Imágenes de páginas

reform to B-1 considerations, to deregulation of natural gas, on things that require special study. But, after judgments have been reached, and particularly so when they are contrary to the common denominator back at home, there is a responsibility to go out and try to sell that position. It can be done, I think.

In that regard, does the AFL-CIO anticipate having any sort of educational program for its members or with the public generally to press forward the compelling arguments in support of this position? Mr. KIRKLAND. Yes, sir. We have publications. We have quite an extensive network in the labor press.

Senator PEARSON. Is it underway?

Mr. KIRKLAND. Yes. There are articles that will be published. A number of journals of our affiliates will carry analyses of the treaties and of the considerations surrounding them.

Senator PEARSON. Is it too early to make a judgment as to whether or not it will be effective?

Mr. KIRKLAND. I think it is perhaps a bit early, sir.

Senator PEARSON. Mr. Kirkland, I thank you and I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Case.

Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I join in welcoming our visitors this morning. I shall read with very great interest the testimony. I appreciate your coming up here. I wish I could have heard you in person. If I have any questions, I will talk to you privately, if I may, later, sir.

Mr. KIRKLAND. Thank you, Senator.

[Additional questions and answers follow:]


Question. 1. Mr. Meany's prepared statement indicates that the statement of the AFL-CIO Executive Council adopted in August was based on consideration of a summary of the Treaties. Has the AFL-CIO had the opportunity to examine the complete texts of the Treaties and has such an examination changed in any way your position on the Treaties?

Answer 1. The AFL-CIO has had an opportunity to review the complete texts of both treaties and after examining the complete texts, see no reason why we should change our position on the treaties as was manifest October 13.

Question 2. The Committee has heard testimony to the effect that union members and officials in the Panama Canal Zone do not favor the Treaties and disagree with the position adopted by the Executive Council. What reaction have you had from your members working in the Canal Zone?

Answer 2. It is a known fact that some union members and officials in the Panama Canal Zone still oppose the treaties. However, the majority of the or ganized workers, as represented by affiliates of the AFL-CIO, support the new treaties.

Question 3. Since the Panama Canal Treaty guarantees the rights of the Panama Canal Commission employees to associate with international labor unions, do you anticipate that the AFL-CIO will continue to represent employees of the Canal Commission? Do you currently represent both American and Panamanian employees of the Canal?

Answer 3. We would anticipate that after the treaties are ratified and the new Panama Canal Commission is created, that the employees of that commission will continue to look to the AFL-CIO for protection and servicing. Currently, the AFL-CIO represents both American and Panamanian employees in the Panama Canal Zone government, the Panama Canal Company and the Department of Defense.

Question 4. The mail received by Members of the Senate shows that there is a great deal of controversy and some misunderstanding on the Treaties. What

steps has the AFL-CIO taken to help inform its members about the Treaties and the reasons your Executive Council has endorsed them?

Answer 4. President George Meany has made a number of public statements as to the reasons why the AFL-CIO endorses the treaties. Additional statements have appeared and more will appear in the labor press in an effort to clarify any misunderstanding on the issue of the new treaties among the rank and file members of the AFL-CIO.

Question 5. Does the AFL-CIO have any reservations about the economic effects of these Treaties or the possibility that jobs in the United States might be lost? Is the continued use of the Canal more important to the U.S. economy and to the average American worker than ownership of the Canal?

Answer 5. It is the belief of the AFL-CIO that there will be no adverse economic effects in the U.S. with the ratification of the treaties and that the continued use of the Panama Canal is more important to the U.S. economy and to the average American worker than ownership of the canal.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further from the witnesses or the committee?

[No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kirkland. We do appreciate and your testimony.

Mr. KIRKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Martin Gerber, vice president of the United Auto Workers (UAW), Washington, D.C. Mr. Gerber, would you please come to the witness table.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I have any particular claim on exclusivity with regard to Martin Gerber, but he is a resident of the State that I have the honor of representing. His base is there, although his influence is worldwide. I just commend everything he says to all of us in advance. I hope you will forgive me for this personal intervention.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course. We are delighted to hear your kind remarks on his behalf.

Mr. Gerber, we have your statement, which will be printed in full in the record. You heard my suggestion earlier that the members hold their questioning to 7 minutes. I would like to suggest that insofar as that may be feasible, since we have so many witnesses today, we would be glad if that rule would apply to witnesses, too. Certainly, we would hope that it would be not much more than that.

Please present your statement as you see fit. [Mr. Gerber's biography follows:]


Martin Gerber first joined the UAW 39 years ago and has been actively engaged in a position of leadership ever since. He is a charter member of Local 595, which represents workers employed at the General Motors assembly plant in Linden, New Jersey.

He was active in the campaign to organize Local 595 and was elected to serve on the local's first executive board in 1938. A year later, he has elected chairman of the shop committee, and, in 1941, was appointed an International Representative. Three years later, at the age of 28, Gerber won his first election as a regional director of Region 9. He was re-elected to that post at each Constitutional Convention until May, 1977, when he was elected as an International vicepresident.

Gerber is director of the union's Organizing Dept., Competitive Shop Dept. and Technical, Office and Professional Dept. (TOP). He also heads the Budd, Doehler-Jarvis and Associated Spring intra-corporation councils.

He was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey in 1916. He and his wife, Florence, have two children and four grandchildren.

Under Gerber's leadership, Region 9 joined in public campaigns to spur the construction of low-cost public housing, to combat restrictive municipal zoning ordinances, to support equal employment opportunities, to expand civil liberties, to enhance opportunities for public higher education, to broaden the base of citizen political participation, and to support the passage of social and economic legislative reforms on both the federal and state level.

