(1) Sovereignty is the crucial factor in the new Treaties. Both the Prologue to the Canal Treaty, and at least six other times in the document, Panamanian sovereignty over the U.S. Zone and the Canal is acknowledged. As I stated earlier, once Torrijos is granted sovereignty all other questions are irrelevant.

(2) According to our analysis of the Treaty, should Panama abrogate the Treaty, the United States would have no legal basis in international law to maintain its position in the former Canal Zone.

(3) Article II, Section 1, of the Canal Treaty specifies that it should “be subject to ratification in accordance with the constitutional procedures of the two parties." However, it would appear that the Executive Branch is seeking ratification of the treaties without seeking enabling legislation from the House of Representatives to transfer real properties, appropriation of funds and perhaps other legislation which is not spelled out, as required by the Constitution of the United States. This by-passing of the House of Representatives appears to be an usurpation of legal powers which is clearly conveyed to the House by the Constitution.

(4) Article XII, Section 2(b), states that "during the duration of this Treaty the United States of America shall not negotiate with third states for the right to construct an inter-oceanic canal on any other route in the Western Hemisphere, except as the two parties may otherwise agree." In plain terms, the United States has surrendered its rights to negotiate for a competing canal elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere unless it has Panama's consent.

(5) Artile V of the Canal Treaty directs that employees of the Panama Canal Company, their dependents and other American nationals should "abide by the laws of the Republic of Panama and abstain from any activities in competition with the spirit of this Treaty." This Article also directs that they abstain from any political acts in the Republic of Panama, As I stated earlier, there are American Legion Posts in the Canal Zone and I am deeply concerned about forcing American citizens to submit to a dictatorship and their surrender or rights as Americans.

(6) Article XIII relates to payments to Panama for the right to operate the Canal. One such payment of $10 million per year from profits is cumulative which means there is a possibility that we could, over the 23 year period of the Treaty, end up owing the Panama government $230 million.

Additionally, I have strong reservations and objections to the Neutrality Treaty (1) Only Article IV of this Treaty bears upon U.S. responsibility concerning the neutrality of the Canal and the entire document is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. In my lay reading of the entire Neutrality Treaty, I find no assurance that the United States can intervene to assure the neutrality of that vital area.

(2) Article III (e) states that "vessels of war and auxiliary vessels of all nations shall at all time be entitled to transit the canal." This statement assures the passage of warships through the canal of nations which may be at war with the United States.

(3) Article VI, Section 1, states that vessels of war and auxiliary vessels of the United States and the Republic of Panama "will be entitled to transit the canal expeditiously." The exact meaning of the word "expeditiously" is vague at best. Even more confusing is the interpretation placed on the world "expeditiously," by the Chief Panamanian negotiator, who said that the United States would not be given "preferential rights."

In Lousiana we regard a contract as no better or no worse than the intent and interpretation of the contracting parties. Treaties are actually a form of international contracts where nations agree to abide by the terms specified. As this Committee knows, we are getting a wide variety of interpretations on such matters as the right of intervention, the right of priority passage for U.S. warships. Escobar Betancourt has recently told Penamanian audiences that the United States wanted but did not get "priority or privileged passage." This information was later authenticated in a "confidential" cable released by Senator Dole which quotes Lopez Guevara that Article IV on neutrality urges U.S. officials to stop using the word intervention. Intervention is prohibited by international law.

It would be unwise at best to even further consider ratification of any treaties in any form until the serious differences in U.S. and Panamanian interpretations are clearly and unquestionably resolved.

In brief summary, an evaluation of the facts about the Treaty have brought us to the day of the signing, September 7, 1977... a bad day for the United States.

United States military and national security losses alone are sufficient to reject the treaty. We are giving up our naval fleet flexibility at a time when we have fewer than 400 ships in the entire United States Navy. Economic losses of the United States are difficult to calculate, but logic dictates that U.S. consumers and exporters are going to pay the toll increases. Additionally, the cost to the U.S. taxpayer is in the billions. The Torrijos government is living on borrowed money and borrowed time.

Politically, human rights under Torrijos are no better than they were under Hitler during the 1930s and yet by supporting this Treaty, our United States Government is propping up a dictatorship. Worse yet, our government is forcing Americans to live under totalitarian rule and abide by its laws and decrees. That's what World War II was all about.

The pressures the White House can bring are enormous as all of us know. The resources at the President's disposition almost defy our collective imagination. The Treaty signing festivities on September 7 were an example of Presidential style and substance. We in the Legion, while recognizing the awesome power of the Presidency and the Executive bureaucracy, also believe that the ultimate power in the United States resides with the people . . . with people like our members.

