Letter from L. E. Laurion of Wichita, Kansas, to President Gerald R. Ford Regarding the Panama Canal

GENERAL FC87 of October 1, 1975 Dear Mr. X Laurion: L.E. The President has asked me to reply to your letter of August 7, in which you expressed your concern for the Panama Canal treaty negotiations. Please accept my apologies for this late reply. You may be assured that the question of United States interests in the Panama Canal and how we might best protect them has been subject to the most thorough review and continues to receive concerbed attention throughout the Executive Branch. Our principal goal in these negotiations is to protect United States inter- ests over the long term. Panama has been dissatisfied with the Treaty of 1903 since its inception and has pressed for more favorable terms with increasing intensity in recent years. We believe it should prove possible to negotiate a new treaty relationship with Panama which will protect basic United States interests in the Canal (including provision for the operation and defense of the Canal by the United States for an extended period of time) while meeting some of Panama's concerns and desires. It is our belief that this is of vital importance if we are to maintain access to the Canal over the long term. The talks, however, are still continuing and a number of difficult issues remain to be discussed. RECEIVED tuko & LIBRARY GERALD OCT 1 1975 CENTRAL FILES - 2 - The President has no intention of proposing to the Congress any agreement with Panama, or with any- one else, that would not protect our vital interests. I can also assure you that any treaty agreed upon by the negotiators will be subject to the full constitu- tional process, including Senate approval. With the President's appreciation for the candor with which you have shared your views and his best wishes, Sincerely, Roland L. Elliott Director of Correspondence Mr. L. E. Laurion Post Office Box 1679 Wichita, Kansas 67201 RLE:NSC:STATE:JHH:aby B FORD d LIBRARY GERALD 5967 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL September 25, 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: JEANNE W. DAVIS FROM: STEPHEN LOWSN SUBJECT: Letter to Mr. L. E. Laurion Attached for your signature is a memo to Roland Elliott forwarding a suggested response to Mr. L. E. Laurion on the Panama issue. FORD & LIBRARY GERALD 5967 MEMORANDUM NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL September 25, 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: ROLAND ELLIOTT MH FROM: for JEANNE W. DAVIS SUBJECT: Letter to Mr. L. E. Laurion Attached for your signature at Tab A is a suggested response to Mr. L. E. Laurion who wrote the President on August 7 (Tab B) to express his concern regarding the Panama Canal treaty negotiations and his opposition to any transfer of control and sovereignty of the Canal to Panama. FORD & LIBRARY GERALD TAB A Suggested Reply final Dear Mr. Laurion: The President has asked me to reply to your letter of for August 7 1075, in which you expressed your concern with regard to the Panama Canal treaty negotiations. Please arent my apologies for this late reply. You may be assured that the question of United States interests in the Panama Canal and how we might best protect them has been subject to the most thorough review and continues to receive concerted attention throughout the Executive Branch. Our principal goal in these negotiations is to protect United States interests over the long term. Panama has been dissatisfied with the Treaty of 1903 since its inception and has pressed for more favorable terms with increasing intensity in recent years. We believe it should prove possible to negotiate a new treaty relationship with Panama which will protect basic United States interests in the Canal (including provision for the operation and defense of the Canal by the United States for an extended period of time) while meeting some of Panama's concerns and desires. It is our belief that this is of vital importance if we are to maintain access to the Canal over the long term. The talks, however, are still continuing and a number of difficult issues remain to be discussed. [continued] FORD LIBRARY if GERALD 2 The President has no intention of proposing to the Congress any agreement with Panama, or with anyone else, that would not protect our vital interests. I can also assure you that any treaty agreed upon by the negotiators will be subject to the full constitutional process, including Senate approval. candor of news and with which you YaSincerely, n ith the have Preasent's should apperiation for the his best with Roland Elliott Mr. L. E. Laurion Post Office Box 1679 Wichita, Kansas 67201 FORD & LIBRARY DERALO TAB B (CLASS) CATION DEPARTMENT OF STATE S/S: 7516607 EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT TRANSMITTAL FORM Date: For: Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft