determination to repair in every way any weaknesses which might exist in the defense position of the Americas. At this point, two basic facts should be considered. First, the very human inclination of the poor to envy those who are better off and, second, the true nature and purpose of Communist agitation and propaganda. Those who have lived for any length of time in any Latin American country tell us that there will always be a modicum of natural resentment on the part of some-if not most-Latins toward the United States. This is not necessarily antagonistic, but is a mere manifestation of human envy as respect for the United States is begrudgingly admitted. The Latin Americans cannot be criticized for such an attitude as it is understandable. Almost two centuries of nationhood should give us a maturity that enables us to see beneath the surface storms that at times embroil our neighbors and comprehend the deep potential which those countries hold for the betterment of the entire hemisphere, the United States included. Let our resolve be not to weaken in the face of unimportant verbal assaults, loud and long as they may be, but rather to elevate the potential forces for good in those countries by clearcut policies that self-serving anti-American propaganda cannot obscure from the eyes of the sincere citizens of the Latin American nations. On the other hand, let us thoroughly understand the intent and nature of the agitation and propaganda that is in fact Communist directed and orchestrated. Communist "agitprop" as it is called, in no way seeks the satisfaction of demands. Demands have but one purpose the stirring up of emotions, tempers and hatred on the part of hearers and readers of Communist denunciations and agitational propaganda. The giving in to such demands only forces the Communist leaders to quickly come up with new demands. Their purpose is not the improvement of the lot of those whom they fire up, but the sheer utilization of those very persons and mobs as instruments to convey themselves to power in order to dominate and enslave those whom their agitation moves to violence. Misguided, naive diplomats and bureaucrats, unaware of the fact that for the Communists, "agitprop" is as much a weapon of revolution as a rifle or Molotov cocktail, too often tend to seek desperately for some concession that will end the unpleasantness of Communist inspired hostility. They have not yet learned—some seem to insist on refusing to learn—that yielding to Communists' demands only forces them to make even greater demands. Many otherwise great statesmen in too many countries from Cuba to China have learned this truth too late to save themselves or their countries. The position of this country then should be to ignore the shouts of of the self-seeking non-Communist Latin politicians, and stand firm against the demands of the Communists and their dupes all the while advancing through intelligent, respectful cooperation with real statesmen the best interests of each Latin nation. Let us appreciate that a President of a country in Central or South America who is a sincere statesman and no opportunist may feel forced by the realities of his political situation' and that of his country to make demands upon the United States in an effort to appease the always present radicals at home. Our role in his regard must be one of understanding and cooperation that in no way yields advantage to the enemies of this Nation. Times change and conditions change. But the number one priority of any government, to provide for the defense and well being of its people, never changes. This is not 1903, but the Panama Canal is an even more vital link in our chain of defenses today than it was then. Implacable enemies face us just a few miles from our Alaskan and Florida shorelines. Agents infiltrate our institutions, pervading our society, ennervating our moral fibre, sapping our will to resist. The recent examples of Soviet agents operating in Britain should serve as stern reminders. Consequently, despite our exposure to a long history of unchanging techniques and proclaimed intentions to overthrow every non-Communist government and establish Communist regimes, we refuse to believe what we have been told and the slow but steady domination of one nation after another by the Communists continues. Men, yes, women and children too, are dying right now, clambering over the Berlin Wall, or swimming the Shen Wan (Deep Bay) to Hong Kong, or riding fragile rafts across the Caribbean, trying to escape from what we call, but do not yet truly comprehend the horror of, the Iron Curtain, the Bamboo Curtain or the Sugar Cane Curtain. Our task is clear as this worldwide enemy continues its onslaught, with our own country as its primary target. It is to stand firm on every front, to strengthen our alliances with proven allies, and to defeat the thrusts of the Communists, be they economic, sociological, political—or military. All of these thrusts have been made in Panama in recent years. Our weakness during the past riots, killings, and guerrilla activities which have occurred in Panama, has only served to foster additional unrest as Communist demands increased, and the United States was made to seem more than ever but a paper tiger. I