Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

immediately a treaty with the United States, which he did. Panama signed that treaty. That was to stop us from going to Nicaragua. They wanted the canal because it was the only economic base upon which they could have a nation to begin with.

All of this has been distorted to the American people. I think the American people should know it. Now, again, I think the American people are being told that there will be no change, no difference in what happens to us if these treaties are signed.

I do not think the American people realize that, immediately in the loss of our rights of sovereignty in the Canal Zone, American citizens in Panama will be subject to the rule of a dictator. I have read here testimony pointing out there are really no political rights granted to the people there and very few civil rights.

There will be a takeover of some 70 percent of the property in the Canal Zone. There is no reason to believe that we have guaranteed, in perpetuity, our use of the canal. So, it is a case of, yes, educate the people. As Jefferson said, "If the people understand all the facts, the people will not make a mistake."

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Governor.

NO POINT IN COMPLETING THIRD LANE OF LOCKS

You indicated also an opinion that it would take 10 years to construct a third set of locks in the canal. You might well look with favor on that. The treaty, however, provides that the United States shall have the right to add a third lane to the locks. But, under the conditions that we will continue to occupy the entire Canal Zone, subject to everything that is in this treaty.

Since we have to be completely out of the Canal Zone with our forces by 1999 and it takes 10 years to complete, if we started now we would only have 12 years. Under those circumstances, would you feel that the United States should expend the money to put in a third set of locks?

Governor REAGAN. No, Senator. That is why I suggested it as an alternative, to help the economy and also to make the canal more effective.

I understand that there are just 13 ships-there are others who could testify to that more accurately-but I understand there are only 13 ships in our Navy that cannot now transit the canal.

Senator SCOTT. I believe Admiral Moorer said something to that effect.

Governor REAGAN. Yes; but anyway, the whole fallacy of constructing the third-lock canal now would be in building that new canal in an area we are giving away and over which we will have no control-it is already rather unreal to me that we are talking about paying a country $80 million a year to take the canal off our hands. Senator SCOTT. Governor, you talk about binding ourselves not to construct a canal without Panama's permission anywhere in the isthmus within or without Panama. I think you indicated that you disagree with that provision of the treaty and the third locks. I would assume that you would also not want to see us construct any new canal within Panama that would have the limitations as contained in the treaty.

Governor REAGAN. Not under the terms of this treaty.
Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Scott.

Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, though not a member of the subcommittee, is present. Knowing of his vital interest in this important issue, I am going to ask Senator Helms if he would like to ask any questions.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will be brief. I welcome Governor Reagan.

Governor REAGAN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate your courtesy. Governor Reagan, I commend you on an excellent statement with regard to this matter.

Governor, during the month of August there were press reports in my State to the effect that you had assured President Carter that you would not be particularly active in regard to this issue. Was that press report in error?

Governor REAGAN. Yes, Senator; it was.

The President called me and expressed the wish that I would be on their side in the canal talk. I told him that in principle it was obvious I was opposed to this. He told me that, of course, the negotiations had been going on for 13 years. I said that for 13 years I think they should not have been.

I did tell him that, not having seen the treaty, not being briefed as to what was in it, knowing only what I had seen in the headlines, that I certainly would hold my fire until I had had an opportunity to know exactly what was in the treaty. He thanked me and said that was very gracious of me. Subsequently, I was briefed by Ambassadors Bunker and Linowitz. Several hours later, I stated in New York that they had not changed my mind.

Senator HELMS. That perhaps falls in the same category as the repeated reports in the press and some other media that Senator Hayakawa was definitely going to vote for the treaty. I called Senator Hayakawa in California a couple of Saturday nights ago. He told me at that time that he had not seen the treaty and had not made up his mind on it.

I hope the press will note that Senator Hayakawa has not made up his mind on the treaty and that Ronald Reagan will continue informing the American people.

Let me ask you about the possibility of violence if the treaties are not approved. Dean Rusk was here not long ago. Frankly, I was appalled at his comment on television that, in effect, put him in the position of waving a bloody shirt, and, to be blunt about it, bordering on condoning violence if the Senate does not ratify these treaties. It seemed almost inflammatory. Others have made similar statements. Let me ask you, Governor. The violence that occurred in the mid1960's-who largely was responsible for that? Where did it originate? Governor REAGAN. Well, it had been my understanding from studying that 1964 demonstration that went on for about 3 days and was total violence down there with machetes, rocks, guns, and everything being used and even destruction of Panamanian property by the Panamanians themselves; the kind of riots with which we are all too familiar these days. It is my understanding that those were very

largely engineered and stirred up and kept going by political leaders of the left.