September 4, 1975 National Security Council The White House Pursuant to referral dated August 13, 1975, NSC No. (if any) a copy of which is attached, we are enclosing the following: Information copy of direct reply Translation Other XX Draft reply for: President's signature XX Other signature We believe no response is necessary for the reason cited below The attached item, which was sent directly to the Department of State, is being forwarded for your attention. We believe no response is necessary for the reason cited below A draft reply is attached A draft reply will be forwarded A translation is attached Other REMARKS: DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: To: The President From: L. E. Laurion Date: August 7, 1975 Subject: Panama Canal Treaty FORD & LIBRARY GERALD Richad E. Hechly for George S. Springsteen Executive Secretary SUGGESTED REPLY Dear Mr. Laurion: President Ford has asked that I reply to your letter of August 7 in which you expressed concern about the negoti- ations which the United States is conducting with the Re- public of Panama. President Johnson after consulting with former Presi- enter dents Truman and Eisenhower agreed in 1964 to negotiate a new treaty relationship with Panama. Agreements were reached in 1967 but neither party initiated the ratifica- tion process and in 1970 the Panamanian government formally requested that negotiations be reopened. Tentative agree- ment was reached on a number of issues in 1971 but treaty language was not agreed upon. The current round of ne- gotiations commenced late in 1973 shortly after Secretary Kissinger announced the appointment of Ambassador-at-Large Ellsworth Bunker as chief United States negotiator. In February 1974, Secretary of State Kissinger and then Panamanian Foreign Minister Tack signed a Statement of Principles to guide the negotiators in their effort to conclude a satisfactory treaty. A report on the status of Mr. L. E. Laurion, P. 0. Box 1679, Wichita, Kansas 67201. FORD LIBRARY & GERALD - 2 - negotiations including the text of the Principles is enclosed for your convenience together with a copy of a recent speech by Ambassador Bunker. As you may be aware, it was announced on August 10 that Ambassador Bunker will be travelling to Panama in early September for a new round of negotiations. The primary United States objectives in the negoti- ations are to retain the right to administer, operate and defend the canal for an extended period of time; to secure an option to expand capacity either by adding a third set of locks or by building a new sea-level canal; and to assure a viable treaty arrangement which provides the basis for an enduring mutually acceptable relationship with Panama. I trust that this letter and the enclosed material will be helpful to you in explaining our objectives in the current negotiations. Sincerely, Department of State FORD LIBRARY & GERALD THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE News Release January 1975 Bureau of Public Affairs Office of Media Services PANAMA CANAL TREATY NEGOTIATIONS: BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS GERALD FORD LIBRARY Background Canal, rearrangement of markets and sources, product exchanges, and partial or complete sub- The United States and Panama are currently stitution of land or air transport for ocean trans- negotiating a new Panama Canal treaty to replace port. As canal users take advantage of these the Treaty of 1903. alternatives, the canal's value declines relative to In that treaty Panama granted the United the economies of the user nations. For the States-in perpetuity-the use of a 10-mile wide United States, in particular, a recent study has zone of Panamanian territory for the "construc- shown that the canal's impact on the domestic tion, maintenance, operation and protection" of economy is quite small compared to the economy a canal, as well as all the rights, power, and as a whole. authority within that zone which the United States would "possess if it were the sovereign." Panamanian Treaty Concerns The very favorable terms of the treaty were a major factor in the U.S. decision to build the Panama has been dissatisfied with the treaty for canal in Panama rather than in Nicaragua as many years. Part of this dissatisfaction has de- initially planned. rived from Panama's interpretation of two aspects of the situation which resulted in the Treaty of Canal's Economic Value 1903: (1) Panama's acceptance of unfavorable treaty terms due to its dependence upon the Since its opening in 1914, the canal has pro- United States to protect its new-found indepen- vided benefits to the United States, to Panama, dence from Colombia; and (2) Panama's principal and to the world. Of the total tonnage that negotiator was a Frenchman who benefited transits the canal, about 44 percent originates in, considerably when the United States purchased and 22 