I think we owe the American people a chance to speak out on this subject. Congress has not been consulted. Most of us have to go back and reread history. What I read is not what I hear today.

The skirmish back in 1965 I think had to do with putting a flag on the schoolhouse. These are emotional issues that are going to come out more and more and more, and I am not going to get into a diatribe as to whether we bought something, or didn't own it.

The President said during his campaign in 1976 he would in no way give up control of the canal. I don't find a thing in here where we keep any bases.

Could you enlighten me on that?

Mr. RUSK. In the terms of the treaties we don't keep them beyond December 31, 1999. Whether any subsequent agreements will emerge if things go well in the canal I don't know. But you are quite right, this does not provide bases beyond December 31, 1999.

Mr. GUYER. Wouldn't you agree after we waited 73 years we should have waited a little bit longer to bring this issue to the public, and find out what they were thinking and maybe have a little missionary work done before we make the announcement? I think the flag waving was a little premature.

Mr. Rusk. I don't want to sound naive in politics and I am well aware that free advice is worth what you pay for it. But there are some situations where governments find it very difficult to bridge the gap between their two peoples and come to an agreement.

For example, in the Middle East these days I doubt that the governments in the area can make the concessions necessary to make peace and survive as governments. I think back to some situations where I am driven to Edmund Burke's exposition of the duty of a Member of Parliament against the wishes of his own constituents.

For example, when we demobilized in tumultuous fashion in 1945, by 1946 we did not have a single division of our Army or single group of our Air Force ready for combat. That was the very popular thing to do. We should not have done it. We have been picking up the pieces ever since.

My generation of students was led down the garden path into a World War II that could have been prevented, but public opinion reflected pacifism and isolationism and when the Japanese attacked Manchuria everyone said it is too far away, it is none of our business. And a few years later I found myself in a uniform in Burma, which was even farther away.

There may be moments when a Member of Congress must say to his constituents-please forgive this preaching answer you may have to say to your constituents I had to do what I thought was right for my country, I hope you will understand that even though you disagree with me.

Mr. GUYER. I would not interfere with that because it is a very lonely shelf where a President or head of country has to stand and I can appreciate that when Mr. Truman made the decision on the atom bomb it was a tremendous decision, but I have difficulty representing about 470,000 people, who I think are thoughtful people, to explain to them things like how Vietnam came into the United Nations and no mention made of human rights when that was the big issue this year,

I am sure you gentlemen are aware of the Freedom House ratings, and Panama rates with Cuba and the Soviet Union, at the very top of the list of offenders. In political rights they all rate seven, which is the worst they can rate. That is political rights. Civil rights, sixth. All of them, no freedom. I am sure you can't ignore that.

How are we going to go back home and explain you are going to hold the torch up for human rights and compliance for all the world and come back and concede something to a leader who is not trusted by his own people?

As a matter of fact, the first response we had the other night after the signing was asking a long-time U.S. employee and his wife what they thought. He said, "we are afraid." I am sure the American people share that concern.

Mr. KISSINGER. Well, first of all, I would like to express my agreement with Secretary Rusk's view and his eloquent advice to the Congress. I think one should make clear to one's constituents that this is not a favor we do to Panama, that this is independent of the merits of the Panamanian Government. This is something we do for ourselves based on a consideration of our long-term interest in the Western Hemisphere and how best to develop our interest and achieve our purposes in a constructive relationship.

On balance every Secretary of State, every President since 1963, has come to the conclusion that we need a modernized relationship in our interests, not because Panama deserves it, or because we want to do a favor to it, and regardless of what-what changing constellations we might see there.

Mr. GUYER. Dr. Kissinger, I think everyone would agree with you on that. In 1960 this came up again without having a treaty. You remember we brought an equalization of the pay to the Panamanian/ American workmen in the same zone. Every Member of Congress, Í think, believes we are long overdue in improving relations with the Panamanian people who came from slavery up through the ranks and, as you know, the entire history of the canal without being an extremist in this issue, I just very, very seriously say it is only lamentable now we could not have men of your caliber. We are going to have the Secretary and Chief of Defense and we had the two Ambassadors here if they could have appeared before the signing our job would have been much simpler.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Thank you.

Mr. Pease.

Mr. PEASE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am basically in support of the treaty. I think it was good work done by our negotiators, but the mail I get is similar to that of many other Members of Congress, in opposition. In a way it is a shame that the program of economic aid was announced and worked out at the same time as the two treaties because even though Ambassadors Bunker and Linowitz have told us that they are not connected, necessarily, it appears in the eyes of the public that we are paying $345 million to the Panamanians.

SHOULD PANAMA PAY FOR THE CANAL?

But that aid package aside, the basic question which is raised in many letters written to me is why should not the Panamanians pay us for our investment in the canal.

I would appreciate the viewpoint of you two gentlemen as to a reply that can be given to the American people to that question.

Mr. KISSINGER. My friend to my right has very generously given me that question.

