Letter from Elaine Lewis of San Bernardino, California, to President Gerald R. Ford Regarding the Panama Canal

9 Don't give Panama our canal! Give them Kissinger instead! cy CRIT. Kissinger more imp ? Claine L. Lewis File 5328 PARK LANE, SAN Bernardino, CALIFORNIA 92404 GENERAL c/s-2A Sunday FG87 July 27,1975 President Gerald Fred. The White House W whing ton, DC. Dear Mr. Presdent: mr Polaud L. Ellietts letter of considering changeng for Panama 5/5/75 indicates that you are Canal Treaty of 1903, has had 46 or47 different heads are you aware that Phrama If government sure who that do Treaty theas to? you plan to Every where They Kissinger goes - we suddenly house loss. Please remember, the 1903 Treaty was made in perpetuity In pure the Russions would like to have alaska back 1 Lets not guel Mr Kasing any ideas about AUG that or we 61975 CENTRAL FILES Elaine L. Lewis 5328 PARK LANE, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92404 might losse our 49 State more responsibility, In for less Big government and with Hads help, a butter world I had one of the top 3 telephone misoul- you Reagon presented Centers for the Relection of Pels. me with a Tap Gold Seal award, One of our sons is in his fourth term in the Assembly. about Emery day, the I Communish tell some one Conspiracy in our great Country. Suncerely Exame Lew FORD LIBRARY & GERALD GENERAL F687 of May 5, 1975 F09 Dear Mrs. X Lewis: Elaine L. The President has asked that I reply to your letter of April 3, concerning the Panama Canal treaty negotiations. Your expression of concern is appreciated. 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. You may be sure that any decision which the President might make affecting the future of the Canal will protect United States interests, and any treaty agreed upon by RECEIVED MAY 6.1975 FORD LIBRARY is GERALD CENTRAL FILES - 2 - the negotiators would be subject to full constitutional process, including approval by the Senate. With the President's best wishes, Sincerely, Roland L. Elliott Director of Correspondence Mrs. Elaine L. Lewis 5328 Park Lane San Bernardino, California 92402 RLE:NSC:JHH:RLE:aby FORD LIBRARY & GERALD 2385 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL May 1, 1975 MEMO FOR: JEANNE W. DAVIS FROM: STEPHEN LOW SN SUBJECT: Letter to Mrs. Elaine L. Lewis re Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations Attached for your signature is a memo to Roland Elliott forwarding a suggested reply to Mrs. Lewis of California re the Panama Canal Treaty negotiations. RECEIVED MAY 9 1975 FORD is LIBRARY 0ERALD CENTRAL FILES 2385 MEMORANDUM NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL May 1, 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: ROLAND LIOTT FROM: JEANNE W. DAVIS mo SUBJECT: Letter to Mrs. Elaine L. Lewis re Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations Mrs. Elaine L. Lewis of San Bernadino, California, and mother of state assemblyman Jerry Lewis, wrote the President April 3 to express her opposition to relinquishing control over the Canal to Panama. She asked for a copy of the proposed treaty. (Tab B) Attached for your signature at Tab A is a suggested letter of response on behalf of the President. The letter notes that we believe it will be possible to negotiate a modernized treaty relationship protecting basic U.S. interests in the operation and defense of the Canal while meeting some of the Panamanian concerns and desires. The letter points out that the talks are continuing and that a number of difficult issues remain to be discussed. It is also pointed out that any treaty would be subject to full constitutional process including Senate approval. Attachments: Tab A: Suggested response to Mrs. Elaine L. Lewis Tab B: Incoming FORD is LIBRARY GERALD A. GERALD FORD LIBRARY & Suggested Reply final Dear Mrs. Lewis: The President has asked that I reply to your letter of April 3, 1975, concerning the Panama Canal treaty negotiations. Your expression of concern is appreciated. 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 in LIBRARY GERALD You may be some that Any decision which the President might make affecting the future of the Canal will protect United States interests, and any treaty agreed upon by the negotiators would be subject to full constitutional process, including approval by the Senate. with the Pres's best mile, Sincerely, R LE Mrs. Elaine L. Lewis 5328 Park Lane San Bernardino, California 92404 RLE/NSC/JA TUNE & GERALD LIBRARY UNCLASSIFIED (CLASSIE ICATION) DEPARTMENT OF STATE S/S: 7507484 EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT TRANSMITTAL FORM Date: April 22, 1975 For: Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft National Security Council The White House Pursuant to referral dated April 15, 1975 , NSC No. 7502385 (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: President Ford From: Elaine L. Lewis Date: April 3, 1975 Subject: Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations Pulil Bloods (for) George S. Springsteen Executive Secretary FORD LIBRARY & GERALD SUGGESTED REPLY Dear Ms. Lewis: President Ford has asked that I reply to your letter of April 3 concerning the Panama Canal treaty negotiations. You may be assured that the question of United States interests in the Panama Canal and how we might best pro- tect 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 U.S. interests. Panama has been discontented with the Treaty of 1903 since its inception and has pressed for more favorable terms with increasing intensity in recent years. Treaty revisions were made in 1936 and 1955. But the most objectionable feature from Panama's viewpoint -- United States exercise of rights as if sovereign in the Canal Zone in perpetuity -- remained unchanged. The Canal has become the major political issue in Panama as well as a continuing source of tension in U.S. - -Panamanian relations. A flag raising incident in the Canal Zone in 1964 led to riots and the death of 20 Panamanians and 4 Americans. Ms. Elaine L. Lewis, 5328 Park Lane, San Bernardino, California 92404 FORD LIBRARY is GERALD - 2 - After considering all the factors, and recognizing that a disgruntled and resentful government and people in Panama could create a situation in which United States in- terests in the Canal would be seriously threatened, the re- sumption of treaty negotiations with Panama was undertaken. The negotiations began in June 1971 and have been renewed under a new U.S. chief negotiator, Ambassador at Large Ellsworth Bunker. Primary United States objectives in the negotiations are: the right to administer, operate and defend the Canal for an extended period of time; an option to expand capacity, either by adding a third set of locks or building a new sea-level canal; and most importantly, a viable treaty ar- rangement which provides the basis for an enduring, mutually acceptable relationship with Panama. As in all negotiations both sides have put forth po- sitions. Many issues remain to be resolved and negotiations are continuing. We cannot predict when an agreement on a new treaty will be reached. Any decision which the President might make affecting the future of the Canal will, of course, protect United States interests. In fact, a major reason for initiating these negotiations is to head off a crisis which would en- danger those interests. A treaty, of course, would be sub- mitted to the Senate for approval and would be subject to full constitutional process. FORD LIBRARY & GERALD - 3 - Information concerning the issues involved in the Canal treaty negotiations is contained in the enclosed copy of the Background and Status of the Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations prepared by the Office of Panamanian Affairs. Also enclosed is a copy of a speech by Ambassador Bunker on the treaty issue. I hope you will call on me if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, FORD LIBRARY i GERALD THE DEPARTMENT CONUNS 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 2 3 1905 it recognized Panama's titular sovereignty President Nixon established negotiating objectives served as a useful framework for the present the United States require to accomplish its over the Canal Zone. The treaty was revised in which, although modified by developments, were negotiations. purpose? 1936, and again in 1955, to provide Panama similar to those set by President Johnson in 1964. 3. Jurisdiction: What areas will be controlled with a greater share of the economic benefits of The objectives and positions of the United States U.S. Treaty Objective and what functions will be exercised by the the canal and to remove certain outdated aspects, thus reflect a bipartisan approach to treaty nego- United States when its jurisdiction terminates, such as the right granted to the United States to tiations with Panama. They also are consistent The principal objective of the United States and what is the period of transition? interfere, when it believed necessary, in Panama's with the broader policy stated in Secretary in the current treaty negotiations is to protect 4. Expansion of Capacity: How will the internal affairs. Despite these modifications, how- Kissinger's call in October 1973 for a "new dia- our basic interests in the Panama Canal. The treaty provide for possible enlargement of canal ever, many of the features of the treaty most logue" with our Latin American neighbors, a U.S. Government is seeking to establish a new and capacity? objectionable to Panama remain unchanged. policy which President Ford has publicly endorsed. mutually acceptable relationship between our 5. Participation: How and to what extent The canal has become the major political issue A Panamanian negotiating team arrived in two countries whereby the United States will re- will Panama participate in the administration and in Panama. In recent years the intensification of Washington in June 1971. Intensive negotiations tain essential rights to continue operating and defense of the canal? Panama's campaign for more favorable treaty during the rest of the year resulted in a U.S. defending the canal for a reasonably extended 6. Compensation: What will be the form and terms has produced tensions in U.S.