percent is destined for, U.S. ports. This the private French concession to build a trans- tonnage represents about 16 percent of the total isthmian canal. U.S. export and import tonnages. Over the years Panama has also charged that The canal has been economically important to the United States has unilaterally interpreted the Panama, too. More than 30 percent of Panama's treaty to Panama's disadvantage and given Panama foreign exchange earnings and nearly 13 percent an inadequate share of the benefits from the op- of its GNP are directly or indirectly attributed to eration of the waterway. Even more objection- the presence of the canal. But those contribu- able in Panama's view, are the provisions in the tions represent a smaller portion of Panama's Treaty of 1903 which give to a foreign power in economy now than they did in years past. perpetuity governmental jurisdiction within a In fact, reliance on the canal by all parties has portion of Panamanian territory. Increasingly in evolved from earlier years. As trading patterns recent years Panama has insisted that U.S. control have changed and world commerce has become over the Canal Zone prevents the country from more sophisticated, alternatives to the canal have realizing its full economic potential. begun to emerge. These alternatives include the The United States has responded sympathet- use of larger vessels which would bypass the ically to some of these Panamanian concerns. In THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE News Release: Bureau of Public Affairs May 22, 1975 Office of Media Services Seattle, Wash. PANAMA AND THE UNITED STATES: FORD & LIBRARY GERALD TOWARD A NEW RELATIONSHIP The following is the text of an address by Ells- help shape a new structure of international rela- worth Bunker, Ambassador at Large, before the tions which promotes cooperation rather than Rainer Club. force, negotiation rather than confrontation, and the positive aspirations of peoples rather than the I am happy to be with you this afternoon and accumulation of arms by nations." to have this opportunity to speak on the efforts now underway to create a new relationship be- In the past, when serving as a U.S. negotiator, tween Panama and the United States. I have made it a habit to keep my mouth shut I know that the arrangements for the future publicly while negotiations were in progress. The operation of the Panama Canal are of great interest fact that I have decided to discuss today some of to a major maritime city such as Seattle. But there the key issues in the current canal negotiations re- are broader reasons why negotiations over the flects another basic element of this Administra- future of the canal should concern Americans. For tion's conduct of foreign policy-the awareness the successful conclusion of a new agreement on that no foreign policy decision, and particularly no the canal: significant change in foreign policy, can take place without the advice and consent of Congress and Would demonstrate the possibility, in the the informed support of the American people, on conduct of our foreign relations, of resolving prob- the basis of candid and reasonable public lems when they are susceptible to accommodation discussion. and compromise, rather than waiting until they raise the danger of confrontation and possible use Value of the Canal of military force; The story begins 72 years ago. In 1903 the Would provide concrete evidence of our newly independent Republic of Panama granted to country's willingness to move toward a more the United States-in the Hay-Bunau-Barilla mature partnership with Latin America, where we Treaty-a strip of its territory 10 miles wide and 50 have often in the past been accused of paternalism miles long for the construction, maintenance, oper- or neglect; and ation, and protection of a canal between the Atlan- Would serve as an example of practical co- tic and Pacific. Panama also granted to the United operation between a large and a small country, a States-in perpetuity-all the rights, power, and developed and a less-developed country. Such co- authority to act within that strip of territory as "if operation is indispensable if we are to achieve what it were the sovereign." the Secretary of State recently described as the aim That the treaty favored the United States was of U.S. foreign policy [March 1, Houston] : to acknowledged promptly. John Hay-then Secretary PR 284 AVH THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE REFERRAL 8/26 Written fup To: The Secretary of State Date: August 13, 1975 SS # 7516607 ACTION REQUESTED 9/4 Called NSC-Ton Draft reply for: President's signature. Log# will ch. status teall Undersigned's signature. bak NOTE No recooh, . Memorandum for use as enclosure to reply. Prompt action is Isstill essential with state. 