I will close with one question: if this Treaty is basically good for the United States, why does the Administration have to make such an effort to prove to Americans that it is in our national interest? Those of you in the Senate must know what the people are thinking. You know the Legion Posts and grass roots opinion runs about 80 percent against the giveaway.

We believe this proposed Treaty will ultimately be decided by the people. We believe this is one defeat the United States can avoid. It is a loss we need not accept and you can count on the American Legion Posts to stand firm.

59TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION HELD IN DENVER, COLO., AUGUST 23-25, 1977

RESOLUTION NO. 445

Whereas, the United States is the rightful and legal owner of the U.S. Canal Zone and the Panama Canal, having acquired this U.S. property through court tested treaties and agreements and mutually agreed upon payments to Colombia, Panama and the individual land and property owners; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the United States is legally entitled to sovereignty and ownership of the U.S. Canal Zone for the purpose of building, operating, protecting and maintaining a canal across the Isthmus; and

Whereas, the United States has lived up to its obligation under the Treaty to the letter of the law; and

Whereas, the political, economic and the military factors offer conclusive evidence that it is in the vital national interest of the United States to retain sovereignty and ownership of the U.S. Canal Zone and Canal; and

Whereas, over three-fourths of our American citizens consistently voice their opposition to any kind of "giveaway" or dilution of U.S. sovereignty over this territory; and

Whereas, the United States as leader of the free world has a moral obligation to remain fair, firm and strong when faced with political blackmail; and Whereas, surrender of the U.S. Canal Zone would be tantamount to a major military defeat with enormous consequences for evil; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Denver, Colorado, August 23. 24, 25, 1977, That we reiterate and reaffirm our continuing and uncompromising policy in opposition to any new Treaties or Executive Agreements with Panama, relating to the U.S. owned Panama Canal and its protective frame of the U.S. Canal Zone as expressed and set out in separate resolutions adopted consecutively at each annual American Legion National Convention since the Miami Convention in 1960; and, be it further

Resolved, That we strongly urge all elected members in the U.S. Congress to oppose any new treaty with the government of Panama which: (a) in any way dilutes full U.S. sovereignty, ownership and control; (b) cedes U.S. territory or property: (c) surrenders any jurisdiction and control which would threaten the economic and security interests of the United States; and, be it further

Resolved, That The American Legion rejects the actions of the Executive agencies of the federal government in attempting to by-pass the Constitution of the United States, and we fully support Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, of the Constitution which provides that only the Congress has the authority to dispose of U.S. Territory.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.

The next witness on the schedule is Mr. Ruggiero of AMVETS.

STATEMENT OF FRANK D. RUGGIERO, NATIONAL COMMANDER, AMVETS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. RUGGIERO. My name is Frank D. Ruggiero, national commander of AMVETS. I hail from Lyndhurst, N.J., and I will warrant that Senator Case captured a few votes from my community. Senator CASE. Thank you very much, Frank.

Mr. RUGGIERO. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, AMVETS is grateful for this opportunity to present the views of our organization on such a vital issue as the much publicized and highly controversial Panama Canal treaties. It is our opinion that few matters in recent history have held the importance of portentousness of this fateful issue.

In concert with our great brother organizations, AMVETS speaks to this matter in the sense that we, the veterans of our Nation's wars, are of a right and necessity deeply concerned with the future of the U.S. defense posture in general and in the Western Hemisphere specifically. As do other concerned Americans, we address ourselves also to those issues which affect international and hemispheric commerce and embrace our national economy. Therefore, the issues involved here are directly germane to our concerns and activities, for what segment of our society has more right to oppose that which we believe threatens the U.Š. defense and economic position on the "American land mass.'

SOVEREIGNTY

The administration and some Members of Congress have challenged the term "sovereignty" as that term pertains to the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903. They claim that the United States was never granted sovereignty over the Canal Zone in the legal sense. We do not argue that point.

The dictionary definition of the term "sovereignty" is of little importance in this issue as we see it. The fact remains that any reduction in American Military Forces in the Isthmus of Panama and the loss of U.S. control over the Canal Zone could be disastrous.

The U.S. defense posture, south of the Rio Grande would be virtually nonexistent. The canal, regardless of its inability at present to accommodate the supercariers and supercargo vessels, remains as the single most important waterway on the western half of the globe. The isthmus itself, the canal notwithstanding, serves as the roadway between all of the Americas and is, in our opinion, the "crossroads" of the hemisphere. This demands American presence and control to insure that Communist or otherwise adverse influences will not "choke off" North America from South America. The President's concern

over "human rights" can best be served by maintaining our strong position in Panama and preventing the influence of Castro Cuba and other elements from establishing a toehold.