I must say, incidentally, the mail I receive is very similar to that all of you gentlemen receive. I haven't received a letter in support of the treaty myself but many anguished letters in the opposite direction. Mr. PEASE. Perhaps Secretary Rusk would write you a letter, too, so you can have one.

Mr. KISSINGER. I have to say quite candidly I have not reflected on this particular question. Obviously Panama doesn't have the means to pay us for our original investment and the arrangement that would undoubtedly be made in Panama. We had two generations in which we could set the rates for the canal to serve our own economic interests and the economic interests of other countries in the Western Hemisphere. The rates were ridiculously low for a very long period, and the amount that was paid to Panama was very small: and, therefore, I think if this issue were raised we would get into an endless debate about what we owed them for what they would argue was colonial exploitation.

I think one should look at the treaty, as I have said on several occasions, as a means of putting our relations to the entire hemisphere on a constructive basis, and at a minimum of removing an issue which can rally all anti-American sentiment. Therefore, we ought to look to the future more than scoring debating points about the past.

Mr. RUSK. That is an important question and I have spent a good deal of time in my day trying to resist the high charges that other countries have tried to impose upon us with regard to various facilities and bases, and so forth.

Mr. Chairman, you might want to have a member of the committee staff take a look at some of the other quid pro quos that we have exchanged with Spain, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Turkey, and some other countries, to see what the going rates on these things seem to be, because in terms of our experience in these matters I think these Panamanian arrangements are really modest, or at least within the ballgame.

I also think, Mr. Chairman, I believe you have this in mind, trying to make some assessment on how the canal is to be evaluated because the figures run all the way from $700 million to $9 billion, depending on what you put into the computation, and the committee could render a useful service in clarifying some of that, if possible.

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF THE 1903 TREATY WITH PANAMA

Mr. PEASE. Secretary Rusk, I was especially interested in your testimony and the scholarly comments you had about the 1903 treaty, and interested in your comment that you do not believe that we can afford to allow the validity of the 1903 treaty to be tested in the International Court of Justice.

You followed on by saying that you are glad that the treaty has not been pursued in the U.N. General Assembly.

If the treaty were not to be agreed to by the Senate, what are the possibilities that the 1903 treaty would be raised or brought to the International Court of Justice, or to the U.N. General Assembly without our wishing it to be so?

Mr. RUSK. Because of the Connally reservation we have reserved the right to determine which questions we are prepared to let go to the International Court of Justice.

In that sense we did not, although we did it on the face of it. We did not really accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court, so I don't know any way in which a country can take us before the International Court against our wishes.

In terms of the General Assembly, I am sure, I am absolutely certain that if the Senate does not give advise and consent to these two treaties it will go into international bodies immediately and we would have great difficulties.

Mr. PEASE. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. If there are no further questions, I would like on behalf of the members of the committee, and again on my own, to thank you gentlemen for your excellent statements and the direct answers to the questions. Certainly we are deeply appreciative of the time and the enlightenment you have given us on this complex issue. It must be very gratifying and satisfying to learn that, despite some members who may not agree with your positions, they nevertheless have a high regard, for both of you gentlemen, great public servants of the past and continuing to be so in the interest of our country's national security.

We want to thank you sincerely, and we do hope that your visit with us was just as satisfying to you as it was to us.

Mr. RUSK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The committee stands adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the committee adjourned.]

PROPOSED PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:10 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clement J. Zablocki (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The committee will please come to order. The Chair understands there are other members on their way. We were hopeful a quorum call will not interrupt.

We meet this morning to continue the committee's hearings on the proposed Panama Canal treaties and related legislation.

Thus far the committee has heard the principal U.S. negotiators, Ambassadors Ellsworth Bunker and Sol Linowitz, and former Secretaries of State Dean Rusk and Henry Kissinger.

Today, we are pleased to have before the committee spokesmen for three of the leading American veterans organizations.

Representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars is Dr. John Wasylik, national commander in chief of the VFW. Dr. Wasylik is accompanied by Mr. Cooper T. Holt, executive director of the VFW, Washington office, and Col. Phelps Jones, director of national security and foreign affairs for the VFW.

Speaking for the American Legion is William J. Rogers, immediate past national commander. He is accompanied by Dr. Robert P. Foster, chairman of the Legion's National Foreign Relations Commission. I understand Mr. Milio Kraja is also present.

Appearing for the AMVETS is Mr. Frank D. Ruggiero, national commander. He is accompanied by Mr. C. Dennis McClure, national service and legislative director.

Gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome you on behalf of the Committee on International Relations.

In order to assure that the members may have an opportunity to question all of the witnesses during our limited time this morning, may I suggest that each spokesman present his prepared statement or a summary of his prepared statement, whichever way you prefer, following which the witnesses may be questioned as a panel.

Dr. Wasylik, as the spokesman for the oldest of the organizations, would you please begin.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN WASYLIK, NATIONAL COMMANDER IN CHIEF, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. WASYLIK. Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, my name is Dr. John Wasylik, and my home is in