believe that past Presidents of the United States have erred in following State Department advice to back down in the face of extremist Panamanian agitation. Such weakness helped to precipitate the outbreaks of violence that led to loss of life when Panamanian radicals confronted our soldiers protecting the Canal Zone in the early 1960's. This country must stop its vacillation and stand by the clearcut terms of the 1903 treaty which gave the U.S. perpetual sovereignty over the Canal Zone as long as we continue to operate, maintain and protect the Panama Canal. Misguided bureaucrats in the State Department, who have recommended our giving in on certain terms of that treaty in the face of agitation by certain Panamanian groups and officials, are seemingly unaware that Communist agitation and propaganda would continue to incite Panamanians to unrest even if the United States were to completely relinquish control of the canal and the Canal Zone, and still provide the millions of dollars to help Panama operate the canal. 68-091 0-71 I repeat, there is no possible way to satisfy the demands of the Communists. Their demands are but the means of agitating and continuing dissatisfaction and unrest among the people they intend to conquer and someday rule with an iron fist. We have common interests with the Panamanians, and common needs. We have worked together in the past and we must continue to work together in the future. The operation and defense of the canal is our chief common concern. Once and for all, let the leadership of the United States stand firm on this important issue. We cannot be swayed by any demands regarding the sovereignty terms of the 1903 treaty under which we built, maintained, and protected the canal. However, on the other hand, let our consistent policy affirm that any Panamanian desires to improve the economic and social status of that nation, in accordance with the terms of the 1903 treaty, will always be considered in the most favorable light by the people of the United States and our Government. STAEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: As cosponsor of legislation urging maintenance and protection of United States sovereignty over the Panama Canal and Canal Zone, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for this oportunity to submit my statement to the subcommittee. After an uneventful lapse of some 4 years, we seem to be in for another bout of the psychological malady called "Canalera." Discontent over the current status of the Canal Zone erupted in bloody riots in Panama in 1964 and, after length negotiation, resulted in three new proposals for governing the canal and its surrounding zone. The three draft treaties were never accepted either by the United States or Panama, and the situation has remained more or less static until now. Earlier this year, however, the administration reopened negotiations with Panama to rewrite the original 1903 agreement. Presumably the negotiators will use the 1967 treaty drafts as the bosis for the present discussions. At any rate they will be faced with the same set of conflicting U.S. and Panamanian objectives. Panama will still undoubtedly insist on recognition of its sovereignty over the Pr mile strip of territory within its borders which constitutes the Canal Zone The United States for its part must maintain its responsibility for defending and governing the canal, not only for our own interests, but to protect this vital link in hemispheric defense as well. Certainly some of the Panamanian demands are negotiable. Their insistence that wage discrimination on the basis of nationality be ended, and that the canal authorities buy Panamanian goods and services where available instead of importing competition from outside, seem reasonable enough. The request for Panamanian representation on the canal's governing board might also be considered legitimate. Concessions concerning such emotion-charged symbolic issues as the joint flying of national flags might also be made if they would ease nationalistic tensions within Panama. But on one issue the United States should never yield: and that is the final authority for operating and defending the canal. The canal is essential to U.S. commercial interests: 70 percent of the canal's traffic either originates or terminates in the United States, and we still have an unrecovered investment in the canal of some $300 million. The canal is also essential to the larger requirement of hemispheric security and stability. Postponing the surrender of U.S. sovereignty over the canal until 1999, as one of the draft treaties does, in no way solves the potential problems that such an abdication of responsibilty would pose. It merely puts them off. No one is competent to predict at this juncture what the political situation in Latin America will be like at the end of the century. Judging from the troubled area's past history, however, no diplomat worth his salt would dare to be too optimistic. Apart from the apparently endemic turmoil of the region in which coup succeeds coup with frightening regularity, there is a very real danger of a Communist takeover, if not in Panama itself, then in neighboring countries. Cuba, for example, is within easy striking distance, and Cuba's Communist demagog would be only too happy to foment trouble in Panama, and even to close the canal to U.S. traffic if possible. In view of the real and present dangers we face today, it would be foolhardy and irresponsible to resign the canal to unknown perils three decades hence. The United States must stand firm on its rights and responsibilities and duties in the Canal Zone. Whatever other concessions we may make in the interests of harmonious relations with Panama, we should not sign away our sovereignty over the canal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for your kind consideration of my views on this important subject. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES M. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, our historic involvement with the Panama Canal has been a key factor in the U.S. defense strategy for the Western Hemisphere. We were granted full and sovereign rights over the canal by the Republic of Panama in 1904 for the construction and maintenance of the canal. It is to the United States' advantage in the international arena to maintain this control. In 1967, it was proposed that the United States cede, in part, its authority over the Canal Zone to the Panamanian Government. Under a new joint administration, the United States would increase its annual payments to Panama, and share its defense and police responsibilities. When the text of the treaty was released, public indignation in the United States was so widely expressed that the draft treaty was never sent to the Senate for ratification. Today, the possibility that such a treaty might yet be made still haunts us. A military junta is now ruling Panama. A new administration is in office in Washington. Pressure from home and abroad is being directed at the American Government to surrender its overseas bases and establishments. The Panamanian Government is again will ng to begin tevectations for a new treaty. The Panamanians obtained supstanca PRESSSUES IN DRations negociations with our Government # 29467. The penetts valch they might achieve from renewed pro Unerei retie would be forced to write off the vast inYement The la's made in the Panama Canal by unilaterally sur"einer) og sovereign rights per the Canal Zone, seems highly inajir radit. Die es eren tata, of our authority over shipping rights y velden the position of the United States he Vestern Ramsthere. The importance of the Canal Zone as a Sategielas vin of our “scuthem fark” cannot be overrated. Deprived of our istorie Kätherity over the Canal Zone, the possibility of a Vleste regime in Panama denying us access of the canal ferde vänster of our naval ferous from ocean to ocean, ever increases. to lose its dex ofty and mobility of our naval forces would destroy guld” ik 'n jur defense chain, an at which would surely be Psaseeus Nelter in seinercial terms would we ever benefit from surrendering our authority in the Canal Zone. For 10 percent of Panama Canal pache today either originates or terminates in U.S. ports. Increased shoping was you'd only damage this trade. A Communist or hostile goverment would have it in their power to completely shut off the canal to US shipping A House resolution has now been introduced by my colleagues, Mr. Food and Mr. Hall, regarding our sovereignty over the Panama Cana'. This resolution would arm the President with the sentiment of the House of Representatives in his efort to maintain American control over the Panama Canal Zone. This resolution states that the United States should in no way forfeit, cede, negotiate, or transfer any of these severe rights. This resolution speaks in the higest interests of protection and security for the entire Western Hemisphere, incuding the Canal one and Panama. I urge the full support of my co"eagues for this resolution. (Addendum follows:) STATEMENT Oy rug StartS OF THE PANAMA CANAL (By Dr. Donald M. Dozer, Ph. D., Department of History, University of The House Subcommittee if they make a truly thorough and objective study, must surely recommend against any change in the status of the Panama Canal. Under existing treaty arrangements with Britain, Panama, and Colombia, and with the existing Canal facilities the United States has since 1915, satisfactorily discharged its existing responsibilities to the maritime nations of the world in transporting their ships and cargoes across the Isthmus of Panama. The Panama Canal now meets most of the demands made upon it while operating at much less than capacity, and it can be rendered completely responsive to the world shipping needs through modernization of the existing lock system without any change in the Canal route or its treaty status. The United States can, in other words, with a minimum expenditure of money and within a minimum span of time, correct any awkward or absolute features of the existing Canal while remaining completely within its international rights as embodied in the treaties with the above mentioned countries and without the need for any new international agreements. It is, in my judgment, not only unwise but dangerous for this government in the present posture of world affairs to relinquish any of its treaty rights and sovereign control over the Panama Canal and Canal Zone to enter into any new |