Furthermore, we are convinced that the people of Panama-and we refer to the common people, not the pseudo-intellectuals—are not desirous of having the United States pull out of the Canal Zone. Indeed, we have reason to believe that is the last thing they want to see happen. In this regard, we quote from an article which appeared in the Chicago Tribune of March 25 by Mr. Ronald Yates:

Incredibly, and in spite of an almost daily diet of Government-inspired antiAmerican rhetoric in the Panamanian press, the poor and the unemployed of this nation of 1.7 million say that they are not ready to run Americans out of Panama but rather are prepared to fight to keep the canal in United States hands.

And Mr. Yates found this to be a typical remark of a Panamanian on the street:

You see, the only people in Panama who have ever given the United States trouble are communists, rich university students, and parasitic intellectuals who live off the blood and sweat of people like us. We have nothing against America or the Canal Zone because we know as long as America has control of the canal, there will be jobs for Panamanians. But as soon as you (America) give it back to Panama, it is going to go all to hell and nobody will have jobs.

ADJUSTMENTS TO PRESENT TREATY NECESSARY

We fully appreciate that the passage of seven decades would necessitate adjustments in monetary considerations commensurate with today's values. We do not oppose any reasonable arrangements in this connection. Our sole opposition is to any treaty which would dilute or compromise U.S. control of the Canal Zone now, or in the future. General Torrijos was reported to have said:

In the event that peaceful negotiations for a phasing-out of U.S. control were closed, a campaign of violence against the 15,000 Americans in the zone would be inevitable. Two options would be open to me, to smash it or to lead it—and I am not going to smash it.

If we give in to this threat, how could we guard against sabotage by subversive elements of Panamanian military forces: This prompts other questions:

PANAMANIAN GUARANTEES

1. If we the United States-grant the desired concessions to Panama, what guarantee will we have that Panama will live up to its end of the bargain?

History should have taught us that treaties with dictator forms of government aren't worth the paper they are written on. One has but to remember the Munich Pact between Nazi Germany and England, inter alia, to realize the value of such agreements.

We are informed that, notwithstanding the Torrijos' government, every government of Panama since the creation of the Republic in 1903 has expressed the desire for a new treaty. It occurs to us that to turn over the control of a facility such as the canal, which requires great financial sustenance and technological expertise, to a nation whose governmental foundations are so weak as to allow dictators to

take over, would be a great disservice to all nations whose commerce rely to a large degree on the Panama Canal.

U.S. DEFENSE OF CANAL

2. If Communist influences prevail, such as those we suspect exist currently in the Caribbean area, how will we defend the Canal Zone should Panama succumb to these influences?

The interpretation by American proponents of the treaties is that the United States will be entitled to intervene to protect the canal and that U.S. warships will be entitled to expeditious or privileged passage through the canal. This has been their strong argument in favor of the treaties. Yet, on August 24 of this year, Panama's chief treaty negotiator, Dr. Bethancourt stated at a press conference that: "The pact does not establish that the United States has the right to intervene in Panama, nor does it provide the United States with the right to determine when (that) neutrality is violated."

RIGHT TO EXPEDITIOUS PASSAGE

The right to expeditious or preferential passage is also a matter of interpretation. According to Dr. Bethancourt, the Panamanian interpretation differs from the American dramatically when he said: “If the gringos with their warships say 'I want to go first,' that is their problem. We cannot go that far." In view of these statements it would seem that closer examination is in order.

A strong stand must be made if we are ever to regain the image we once projected abroad. Some would say that by granting the Panamanian demands the United States would gain the respect of the Third World nations. We think no. We believe that the opposite reaction would take place and that we would be looked upon as a pushover. Respect is given to the strong, the assertive, the fair. Again, we do not oppose a fair financial arrangement, but not in the form of tribute.

We are asked if we were in the position to make the decision: "Would we be willing to go to war in order to retain U.S. control of the Canal Zone?" We ask, in turn, war with whom? Are we to believe that Panama by herself or all of Latin American nations collectively would wage war against the United States over this or any other issue? Or, do we believe that the Third World and/or Communist nations, including Red China and the Soviet Union, would join forces in such an adventure? We believe the possibilities of such an occurrence are too remote to merit consideration.

BLAME FOR REJECTION REPRISALS

It has been further suggested that should the treaties not be ratified, the veterans' organizations and other antitreaty groups would share collectively the blame for whatever reprisals are taken against American personnel in the Canal Zone. That, in effect: "Their blood would be on our hands."

It is, and would be, the responsibility and solemn obligation of the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army and Air Force to take what