Senator HELMS. On the university campus in Panama; is that not correct?

Governor REAGAN. Yes.

CHIEF NEGOTIATOR BETHAN COURT

Senator HELMS. Who was the head of that university at that time? Governor REAGAN. Now, you have me on that, Senator.

Senator HELMS. Dr. Escobar Bethancourt?

Governor REAGAN. I thought so and was going to say so, but I was afraid to take the chance.

Senator HELMS. Where is that gentleman today?

Governor REAGAN. He is the No. 1 aide of General Torrijos.

Senator HELMS. That is correct, and the chief negotiator of this treaty, as well.

Governor REAGAN. That is right.

Senator HELMs. Is it not a fact that this gentleman is widely recognized-now, I am not making this accusation, but it has been made by many responsible observers and he does not deny it; that he is a dedicated Marxist.

Governor REAGAN. Well, this is also true. The Minister of Education of Panama, the Secretary of the Treasury, and, I believe, the Minister of Labor-but don't quote me on that because I might be wrong on that one-they are each memers of what is called the People's Party. The People's Party is basically the Communist Party of Panama, and it is the only political party which is still allowed to operate in Panama.

1

Senator HELMs. So, it is not jingoism, it is not seeing a Communist under every bed to suggest that-as many of us have-it is obvious that the Soviet Union has a direct and active interest in this treaty? Governor REAGAN. Oh, I think they have a very direct interest in the treaty.

PRESIDENT COMMITTED TO PRIOR AUTHORIZATION BY CONGRESS

Senator HELMS. Let me mention one aspect of your concerns, as contained in your opening remarks-the matter of this treaty being the duty of Congress and not just the Senate alone. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate must act on this matter.

On June 30 I visited with President Carter for about 40 minutes. I offered him an alternative to this unwise treaty. It was very similar to the alternative that you have presented today-the modernization of the locks and so forth. We discussed it in some detail. I presented it on behalf of three other Senators and myself: Senator McClellan, Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia, and Senator Thurmond.

There was a cover letter signed by the four of us stating our opposition to the treaty and enclosing a letter signed by four former Chiefs of Naval Operations who warned of the catastrophic potential of this treaty.

Subsequent to that, Governor, I had two telephone conversations with the President. He called me twice in North Carolina in August.

I had previously inquired of the White House relative to the question of whether there would be any attempt by the President to circumvent the Congress in this matter.

He gave me his word that there would not be. He said, "Jesse, I agree that it is the duty of the House and the Senate." SubsequentlyI believe it was the next day I wrote to the President. I cited our understanding as I perceived it to be. I commended him as a gentleman for taking that position because it is the constitutional position, as you know.

Inasmuch as the President has not written me or otherwise contacted me saying that my understanding, as stated in my letter to him, was in error. So, I accept his assurance in good faith. I do not believe that he would renege on that assurance. I would be very disappointed if he did. Again, I commend you, Governor, on your fine testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that a copy of my letter to the President be included in the record at this point.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Helms. [The letter follows:]

United States Senate

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

August 12, 1977

President Jimmy Carter

The White House

Washington, D. C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I would once again express my gratitude for your thoughtful telephone calls yesterday concerning the proposed Panama Canal Treaty.

:

As I mentioned during our conversations, there were efforts during previous Administrations to circumvent the very clear Constitutional responsibility of Congress in connection with the Panama Canal. Insofar as I know, these proposals, emanating from the State Department, were not approved by the President; indeed, the President may not even have been aware of what was going on." In any case, there was serious concern last week among several Senators that such efforts may again be made without your knowledge.

I presumed to telephone you..

That was why.

Needless to say, I was gratified by your assurances to the effect that there is no intention on your part, or on the part of your representatives, to circumvent Congress via interim efforts to transfer U. S. property, or surrender in any way U.S. control or authority over the Canal.

20-266 - 78-3

« AnteriorContinuar »