-Panamanian treaty offer covering most of the issues relevant period of time. A new treaty based on partner- level of economic benefits to Panama in any new relations. In 1964 the death of 20 Panamanians to the treaty. The Panamanian negotiators carried ship with Panama would enable the United States treaty? and 4 Americans brought the Panama Canal issue the offer to Panama for a review in December to devote all its energies to the efficient operation to the attention of the United Nations and the 1971. Except for some informal conversations in of the waterway. Moreover, it would provide a Current Status of Negotiations Organization of American States (OAS). March 1972 and an exchange of correspondence friendly environment in Panama that is most con- in the fall, the negotiations were not resumed ducive to protecting our vital interests in keeping Since June 1974, the talks have been taking Evaluation of Bilateral Negotiations for a New until December 1972, when a U.S. delegation the canal open and secure. Such a treaty would place in a cordial, informal atmosphere. The Treaty traveled to Panama. be consistent with good business management, U.S. negotiators have been proceeding carefully represent good foreign and defense policy, and and methodically. While there is no fixed time- Following discussion of the issue by the OAS, U.S. Security Council Action signify a new era of cooperation between the table, the negotiators from both countries have the United Nations, and other international agen- United States and the rest of the hemisphere. indicated their satisfaction with the progress to cies after the 1964 riots, the United States and At Panama's initiative, the U.N. Security In recent years Latin American nations have date and are hopeful that both countries can Panama agreed in 1964 to begin bilateral negotia- Council met in Panama City from March 15 to made the negotiation of a more equitable canal reach agreement on a draft treaty. tions for a new treaty. In so doing, the United March 21, 1973. In those sessions, Panama criti- treaty with Panama a major hemispheric issue Any decision which the President might make States recognized that a comprehensive moderni- cized the U.S. posture on the canal question and and a test of U.S. intentions regarding the "new affecting the future of the canal will, of course, zation of its relationship with Panama correspond- sought a resolution supporting its position. Thir- dialogue." be designed to protect U.S. interests. Indeed, a ed to its long-term national interests and to a teen nations voted for the resolution; the United major reason for negotiating a new treaty is to changing international environment. Kingdom abstained. The United States vetoed Issues in the Negotiations avert a serious crisis which would endanger our U.S. officials entered the negotiations in late the resolution on the grounds that it recognized interests. 1964 with a view to insuring that: Panama's needs but not those of the United In the months following the February 7 signing Any treaty agreed upon by the negotiators and The canal should continue to be available to States; that it was incomplete in its references to of the Statement of Principles, Ambassador approved by the executive branch will be submit- the world's commercial vessels on an equal the negotiations; and that it was inappropriate Bunker and Foreign Minister Tack met several ted to the U.S. Senate for ratification and subject basis at reasonable tolls; because the treaty was a bilateral matter under times in Panama and Washington to define the to full constitutional process. Panama, for its It should be operated and defended by the amicable negotiations. In explaining the U.S. issues involved in the new treaty arrangement. part, has said that it will submit the new treaty United States for a reasonably extended, but position, the U.S. Permanent Representative com- After agreement was reached, the negotiators to a plebiscite to insure that it is acceptable to definite, period of time; and mitted the United States to peaceful adjustment moved into substantive talks aimed at resolving the Panamanian people. It should continue to serve world commerce of its differences with Panama and invited these issues. efficiently. To this end, the United States Panama to continue serious treaty negotiations. The United States and Panama have agreed in sought the right to provide additional canal principle that the Treaty of 1903 should be re- capacity if it is needed. New U.S. Approach placed by a modern treaty that rejects the concept By 1967, the negotiators of both countries had of perpetuity and accommodates the sovereignty STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES prepared three draft treaties. They provided for In September 1973 Secretary Kissinger charged of Panama with the interests of the United States, operation of the present canal under a joint U.S.