2 weeks' Direct reply. If more than ****** delay is encountered, Furnish information copy. please telephone Golack450 Miss Byrne 456-6688 Suitable acknowledgment or other appropriate handling. shd be at NS C today Furnish copy of reply, if any. Basic correspondence should be returned when reply, memorandum, or comment is requested. For your information. or tom. from State. For comment. 9/9 Called Tom NSC to h REMARKS: status. said to send written f-up. Description: 9/17 2nd written f-up X Letter: Telegram: Other: 9/26 JHH called Murph, Said To: The President working on From: L.E. Laurion, P.O. Box 1679. Wichita, Kansas 67201 Date: August 7, 1975 Subject: Panama Canal Treaty By direction of the President: Roland L. Elliott Director of Correspondence RLE:AVH:PB:emp FORD LYBRARY & GERALD (White House Suspense Copy) EBY MARTIN K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS P.O. BOX 1679 610 NORTH MAIN (316) 267-1371 WICHITA, KANSAS 67201 PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO THE COMPANY ATTENTION OF THE WRITER August 7, 1975 The Honorable Gerald R. Ford President of the United States The White House Washington, D. C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: I have read with alarm the "agreement on principles" signed by Secretary Kissinger and Panamanian Foreign Minister Juan A. Tack, which presumably will guide the negotiation of a new Panama Canal Treaty. If this document had been prepared by Chairman Brezhnev, of the Soviet Union, it would be logical and understandable, It is difficult, however, for me to comprehend how a statesman, who I am sure has the best interests of the United States at heart, could be led SO far astray as to countenance that document. I spent two years in the Panama Canal Zone, and several of my good friends have been Governor of the Panama Canal Zone. I understand how easily a few of the Panamanian people can be induced by a demagogue to riot against the United States or against any other cause. I fail to understand, however, how the United States Government can be stampeded into acceding to the tran- sitory wishes of this unstable, vociferous minority, even though the granting of those demands is contrary, not only to the best interests of the United States but to world peace. As you well know, through the Panama Canal Company, the United States Govern- ment has subsidized the Panamanian people since the canal was completed. Our sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone is vested by a legitimate treaty, with which the Panamanians were not only satisfied, but jubilant. If our foreign policy is to be governed and dictated by foreign Marxist minorities, and if the United States Covernment is to submit to their black- mail, then we deserve to lose not only the respect of other friendly nations but our precious freedom as well. I trust that you will not be a party to any treaty, or other document, that transfers control and sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama, or to any other entity. FORD & BERALD MARTIN K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. The Honorable Gerald R. Ford President of the United States August 7, 1975 Page 2 By copy of this letter, I am urging Kansas Senators Dole and Pearson to vote against the ratification of any such document. Sincerely yours, MARTIN K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. L. E. Laurion Assistant to the President LEL:fes cc: Senator Bob Dole Senator James B. Pearson Martin K. Eby FORD d LIBRARY GERALD DOC RECD LOG NBR INITIAL ACTION o NSC CORRESPONDENCE PROFILE MO DA MO DA HR .0 Y a Y OR 7505967 ww REFERENCE: CIRCLE AS APPROPRIATE TO: PRES FROM: KISSINGER, H S/S 7516607 UNCLAS LOG IN/OUT SOURCE/CLASS/DESCRIPTION KISSINGER COLBY, W OTHER LOU NO FORN NODIS t SCOWCROFT SCHLESINGER, J C EYES ONLY EXDIS DAVIS ST EX SEC X S CODEWORD TS SUBJECT: Acle lt to fun fm Caurior re porroma SENSITIVE Conal treaty INTERNAL ROUTING AND DISTRIBUTION REC ACTION REQUIRED ACTION INFO. CY ADVANCE CYS TO HAK/SCOWCROFT FOR MEMO FOR HAK ( ; STAFF SECRETARY MEMO FOR PRES ( ) REPLY FOR FAR EAST ( ) SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA APPROPRIATE ACTION I ) DISTRIBUTION/INITIAL ACTION ASGMT MID EAST / NO. AFRICA / so. ASIA MEMO TO ( ) EUROPE / CANADA RECOMMENDATIONS ( ) LATIN AMERICA X JOINT MEMO ( ) UNITED NATIONS REFER TO FOR: ( ) ECONOMIC ANY CONCURRENCE. ACTION NECESSARY? to K Elliet ( < I SCIENTIFIC , PROGRAM ANALYSIS DUE DATE: NSC PLANNING 9/20 COMMENTS: (INCLUDING SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) CONGRESSIONAL OCEANS POLICY INTELLIGENCE DATE FROM TO S SUBSEQUENT ACTION REQUIRED (OR TAKEN): CY TO 9/29 Low & c E memo for Elliott 9/24 C DAVIS syal memo to Ell ott SUBSEQUENT ROUTING/ACTIONS DISPATCH Dow 9-29-75 TH CY RQMTS: SEE ABOVE PLUS: MICROFILM & FILE RQMTS: NSC/S DISP INSTR NOTIFY & DATE BY M/F BY 2 SPECIAL DISPOSITION: OPEN CRT ID: MR SA SF CROSS REF W/ HP NS SUSPENSE CY ATTACHED: yes FOLDER: CLOSE GAB WH EP PA DY (NSC.75-22)