Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. HALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, today, I would like to express my support for a bill I introduced, House Resolution 345, and other similar bills which express the sense of the House of Representatives that the U.S. Government should not in any way forfeit, cede, negotiate or transfer its rights in the Panama Canal Zone to any other country or to any international organization.

Since the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 was ratified, the United States has expended enormous amounts of money, time, effort, and lives into the construction and maintenance of the Panama Canal as a "mandate for civilization." Many countries of the world have enjoyed the benefits of the canal and should be allowed to continue to do so.

At this crucial time when our negotiators are discussing a new treaty with the Panamanian Government, it is imperative that the administration and the Government of Panama be placed on notice that the House of Representatives is opposed to the relinquishment of U.S. rights in the Canal Zone.

A central issue will undoubtedly be the demand by Panama for a termination date to any new treaty. Unless there is some reasonable alternative to the present canal-which does not seem to be on the horizon at this time we simply cannot afford to give up our rights or we shall surely regret it.

One of the hardest lessons this Nation has hopefully learned is that when we become preoccupied with trying to build a favorable "image" with smaller nations through such give-away actions as relinquishing our rights in Panama would represent, we lose site of the strategic importance of maintaining a position of strength and usually end up worse off from our effort than if we had avoided consideration of the give-away altogether.

Mr. Chairman, I have received numerous letters from my constituents in Florida who, without exception, agree with me and ask that the United States not give away this vital link to the security and economic well-being of the Western Hemisphere.

I strongly urged the members of this subcommittee not to allow a tragic mistake to be made in the name of "image" building. I would hope that forceful, timely action by this subcommittee will head off any possible notions by the administration to cede U.S. rights in the Canal Zone or in the canal itself and at the same time let Panama know that we do not intend to cater to their attempts to put a termination date in a renegotiated treaty on the canal.

STATEMENT OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I wish to testify in favor of House Resolution 200. This resolution provides that the United States maintain and protect its sovereign rights over the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone. The negotiations currently underway between the United States and Panama over the future of the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone have

far-reaching implications for the security of the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere, as well as for the economic wellbeing of our Nation. In 1918, in der terms of the Hay-Fuman-Varilla Treaty, the Republic of Panama granted full soverein rights, power, and ambority in perpetuity to the United States over the Canal Zone. The treaty coilled for US. crenation and protection of the Panama Canal and extinded the Republic of Panama from any soyereign rights power, or authority. Altough substantial funds are paid to Panama each year, it is well known that some Panamanians feel the canal situation represents a foreign power occupying part of their national territory.

The Panamanians, on the other hand, most understand how important the canal is to this Nation which has and will continue to have the responsibilities of world leadership. It is time for realism to overcome the passions which are fanned by idealism and political rhetoric. It is imperative that we consider the Panama Canal question in the context of its vital importance to the United States.

The Panamanians have many demands: some of those which affect U.S. control are: the abrogation of the 1915 treaty and, in particular. the elimination of the perperity clause which grants the United States authority over the Canal Zone: Panamanian civil and penal courts of justice to replace North American courts in the Canal Zone: the reversion to Panama of the present canal and all auxiliary works, buildings, and lands within the Canal Zone.

U.S. concession to these demands would severely impair our Nation's responsibilities for the efficient operation of the canal, for the guarantee of the free flow of the world's sea transportation and commerce. and most importantly, for the defense of the United States as well as the entire Western Hemisphere.

Furthermore, concession to these Panamanian demands could pose a serious threat to U.S. interests because of the very nature of Panamanian politics. Throughout the history of the Republic of Panama. politics have been volatile and governments relatively unstable. One sperlates as to what might happen to the U.S. interest in the canal if an unfriendly and hostile government came to power in a situation where Panama had the sovereignty it demands. À leftist government. or one under Communist influence seeking closer relations with the Soviet Union. must surely be viewed as a potential threat_to_U.S. interests. This could afford the Soviet Union another toe-hold in Latin America: one which is even more vital and strategie than Cuba.

The U.S. commercial stake in the Panama Canal is considerable. Practically three quarters of all canal trade either originates or terminates in the United States. Retention of our sovereignty over this key to the Nation's lifeline is a necessity. In addition, continued U.S. control assures the free passage of world commerce. Since its inception in 1914, the Panama Canal has served as an international utility open to all nations of the world on equal terms.

Furthermore, U.S. investment in the Panama Canal, including the cost of its defense, comes to a figure of $5 billion for the period 1904 through. June 30. 1968. This expenditure has been borne by the American taxpayer. Such an extensive investment would never have been made by the United States if the Panamanian Government had not granted full sovereign powers over the canal territory.

A final, most important point is the vital role that the Panama Canal plays in the defense of the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. It provides a route for the rapid deployment of naval forces between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Although aircraft carriers cannot use the canal, our nuclear submarines can. It is inconceivable to think what would happen if during an international crisis or actual war situation our military forces were prevented from using the canal. There is also a defense economy factor involved in the use of the canal. The Vietnam war, for example, which has cost this Nation billions of dollars, would have cost even more if the military had been limited to the alternate routes to Southeast Asia.

Related to our defense needs is the elaborate military school systems in the Canal Zone which brings together top officers of the various Latin American military institutions. The U.S. Army School of the Americas, the Inter-American Air Forces Academy, and other smaller centers of instruction serve as excellent training centers, in addition to instilling a spirit of Inter-American cooperation.

House Resolution 200 is the product of a realistic analysis of the Panama Canal question. The United States must maintain and protect its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone, both of which are vital to the security of our Nation and that of the entire Western Hemisphere.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. R. HULL, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

I appreciate this opportunity to express my support for House Resolution 374 and the several similar measures now before this subcommittee which relate to U.S. control of the Panama Canal.