- Ambassador at Large Ellsworth Bunker with the on the understanding that U.S. control and de- Joint Statement by the Honorable Henry A. Panamanian authority; for construction and op- task of renewing discussions with Panamanian fense of the Panama Canal would continue for a Kissinger, Secretary of State of the United eration of a sea-level canal under a similar joint officials for the purpose of arriving at a common period of fixed duration. In the context of the States of America, and His Excellency Juan authority; and for U.S. defense of the old and approach to future treaty negotiations. Ambas- Statement of Principles the issues the two nego- Antonio Tack, Minister of Foreign Affairs of new canals for the duration of each treaty. Nei- sador Bunker visited Panama from November 26 tiating parties are working to resolve are: the Republic of Panama, on February 7, 1974 ther Panama nor the U.S. Government moved to to December 3, 1973, and again on January 6 1. Duration: How long will the new treaty at Panama ratify these treaties, and the new government and 7, 1974, to discuss with Panamanian Foreign remain in force? headed by General Omar Torrijos, which assumed Minister Juan Antonio Tack general principles 2. Operation and Defense: What rights and The United States of America and the Repub- power in October 1968, formally rejected them. upon which a new treaty might be based. These arrangements will the United States have to lic of Panama have been engaged in negotiations In 1970 the Government of Panama requested discussions resulted in the Statement of Principles permit it to continue to operate, maintain, and to conclude an entirely new treaty respecting the renewal of negotiations and the U.S. agreed. of February 7, 1974 (See p. 3), which has defend the canal? What geographic areas will the Panama Canal, negotiations which were made 4 possible by the Joint Declaration between the dance with what that treaty states, the right to two countries of April 3, 1964, agreed to under use the lands, waters and airspace which may be the auspices of the Permanent Council of the necessary for the operation, maintenance, protec- Organization of American States acting provision- tion and defense of the canal and the transit of ally as the Organ of Consultation. The new ships. treaty would abrogate the treaty existing since 5. The Republic of Panama shall have a just 1903 and its subsequent amendments, establish- and equitable share of the benefits derived from ing the necessary conditions for a modern rela- the operation of the canal in its territory. It is tionship between the two countries based on the recognized that the geographic position of its most profound mutual respect. territory constitutes the principal resource of the Since the end of last November, the authorized Republic of Panama. representatives of the two governments have been 6. The Republic of Panama shall participate holding important conversations which have per- in the administration of the canal, in accordance mitted agreement to be reached on a set of fun- with a procedure to be agreed upon in the treaty. damental principles which will serve to guide the The treaty shall also provide that Panama will negotiators in the effort to conclude a just and assume total responsibility for the operation of equitable treaty eliminating, once and for all, the the canal upon the termination of the treaty. The causes of conflict between the two countries. Republic of Panama shall grant to the United The principles to which we have agreed, on States of America the rights necessary to regulate behalf of our respective governments, are as the transit of ships through the canal and operate, follows: maintain, protect and defend the canal, and to undertake any other specific activity related to 1. The treaty of 1903 and its amendments those ends, as may be agreed upon in the treaty. will be abrogated by the conclusion of an entirely 7. The Republic of Panama shall participate new interoceanic canal treaty. with the United States of America in the pro- 2. The concept of perpetuity will be eliminated. tection and defense of the canal in accordance The new treaty concerning the lock canal shall with what is agreed upon in the new treaty. have a fixed termination date. 8. The United States of America and the 3. Termination of United States jurisdiction Republic