already alluded to that and I think our own Nation was born in a colonialism with Britain and against which we objected so strongly. Yet we seem to forget that at times when other countries are under a similar kind of colonial control by the United States.

CONCERN FOR COMING NEW ORDER

The next point, a concern for the new order that is coming will consider that Panama has the support of the majority of American States as well as the majority of members of the U.N.

I believe that these nations cannot be but affected by an action of the United States in ratifying the treaties.

Actually, the way that the United States has tended to act toward some countries cuts off the options that they have, so that we tend by our policies to drive these countries toward Marxism in the name of fighting Marxism.

You see what I mean?

Closing off the options by not allowing peoples to make their own decisions and by strengthening the military hand controlling them, often makes people more radical in their opposition to the United States.

Going on to the next paragraph.

ASSURING FAIREST INTERNATIONAL USE OF CANAL

A discernment about genuine relationships will see the inequity of the "Treaty of 1903." I do not want to belabor that point but in our

judgment, the real issue is not the matter of who controls the canal, but of acting so as to assure the fairest international use of the canal. So much popular debate has been around the question of whether the United States built and paid for the canal. We lose the analysis of the present situation, what will make the canal work best and what effect it will have on other nations today.

Then, the next point.

CONCERN ABOUT PANAMANIAN ECONOMY

A fundamental goodwill toward Panama will be concerned about the economy of that country as well as the economy of the United States.

The canal is important to the United States, not as important as it was some years ago, but still important. But it is in fact vital to Panama, something that is hard for us to see, I think. When you are there, you appreciate that a good deal more.

My conclusion then is that a concern about the well-being of the whole of the United States means that judgments about these issues will not be overshadowed by military considerations. We feel that the military activity especially the training of military personnel for other Latin American countries, went beyond what the 1903 Treaty allowed.

IMPORTANCE OF ACTING FROM SENSE OF JUSTICE

It is important that the Congress act from a sense of justice appropriate to the vision upon which the United States is based, for a lesser vision weakens not only this country, but its relationship with all other countries. An impression I had when I was visiting Latin America was that, on the one hand, there is a lot of criticism of the policies of the United States and, on the other hand, there is a tremendous desire for the leadership of the United States. However, respect for that leadership depends upon recognizing the sovereignty of nations and giving countries and people options which are taken away when there is large military aid to uphold repressive regimes.

This leads us to support the treaties as they stand and we would hope that the Senate will ratify those treaties.

That concludes my statement.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much. Let me ask you a couple of questions.

LEGITIMACY OF CONSIDERING NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST IN

EVALUATING TREATIES

First of all, you have set out with considerable thought the considerations of justice and fairness that have entered into your thinking in terms of the position you have taken.

Do you recognize what is I guess commonly referred to as the national security interest of the United States as a legitimate consideration in evaluating these treaties? If so, do you think that the treaties provide for the national security interest?

Professor MILLER. Well, I think that the United States will alwaysevery nation will always look for its own security interests.

The Church of the Brethren has been pretty outspoken about suggesting that security interests have led our policy rather than followed the policy.

By that I mean that often policy decisions are made first of all from security reasons, by security I now mean military power, when the whole focus of my argument is that fairness in negotiated agreements is a much greater position from which to have security than to look first of all to military security.

That is why the emphasis on fairness here, and given the treaties as they are, the Brethren are willing to affirm and support the ratification of them.

COMMITMENT TO INCREASED MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO PANAMA

Senator SARBANES. The treaties do not provide it, but as a consequence of the exchange of notes, conversations and conferences that were held, the United States is committed to a signally increased military assistance in Panama.

Professor MILLER. Yes.

Senator SARBANES. Do you have a view on that matter?

Professor MILLER. Yes, we do.

That is the Church of the Brethren has regularly opposed increased military assistance around the world. That would be especially true of where human rights are being violated.

As I have listened to the debate this morning, and then this afternoon, about the human rights issue, it has been tied to the treaty, but in our judgment the treaty signals a respect, a mutual respect between nations as being mutually negotiated, mutual respect which was not there in 1903.

However, it is my judgment and I think that this would be borne out by most members of the Church of the Brethren, that the human rights question is much more closely tied to the military expenditures than to these treaties. Even as I talked to persons in Ecuador, they could not understand how the United States can give military support to regimes that are violating human rights.

Senator SARBANES. Including the Torrijos regime.

Professor MILLER. Yes, exactly including all of those where human rights are being violated.

As I listened to the discussion this morning, it seems to me false to link the human rights question to the treaties. That is a separate question. But I do feel that the human rights question is closely related to the military aid question.

HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN PANAMA

Senator SARBANES. What is your evaluation of the human rights situation in Panama?

Professor MILLER. I was there such a brief time that it is difficult to answer, and I want to put that limitation on what I say. But, of course, I asked about human rights while I was there. The severest criticisms I heard were from people I talked to in the Canal Zone, but I always felt that their judgments were somewhat biased by the fact they were afraid they would lose their jobs under a new treaty.