« AnteriorContinuar »
influence; this treaty opens the door for substantial outside influence. In this light it should be remembered that the United States had the right to “restore order” to the Isthmus of Panama long before the canal was a gleam in De Lessep's eye.
AMBIGUITIES OF KEY PROVISIONS
The ambiguities of key concepts of this treaty, recently highlighted by Senator Dole, remind us of the old adage,"good fences make good neighbors.” When territory is being divided between two nations for defense purposes, ownership of a few yards of ground may be of great significance and substantial argument, as was illustrated in the negotiations in the Korean War at Panmunjom and in Palestine in the late 1940's and early 1950's. We may be creating a can of worms, not a concrete treaty of lasting value.
PROPOSED SEA LEVEL CANAL, THIRD LANE OF LOCKS
Given a real or implied Panamanian threat of violence to the present canal, the question of a sea level canal or third lock in Panama is not relevant to argument favoring adoption of the treaty, as any new canal construction in Panama is subject to the same threat. On the other hand, a sea level canal on Route 8 in Nicaragua and Costa Rica or on Route 25 in Colombia might prove to be cheaper than defending the present canal or taking it back from unfriendly hands.
NEW ARRANGEMENT FOR PANAMANIAN PEOPLE
Finally, we recognize that the Panamanian people want a new arrangement. We can understand and sympathize with the desire of the Panamanian people as to what are their specific complaints against us so that the American people and this Senate can judge the merits of the treaty, or devise one more amenable to both peoples. What we are saying here is that you don't have any semblance of democratic government in the canal area, in Panama.
RESERVE OFFICERS OPPOSITION TO TREATIES
In summary, we find no good reason to give up the canal and its zone. We feel that proper treaty arguments are unsound, fallacious, or rhetoric about so-called colonialism.
We wish to point out that this treaty appears to be a form of appeasement in phases to a conjured threat of a Panamanian “Viet Cong;” a threat which is more spectre than substance. We know, and the world knows, that appeasement, even the appearance of appeasement is too tempting a morsel to the hungry hounds of war. It is also particularly humiliating to the American public to appease anyone so soon after our misfortunes in Vietnam and Angola and elsewhere.
We caution the Senate to examine carefully the exact wording of this treaty and all the multiple annexes and side agreements and the nuances of the words used therein that describe our rights to keep the canal open, accessible, efficient, and under our control.
Gentlemen, in addition to those prepared remarks, I would like to call your attention to the fact that the administration has been attempting to convince the American public that the military community is strong in support of this treaty with the Joint Chiefs being the primary defense, and more recently with retired General Taylor and Admiral Zumwalt.
Well, to take a look at that impression I wrote a personal letter to all of the flag-rank members of our association which are in excess of 700, and included many retired regulars, many regular officers as well as reserve and guard. This is what I said to them in part:
You are certainly aware that the administration has mounted one of the most massive public relations campaigns ever directed from the White House in an effort to convince the American people that the treaty will be good for them. A significant part of the pro-treaty propaganda is designed to show that the military security of the United States would not be damaged. The present active duty Joint Chiefs have been persuaded to give their blessing to the treaty, and the chairman, General George Brown, has attempted to line up some flag-rank retirees on his side. However, Admiral Moorer, Admiral Burke, and other distinguished senior officers who are no longer subject to disciplinary action because they oppose administration policy, are on record in opposition to the treaty for very cogent reasons. It is my personal belief
that the overwhelming majority of American military leaders are opposed to the "pay-away" of the American Canal in Panama. Those of us who are not “muzzled” should speak up so that our fellow citizens are not misled into the conviction that military leaders think the treaty is the greatest thing since we landed on the Moon.
As a result of that I have received replies and just this morning got a couple of more from 282 admirals and generals of the Armed Forces, from the regular component, the Reserve, the National Guard, Army and Navy and Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.
Of the 282, 278 opposed the treaty. The most recent communication just handed to me while the Secretaries of State were testifying, is from a fellow whose name is Lyman L. Lemnitzer, General, U.S. Army, retired-four star-one of our most distinguished military leaders. I offer this communication for the record.
[Letter referred to follows:)
Maj. Gen. J. MILNOR ROBERTS, Erecutive Director, Reserve Oficers Association of the United States, 1 Constitution Arenue, NE., Washington, D.C.
HONESDALE, PA., October 12, 1977. DEAR GENERAL ROBERTS : Thank you for your letter of 28 September 1977 regarding the opposition of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States to ratification of the two Panama Canal Treaties presently under consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Your letter was delayed in reaching me as it had to be forwarded to me here at my home in Northeastern Pennsylvania where I and my family reside from the first of July to about the first of November each year.
I also oppose the Treaties in their present forms. A summary statement of my views is as follows: I do not support the Panama Canal Treaties in their present form.
I do not support turning over the complete control, operation and defense of the Canal to the Marxist Panamanian dictatorship which is publicly aligned with Castro's Communist Cuba which is, in turn, under the complete domination of the Soviet Union.
From the military point of view, I consider it essential for the United States to retain the unequivocal rights of preferential passage of naval vessels and the right to defend the Canal when we deem such defense to be necessary."