of Panama, recognizing the important over Panamanian territory shall take place prompt- services rendered by the interoceanic Panama ly in accordance with terms specified in the treaty. Canal to international maritime traffic, and bear- 4. The Panamanian territory in which the canal ing in mind the possibility that the present canal is situated shall be returned to the jurisdiction of could become inadequate for said traffic, shall the Republic of Panama. The Republic of Panama, agree bilaterally on provisions for new projects in its capacity as territorial sovereign, shall grant which will enlarge canal capacity. Such provi- to the United States of America, for the duration sions will be incorporated in the new treaty in ac- of the new interoceanic canal treaty and in accor- cord with the concepts established in principle 2. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S.A. POSTAGE AND FEES PAID DEPARTMENT OF STATE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20520 STA-501 U.S.MAIL THIRD CLASS BULK RT. FORD GERALD LIBRARY NEWS BUREAU OF PUBLIC RELEASE Department of State Office of Media Services STATES OF Speech Text: AMBASSADOR BUNKER ON THE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PANAMA CANAL TREATY NEGOTIATIONS April 1, 1974 Address by Ambassador at Large Ellsworth Bunker, Chief U.S. Negotiator for the Panama Canal Treaty, before the Center for Inter-American Relations, March 19, 1974, New York City, N.Y. The reason that I am particularly pleased to be with you is that I could hardly hope for a better audience before which to venture my first public thoughts on the matter of a new treaty relationship between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama. This audience will understand that because the new relationship is a matter of transcendence for the two countries - and, in some measure, for the whole hemisphere and the world community - it is one which demands the constant application by both governments of: -- Reason rather than emotion; -- New ideas rather than old memories; and -- The will to accommodate rather than the wish to confront. All that makes it quite a difficult matter, possibly the most difficult I have yet addressed as a negotiator. I should like you to have the background of it, then the foreground as I can perceive it. Background We start from a treaty that is 70 years old. In 1903 the newly-independent Republic of Panama granted to the United States -- in perpetuity -- the use of a strip of land ten miles wide and 50 miles long for the construction, maintenance, operation, and protection of a canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Panama also granted to the United States all the rights, power, and authority to act within that strip of land as "if it were the sovereign." That the treaty favored the United States was acknowledged promptly. John Hay, then Secretary of State, told the Senate, in submitting it for ratification: " We shall have a treaty very satisfactory, vastly advantageous to the United States and, we must confess not so advantageous to Panama." FORD LIBRARY & GERALD - 2 - To be sure, had the United States not been offered so advantageous a treaty by Panama, it might well have built the canal elsewhere. Urmistakably, the construction of that waterway was an astounding achievement. Consider the triumph over tropical diseases; the gigantic engineering effort; the participation of people of many races and lands -- these are sources of extraordinary pride to our people. Canal Benefits We are no less proud of what the canal has represented since it opened. It has spurred the creation of major new international markets. It has caused the creation of entirely new sea routes. It has saved seafaring nations countless sums in terms of time, energy, and money. These -- together with the safe, efficient, and inexpensive operation of the waterway -- have provided Panama, the United States, and the entire world with benefits which obviously have been of incalculable value. Let me illustrate some of the benefits to Panama: -- One-fourth of that country's gross national product in recent years has been directly or indirectly attributable to the operation of the canal and the military bases within it; -- More than one-third of Panama's total foreign exchange earnings in recent years has derived from United States payments for Panamanian goods and services used in the Zone; -- Perhaps as much as one-fifth of Panama's employment nationwide is directly or indirectly attributable to the presence of the canal; -- Panama has become a crossroads of the hemisphere, a center for banking, shipping, transport, and communications, and it has prospects for accelerated development in the years to come. Today, that country's per capita income is the highest in Central America, the fourth highest in Latin America as a whole, exceeded only by that of Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela. For the United States, the benefits have been military as well as economic. It was the 7,000-mile, 66-day voyage of the US battleship "Oregon" around Cape Horn during the Spanish-American War that led us to build a trans-isthmian waterway. And its military value to the United States has not diminished, although it has changed. Its strategic importance was demonstrated: -- When the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor left the United States without significant naval strength in the Pacific. Redeployment of elements of the Atlantic fleet through the canal saved more than two weeks steaming time around the Capes. -- When during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 mobilization orders found nearly all landing craft concentrated on the West Coast. More than 60 military vessels were redeployed to Gulf and East Coast ports in less than 10 days. Even today, when major elements of our defense system are intercontinental bombers and missiles, the canal remains a vital line of communication. Despite limitations on the size of vessels which can pass through it, it permits the majority of US Navy ships to move expeditiously between oceans. Perhaps more important, it shortens supply lines from the United States to potential trouble spots around the world. GERALD FORD LIBRARY - 3 - The Viet-Nam conflict, necessitating a rapid buildup of men and material in Southeast Asia during the mid-60's, is the most recent example of the logistical role the canal plays for the United States. Because our production capacity is located mostly east of the Mississippi River and our internal transportation was insufficient, we were forced to depend heavily on the Canal to transport equipment and supplies to our forces. As for economic benefits to this country, they have unquestionably been great in the past. But how great they are today is relative. For example, it is true that 16 percent of the US ocean-borne trade passes through the Canal. It is also true, however, that our total foreign trade accounts for something less than ten percent of this country's gross national product. Indeed, there are those who argue that the value of the United States to the Panama Canal far exceeds the value of the Panama Canal to the United States. The argument derives from the fact that some 70 percent of the traffic through the canal is either bound for, or coming from, this country. Whatever the statistics, however, we know intuitively that the waterway contributes importantly to the economic well-being of our people. US Role in Canal Zone Where do the critical interests of our country now lie, and how may they best be served? I suggest that they lie in the continued operation and defense of the canal by the United States for a further and reasonably extended period of time. May I also suggest, however, that we can serve those interests adequately only if we move to change -- to modernize -- the nature of the presence of the United States in the Canal Zone. It is a quite uncommon presence. Some 40,000 American citizens live and work in a 500-square mile area very much as they might live and work in any area of 500 square miles in the continental United States. When all is said and done, however, that presence rests upon the consent of the Panamanian people. That is so because, were the level of consent to decline to zero, but our presence remain, we would find ourselves in the position of engaging in hostilities with the people of an otherwise friendly American state, on its soil. If I do not misread the temper of the American people and the times, that position would be unacceptable. So long as the consent of Panama to our presence remains at a high level, the United States can devote all its energies there to the functions required for the efficient operation of the waterway. But in proportion as the consent- level declines, in that proportion we must divert some of our energies to functions not related directly to the waterway's operation. And in that proportion the efficiency of the operation declines to. the detriment of our critical interests. Panama's Attitude For many years the level of Panama's consent has persistently declined. And by Panama, I mean the Panamanian people, of all strata, not simply their government. Governments in Panama may change. FORD - 4 - But I am persuaded that governmental change will never again divert the Panamanian people from the course of legitimate nationalism they are now pursuing. Unfortunately I must say that I consider the current level of consent to be unacceptably low. It began to be so ten years ago, when events in the Canal Zone led to rioting that occasioned 24 American and Panamanian fatalities. Why has it declined? The Panamanians cite the following: -- The United States occupies a 10-mile wide strip across