It is my firm belief that the United States should not surrender its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the canal to the Republic of Panama. Because of the unsettled and volatile conditions around the world, I feel that it would be dangerous for the Nation to consider such action at this time.

Nonetheless, at this time, negotiations are in progress with representatives of the Republic of Panama which could well lead to the loss of U.S. power in the area. These negotiations are being carried on while the public in Panama is being aroused to a high state of emotion over the American presence. Violent demands are being made upon the United States through this agitation. If American representatives do not carry out the negotiations very carefully more severe problems could well arise.

The report of the Interoceanic Canal Study Commission under Public Law 88-609 recommends the construction of a new canal about 10 miles west of the present canal in Panamanian territory at a cost of approximately $2.88 billion, excluding right of way and related expenses. It is toward this study's recommendation that the negotiations are now directed. In effect, a new treaty authorizing the construction must hinge, in the eyes of both parties, upon the surrender of the United States' present sovereign rights, power, and authority over the existing canal. Such surrender would be very much against the best interests of the United States in my view.

68-091 0-71-8

The Constitution, while granting the power to approve treaties to the Senate, vests the power to dispose of territory and other property of the United States in the Congress, both House and Senate. It is important that the House express its position on this matter in clear terms through the approval of one of the pending resolutions to prevent executive branch approval and senatorial ratification of a treaty which would be very adverse to the best interests of the United States.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. HUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement for the record of those resolutions which would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States retain its sovereign rights over the Panama Canal Zone. I am a sponsor of such a resolution, House Resolution 251.

The issue of jurisdiction over the Canal Zone is not new. Disagreements in this respect date back to the early 1900's, shortly after the Treaty of 1903-establishing perpetual U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone-was ratified by both countries. The politics of confrontation, however, coupled with the hostility of potentially disruptive antiestablishment elements within our own country, make the United States particularly vulnerable to unreasonable concessions in the present Panama Canal Treaty negotiations.

The stated objectives of ranking Panamanian officials and the Panamanian negotiators have been clear and unequivocal-the cancellation of the 1903 Treaty (not just a revision) followed by a new treaty giving Panama jurisdiction over the Canal Zone with the premise that the United States be permitted to operate the canal under Panamanian supervision. So firm is the Panamanian position that if it does not get what it wants, there is implicit the threat of more violence in Panama, and explicit the threat of denouncing the 1903 Treaty, or an appeal to the Organization of American States and to the United Nations. In other words, the premise laid down by Panama as the basis for success of the negotiations is concession on the part of the United States.

It should be readily apparent to even the most casual observer that the primary aims of the United States-control over the traffic through the canal and the bases for the defense of the canal-are fundamentally inconsistent with the only claim of Panama-jurisdiction over the canal that is of any significant importance.

Nationalism can be an admirable trait; pride in one's country is not to be denied those who demonstrate support for its legitimate aims. However, we should observe the rights which the United States has acquired in the Canal Zone, ascertain the investment pursuant to those rights which underlies the well-being of the Panamanian economy, and recognize the nature of those national interests which are being served because jurisdictional control is held by the United States. In the first instance, the 1903 treaty gave the United States power over the Canal Zone "as if it were the sovereign" such power as would be essential to construct, operate, maintain and defend the Panama

Canal. Secondly, the multibillion dollar investment in the canal and supporting facilities, coupled with the annual annuities and gratuities, plus the additional millions of dollars in the sale of goods and services to the Canal Zone, have enabled the Panamanians to enjoy a standard of living well above that of other Central American nations. To say the least, control of the canal such as the Panamanians envision could, and probably would, result in the extraction of additional wealth from all the nations utilizing the canal. This is no doubt the heart of the objective behind the jurisdictional facade. Thirdly, it has been well stated that while the canal is Panama's greatest national asset, it is also its greatest weakness, being strategically vulnerable and requiring dependence upon U.S. defenses. Economically in peace and strategically in time of war, the Panama Canal is much too important to the security and well-being of this Nation to be frittered away on the uncertainties such as the unpredictable political climate in Panama breeds.

The issue of a new sea-level canal has been brought up in connection with discussions for negotiation of a new treaty respecting the jurisdiction of the present canal. To some, the position of making the abrogation of the 1903 treaty contingent upon the construction and operation of a new sea-level canal might seem appealing and, indeed, quite reasonable. However, this position does not seem to be an alternative nor has the matter ever been that simple. To begin with, jurisdiction over the present canal is the primary objective of Panamanian negotiators even though willingness has been expressed to evaluate other issues if raised by the United States. If jurisdiction, therefore, is the crux of the cause of conflict between the United States and Panama-and it is said to be-then there is little cause for elation as to the potential status of the United States in relation to the jurisdictional questions that would certainly arise over any new canal. Any trade off would certainly have to be adverse to the interests of the United States if the present position of the Panamanian negotiators is to be given any credibility whatsoever.

In conclusion, it will undoubtedly be observed that this committee and the House of Representatives have no responsibility relative to treaties and the process of ratification. Technically, that is true. Nonetheless, certain issues of international importance raise such public concern that an expression of the sense of the House of Representatives can be an influential expression of the will of the American people in guiding the other body in its deliberations when a treaty is presented for ratification. More importantly at this time, however, is the fact that such an expression of concern can truly affect the direction that the present negotiations take. In my estimation, the lesson of the Suez Canal alone should be sufficient to subdue any serious notion of giving up U.S. sovereign control over the Canal Zone to a government whose stability is dependent upon only the personal power and prestige of the military dictator. As for the violence that has erupted in Panama from time to time over the jurisdictional issue, it should strengthen our conviction that U.S. control is imperative rather than from the basis of negotiations whose success will only be measured in terms of U.S. concessions.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the subcommittee's favorable disposition of the resolutions now before it.

« AnteriorContinuar »