Gerber has pursued these objectives within the UAW and by representing the UAW in leadership posts on a large number of governmental and community institutions whose objectives are in concert with the philosophy of the UAW.



Mr. GERBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Distinguished members of the committee, and particularly my good friend Senator Case, whom I have known and admired for many years for his distinguished record in New Jersey-and I may say, by way of reciprocation, that your record far exceeds New Jersey, my good friend-I am very pleased to be here. I am representing President Douglas Fraser, who is presently on a mission representing the UAW at an IMF [International Monetary Fund] conference in Europe. He would like to be here, but he asked me to speak on behalf of the UAW.

With me is Stephen I. Schlossberg, who is the UAW director of government and public affairs.

As you have stated, Mr. Chairman, you have our statement for the record. I would like to summarize our position, if I may. The CHAIRMAN. Very well.


Mr. GERBER. The UAW takes its position in favor of the canal treaties as a group of U.S. citizens interested in furthering and protecting U.S. interests in the canal and the Western Hemisphere.

As you probably are aware, we do not have members of our union working in the Canal Zone. Therefore, we do not come to you as a special interest group. Rather, our concern is on a much larger scale. We are deeply concerned that the United States project an image abroad which truly reflects the nature of our country and the fundamental principles for which this Nation has stood for the past 2 centuries. We are also concerned with maintaining efficient international transportation routes to speed international trade, and with our defense posture. Our examination indicates that the treaties now before you protect our interests in all of these areas.

They represent a giant step forward in the relationships which the United States maintains not only with the Republic of Panama, but with all of Latin America, and indeed, with the entire Third World. They show that the United States does not wish to deport itself as the world's larger nations did earlier in this century. Rather, it is the intention of the United States to establish relationships with other countries based on fairness and mutual respect. It is not our intention

to force our views on other countries, nor to make them supine before


We seek equality and justice, not superiority in our relations with others. These treaties show that we both believe in and practice the fundamental principles on which our country was founded, under which we have lived since our own revolution.

The UAW has consistently voted to support treaties that would relinquish U.S. control over the Panama Canal to be phased out over a period of years. This position was supported at our last Constitutional Convention, which was held last year. It was based on our position and our considered judgment as to what was morally right and in the best interests of the United States, and on our findings growing out of consistent and ongoing relationships with free trade unionists in Latin America, many of whom have suffered persecution.

On August 30 of this year, our international executive board unanimously passed a resolution endorsing ratification of the treaties.



We do not agree with those who say that ending what we see as colonialism in Panama is a sign of weakness. On the contrary, we view the United States phasing out of control over the Canal Zone and the canal-the tearing down of the fences and the ceding of full sovereignty over its land to a small nation-as a signal of strength, maturity, and enlightened self-interest. Only a major, secure power could make such a gesture. It is evidence of the internal and external national will to practice what we preach and to walk honorably in the world.

It is those who are independently strong and powerful who can afford to do what is right. Doing what is right in this case happens also to be in our own self-interest. If we are to continue to lead the free world, we must do so by commanding the respect and admiration of the world's nations and peoples, not by flaunting our size, wealth, and power. International politics is not a game of virility and manhood testing. It is the pursuit of national self-interest, in the broadest sense, by means of reason and commonsense.

As an organization, we are concerned with the defense of our country. We believe that the United States must be militarily strong if it is to maintain a credible profile abroad.


The treaties fully protect the U.S. defense interests in the Panama Canal. Our naval vessels will continue to be able to transit the canal, both during the time that we are responsible for its operation and the period thereafter.

This interest is, we believe, better protected by the United States making certain changes with respect to the canal's administration to take into account Panama's increasing aspirations.

Indeed, we believe that failure to do this will present a threat to our defense posture. Increasing hostility to our operation of the canal will

make our job more difficult, and could, if that hostility should rise to greater levels, pose a threat to the efficient functioning of the canal.

While I am not an international lawyer, or any lawyer, I am a negotiator. My reading of the public discussion of the neutrality treaty fails to show that substantial differences exist.

The Panamanians, we must understand, have a political problem with anything which smacks of the right of the United States to take any action within their territory after the expiration of the Panama Canal Treaty.


The neutrality treaty, I would point out, does not speak of intervention. It speaks only of maintaining the regime of neutrality. Comments by the Panamanian negotiators which have been published indicate that Panama understands that the United States intends to assure the continued neutrality of the canal after the year 2000. Panama's only reservation concerns the possibility of U.S. intervention in Panamanian internal affairs. Given the history of our relations with Panama and with Latin America, that concern is understandable. Moreover, as a trade unionist, I know that in many Latin American countries the word "intervention" has a sinister meaning. When a totalitarian government intervenes in the unions, it takes them over.


We should not be alarmed by statements from the Panamanian side on this subject. Indeed, the absence of comments would be remarkable. We can have no right to intervene in any country. That is clear from both the U.N. Charter and from the OAS-Organization of American States Charter. But under the neutrality treaty, we do have the right to maintain the regime of neutrality of the Panama Canal. Our commercial and defense interest in the canal is protected by this position. Panama does not dispute our right to maintain the regime of neutrality. Therefore, the controversy is much ado about nothing.


Similarly, there has been much discussion about the concept of expeditious passage contained in article VI of the neutrality treaty. Panama's negotiators have made it clear that this means the speediest possible transit. I submit that a more rapid trip through the canal than that would be difficult to arrange.

We are assured that the treaties adequately protect the economic security of those who are U.S. citizens and Panamanians who have given long years of service to our Government and the corporation. Our conclusions on this score do not rely entirely on government assurances, but on conversations of UAW officials with Canal Zone officials.


There has been much scare talk of the danger of Communist takeover of the canal once the treaty is ratified. My information is that

« AnteriorContinuar »