the heartland of Panama's territory, cutting the nation in two, curbing the natural growth of its urban areas. The United States rules as sovereign over this piece of Panama's territory. It maintains a police force, courts, and jails to enforce US laws, not only upon American but also upon Panamanian citizens. -- The US Government operates virtually all commercial enterprises within the Zone, denying to Panama the jurisdictional rights which would enable its private enterprise to compete. -- The United States controls virtually all of the deep-water port facilities serving Panama. -- The United States holds, unused, large areas of land within the Zone. -- The United States pays Panama but $2 million annually for the immensely valuable rights it enjoys on Panamanian territory. -- The United States operates, on Panamanian territory, a full-fledged government that has no reference to the Government of Panama, which is its host. -- The United States can do all these things, the treaty states, forever. To these things the Panamanians object, saying that they deprive their country of dignity, of the ability to develop naturally, and, indeed, of full independence. One could disagree. One could ask that Panama relax in the tropics and enjoy, perpetually, the enormous direct and indirect benefits which the operation of the canal in its territory by the United States has brought to it. Yet the level of consent would not thereby be raised. One can more usefully ask: What is the nature of these things to which Panama objects? Close scrutiny indicates, I suggest, that they resemble the appurtenances of power rather than power itself that it is the manner of the United States presence in Panama, not the presence itself, which is at the heart of our problem with that country -- and, I must add, with the world community. My impression is that the United States would do well to examine what there is about our presence in the Canal Zone that is essential to our critical interests, and what is not, and then proceed to modify the latter so that we may protect the former. The process will not be easy, for either country. On one hand, the physical, legal, and psychological architecture which the United States has erected in this 500 square miles over many years is enormous, and very solid. On the other, Panama's capacity to absorb, to rebuild, to redesign, is limited. But there really is no rational alternative. - 5 - Negotiating Efforts For more than ten years we have been engaged with Panama, determined to arrive at a new and modernized relationship which could cause Panamanians to be fully content that the United States remain in Panama -- and Americans to be fully content to remain there. Successive American Presidents since Dwight Eisenhower have pressed that negotiation. If our negotiations have not prospered over so many years, it is not for lack of distinguished and dedicated Panamanians and Americans negotiating. Rather it is because the times have simply not been right. In any case, what is negotiating past is not negotiating prologue. When Secretary of State Kissinger and I had the pleasure of meeting for the first time with the Foreign Minister of Panama in New York October 1973, the Secretary suggested that henceforth in this negotiation the United States should not attempt to impose its will on Panama, nor Panama attempt to impose its will on the United States. And I am able to say, after four months of the new negotiation, that the negotiators on both sides have accepted that counsel. Political decisions have been taken to make accommodation a way of negotiating life. We shall not, I think, be easily distracted from it. Statement of Principles February 7, 1974 The world has already observed that accommodation. In February the Secretary of State journeyed to Panama to initial with the Panamanian Foreign Minister a set of eight "Principles." They are to serve as guidelines for the negotiators in working our the details of a new treaty. Perhaps the chief of government of Panama best characterized these principles when he said they constituted a "philosophy of understanding.' Their essence is that: -- Panama will grant the United States the rights and facilities and lands necessary to continue operating and defending the Canal; -- The United States will agree to return to Panama jurisdiction over its territory; to recompense Panama fairly for the use of its territory; and to arrange for the participation by Panama, over time, in the canal's operation and defense. It has also been agreed in the "Principles" that the new treaty shall not be in perpetuity, but rather for a fixed period, and that the parties will provide for any expansion of canal capacity in Panama that may eventually be needed. Beginning of Modernization Process Still another form of accommodation will, I trust, be visible shortly. Following my first