While I do not know what plans you have in mind for publicly purposes, you may use my foregoing summary statement in any way you consider desirable and appropriate. With warm regards. Sincerely,
L. L. LEMNITZER,
General, U.S. Army (Retired). And in addition to General Lemnitzer, I also have heard from many others, as I said, including Adm. John C. McCain, the former Commander in Chief, Pacific; Gen. Charles L. Bolte, former Vice Chief of Staff, Army; Maj. Gen. Ernest L. “Mike” Massad, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; Maj. Gen. Kenneth O. Sanborn, former Commander, U.S. Air Force-South Panama; and Brig. Gen. John S. D. Eisenhower, U.S. Army Reserves, son of the late President Eisenhower. These are among the flag rank officers opposed to Panama Canal treaties signed by President Carter on September 7. Several more names might be of interest to you:
Lt. Gen. Robert W. Colglazier, Jr., AUS (retired), former Deputy Chief of Staff-Logistics.
Lt. Gen. Stanley "Swede” Larsen, USA (retired), former Deputy Commander in Chief, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army-Pacific.
Vice Adm. J. F. Bolger, USN (retired), former Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel.
Maj. Gen. Glenn C. Ames, AUS (retired), nationally recognized leader, also, in the National Guard Association, Association of the U.S. Army, and former adjutant general of California.
Maj. Gen. Homber I. "Pete” Lewis, USAFR, former Chief of Air Force Reserve.
And even a Carter:
Gentlemen, I think it important for you to know these things and it should have been distributed to you, this release which contains all of these people, by State. I just counted up-in yours, Senator Stone, there are 21 on here from Florida. So you will be able to take a look and see how these people feel.
And, frankly, both Secretaries Rusk and Kissinger brought out the importance of grassroots knowledge.
I suggest to you that right here we have more grassroots than you have seen for a long time, and the grassroots are overwhelmingly against the proposed treaty in Panama.
Thank you very much.
[News Release, Reserve Officers Association)
Two HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-EIGHT GENERALS, ADMIRALS AGAINST PANAMA CANAL
TREATIES, ROA SURVEY SHOWS WASHINGTON, D.O., October 14.-Adm. John C. McCain, the former Commande in Chief, Pacific, Gen. Charles L. Bolte, former Vice Chief of Staff, Army, Maj. Gen. Earnest L. "Mike" Massad, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Maj. Gen. Kenneth 0. Sanborn, former Commander, U.S. Air Forces, South, Panama; and Brig. Gen. John S. D. Eisenhower, USAR, son of the late President Eisenhower, are among the 252 flag rank officers who have gone on reeord opposed to Panama Canal Treaties signed by President Carter on September 7.
Included are generals and admirals of all the services--regular, Reserve and National Guard—who voiced their opposition through the Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA), chartered by Congress to advise on matters of national defense.
Their position-free of political constraint—was cited today by Maj. Gen. J. Milnor Roberts, ROA Executive Director, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
“We had asked our members who are not 'muzzled' to speak up so that our fellow citizens are not misled into the conviction that all military leaders think the treaties are the best thing since landing on the moon," General Roberts said. "Regardless of their personal opinions, what you hear from the current Chiefs of Staff is what the Administration wants you to hear. They could not possibly object publicly with their civilian bosses, including President Carter who signed the treaties,” General Roberts said. “In supporting the treaty, the joint chiefs have differed from the great majority of their military colleagues who are free to express their opinion.”
Among other military leaders in opposition to the Panama Canal treaties were:
Lt. Gen. Robert W. Colglazier, Jr., AUS (Ret.), former Deputy Chief of StaffLogistics.
Lt. Gen. Stanley "Swede” Larsen, USA (Ret.), former Deputy Commander-inChief, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army-Pacific.
Vice Adm. J. F. Bolger, USN (Ret.), former Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel.
Maj. Gen. Glenn C. Ames, AUS (Ret.), nationally recognized leader, also, in the National Guard Association, Association of the United States Army, and former Adjutant General of California.
Maj. Gen. Homer I. "Pete” Lewis, USAFR, former Chief of Air Force Reserve.
And even a Carter, Maj. Gen. Leslie D. Carter, USA (Ret.), of Midlothian, Va. Alabama
Maj. Gen. George F. Hamner, USAR, Tuscaloosa.
Brig. Gen. Lewis C. Pattillo, USAR, Hartselle.
Maj. Gen. Benjamin W. Fridge, USAF, Tempe. Arkansas
Maj. Gen. Herman H. Hankins, AUS Ret., Arkadelphia.
Brig. Gen. Thomas F. Butt, USAR, Fayetteville.
Lt. Gen. Stanley R. Larsen, USA Ret., San Francisco.
Brig. Gen. Wallace H. Nickell, USAR, W. Sacramento.
Brig. Gen. Alphonse J. V. Fiedorczyk, USA Ret., Stamford.
Brig. Gen. Albert W. Adams, USAR Ret., Bethany Beach.
Adm. John S. McCain, Jr., USN Ret.
Brig. Gen. Eugene Phillips, USAR.
Rear Adm. Carlos M. Cardeza, USNR Ret., Sanibel.
Brig. Gen. Louis F. Stuebe, USAR Ret., Tallahassee,
Maj. Gen. Earl O. Anderson, USAF Ret., Atlanta.
Brig. Gen. David E. Mayer, AUS Ret., Groveton.
Maj. Gen. L. J. Conti, USMCR, Arlington Heights.
Brig. Gen. Alfred K. Nelson, USAR, Chicago Heights.
Maj. Gen. Leston N. Carmichael, USAR, Columbus.
Brig. Gen. Robert P. Porter, NG, Fort Wayne.
Maj. Gen. Merrill B. Evans, USAR, Prole.
Brig. Gen. R. A. Lancaster, USAR Ret., Des Moines.
Maj. Gen. C. Beach, Jr., USAR, Beattyville.