visit to Panama, I recommended to the President that the United States should not await the successful conclusion of treaty negotiations to begin modernizing its presence in the Canal Zone, to the benefit of both countries. He agreed, and is now forwarding to the Congress legislation which would return to Panama two World War II airfields now within the Canal Zone, which Panama could put to very good use for economic development. I am hopeful the Congress will agree that this is only "right" for the United States to do. GERALD - 6 - It escapes neither of the two negotiating parties that these accommodations are but a good beginning. A treaty arrangement which has evolved over 70 years, and evolved too often in acrimony rather than harmony, will not yield readily to the skills of negotiators, nor even to the political dictates of heads of government. Nor does it escape the parties that there is opposition in both their lands. In this country there are those who hold that it is folly for the United States to alter the nature of its presence in the Canal Zone by making any concessions to Panama, and that our power must reside there, undiluted, forever. In Panama there are those who hold that it is folly to make a single concession to the United States, and that its presence must be eliminated forthwith. We can acknowledge the profound patriotism of those views. Were the executive authorities of the two countries to share them, however, they would be sqaurely on a collision course. The plain fact of the matter is that geography, history, and the economic and political imperatives of our times compel the United States and Panama to have a joint stake in the Panama Canal enterprise. It follows that with respect to that enterprise they should comport themselves as partners, and friends -- preserving what is essential to each, protecting and making ever more efficient a vital international line of communication, and, I suggest to you, creating a model for the world to admire of how a small nation and a large one can work peacefully and profitably together. I think that is not too grand a design. UNT. CLASSIFICATION NSC REFERRAL TO STATE SECRETARIAT Date: April 15, 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: GEORGE SPRINGSTEEN NSC LOG# 7502385 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF STATE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: TO: President Fort FROM: Elaine L. Lewis DATE: April 3, 1975 SUBJECT: Concern over proposed new panama canal treaty ACTION REQUESTED: XXXX DRAFT REPLY FOR: PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE XXXWHITE HOUSE STAFF SIGNATURE OTHER DIRECT REPLY FURNISH INFO COPY DISPATCH RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS TRANSLATION APPROPRIATE HANDLING INFORMATION FOR ADDITIONAL PROCESSING AS INDICATED: DUE DATE: URGENT ROUTINE XXXX due by April 22nd COMMENTS: for JEANNE W. DAVIS Staff Secretary JNh GERALD FORDI IBRARY CLASSIFICATION 17 Stop Elaine L. Lewis 2385 5328 Park Lane San Bernardino, California 92404 HK Prio Ms Gerald Fard apr 1975 The Whitehouse R.FORD LIBRARK Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I waul like a copy of the purposed Panama Canal Treaty. I am very influential in California Politics. State assemblyman, considered Our son, Jury Lewis is a to he the most powerful Republican in the assembly. Iam unalturably apposed our Parcome Canal to the to releasing any Control only unstable Panama Government To do so would he treason Suncerely Elaine Lewl DOC RECD LOG NBR INITIAL ACTION 0 NSC CORRESH ONDENCE PROFILE MO DA MO DA HR 42 415/6 7502385 LEWIS ELaine L REFERENCE: CIRCLE AS APPROPRIATE X TO: PRES FROM: KISSINGER, s/s UNCLAS LOG IN/OUT KISSINGER COLBY, W OTHER LOU NO FORN SOURCE/CLASS/DESCRIPTION NODIS SCOWCROFT SCHLESINGER, J C EYES ONLY EXDIS DAVIS ST EX SEC S CODEWORD SUBJECT: Treaty Concern Onew Proposed Am Panama TS SENSITIVE Smal 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 ( ) DISTRIBUTION/INITIAL ACTION ASGMT MID EAST / NO. AFRICA / so. ASIA MEMO TO ( ) RECOMMENDATIONS ( EUROPE / CANADA ) LATIN AMERICA X * JOINT MEMO ( ) UNITED NATIONS REFER TO FOR: ( ) ECONOMIC ANY ACTION NECESSARY? ( ) SCIENTIFIC CONCURRENCE ( ) PROGRAM ANALYSIS DUE DATE: NSC PLANNING COMMENTS: (INCLUDING SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) CONGRESSIONAL OCEANS POLICY INTELLIGENCE DATE FROM TO S SUBSEQUENT ACTION REQUIRED (OR TAKEN): CY TO 4/15 State Draft uph for W. Signature 428 4/22 Reed state durt 75074 84 SUBSEQUENT ROUTING/ACTIONS 4/22 low S Memo DAVIS to Ellott (5/01) 5/1 Low & c Memo to Elliott 5/2 C Davis sgd memo to Elliott 5/4/25 DISPATCH CY RQMTS: SEE ABOVE PLUS: NSC/S DISP INSTR NOTIFY & DATE BY M/F'D MICROFILM & FILE Shin RQMTS: _BY_ SPECIAL DISPOSITION: SA SF CROSS REF W/ SUSPENSE CY ATTACHED: June FOLDER: FORD & LIBRARY GERALD OPEN CRT TH ID: HP NS CLOSE Jf WH EP PA DY (NBC-74-21)