defensive actions required to maintain law and order and to protect lives and property within the canal itself. Our obligation to safeguard the canal against riots and vandals and sabotage and other interference rests on the precepts of international law, the requirements of international commerce, and the needs of free-world security.

These obligations cannot be abandoned. But the security of the Panama Canal is not inconsistent with the interests of the Republic of Panama. Both of these objectives can and should be assured by the actions and the agreement of Panama and the United States. This Government has long recognized that our operation of the canal across Panama poses special problems for both countries. It is necessary, therefore, that our relations be given constant attention.

Over the past few years we have taken a number of actions to remove inequities and irritants. We recognize that there are things to be done, and we are prepared to talk about the ways and means of doing them. But violence is never justified and is never a basis for talks. Consequently, the first item of business has been the restoration of public order. The Inter-American Peace Committee, which I met this morning, deserves the thanks of us all not only for helping to restore order but for its good offices." For the future, we have stated our willingness to engage without limitation or delay in a full and frank review and reconsideration of all issues between our two countries.

We have set no preconditions to the resumption of peaceful discussions. We are bound by no preconceptions of what they will produce. And we hope that Panama can take the same approach. In the meantime, we expect neither country to either foster or yield to any kind of pressure with respect to such discussions. We are prepared, 30 days after relations are restored, to sit in conference with Panamanian officials to seek concrete solutions to all problems dividing our countries. Each Government will be free to raise any issue and to take any position. And our Government will consider all practical solutions to practical problems that are offered in good faith.

Certainly solutions can be found which are compatible with the dignity and the security of both countries as well as the needs of world commerce. And certainly Panama and the United States can remain, as they should remain, good friends and good neighbors.

Document III-52

"There Is No Problem That Exists... Between Two Countries That Should Not Be Reasoned Out": REPLY MADE BY THE PRESIDENT (JOHNSON) TO A QUESTION ASKED AT A NEWS CONFERENCE, JanUARY 25, 1964 30

35

I think we hope, out of all of these conferences [conducted by the Inter-American Peace Committee], that the Peace Commission has

See ante, doc. III-49.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64, vol. I, p. 231.

rendered very outstanding service,36 and there will be a meeting of the minds as to our position and we hope that they agree. There is no problem that exists between two persons or between two peoples or between two countries that should not be reasoned out if there is a difference of opinion. We are willing to do that. The question is the procedures we employ, and they are working very diligently on them. Within the hour I have spent a good deal of time talking about that. I had a very fine meeting with the Peace Commission. I salute them for their fine work, and I am positive that the Panamanians will want to give them their views, and I am hopeful that after both views are carefully considered they can come up with a solution that is satisfactory to both of us.

Document III-53

Panamanian Request for the Council of the Organization of American States "To Take Cognizance of the Acts of Aggression Against Panama": NOTE FROM THE PANAMANIAN REPRESENTATIVE (MORENO) TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE OAS (LAVALLE), JANUARY 29, 1964 37

Document III-54

"The United States Rejects All Charges of Aggression [Against Panama]": STATEMENT MADE BY THE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (BUNKER) BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE OAS, JANUARY 31, 1964 38

The Government of the United States regrets that the Government of Panama has chosen to break off not only diplomatic relations 39 and direct talks but discussions which were going on through the InterAmerican Peace Committee, and to take instead the course of bringing this matter before the Council to level charges of aggression against the United States.41

40

Both the U.S. Government and our people were profoundly saddened by the unfortunate events which transpired in Panama on January 9, 1964, and on the days immediately following. These events, which have left a tragic balance of dead and wounded on both sides, cannot in any way be considered to have served the best interests of either the United States or Panama but rather have redounded to the sole benefit of those who seek the breakdown of the inter-American system, of those who would sow the seeds of discord among the sister

See ante, docs. III-42, 46, 47, 49.

*OAS doc. OEA/Ser.G/V/C-d-1189. The Council of the OAS convened on Jan. 31, 1964, to consider this request; see infra.

Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 24, 1964, pp. 300–302.

See footnote 6 to doc. III-43, ante.

40 Ante, docs. III-42, 46, 47, 49.

" Supra.

42 See footnote 3 to doc. III-41, ante.

Republics of the New World, of those who seek to reap the bitter harvest that would result from internecine strife in the Americas.

I want to reiterate that the United States remains ready at all times to try to resolve our differences around the conference table. We do not think that violence is the way to settle disputes, nor, may I add, is emotion. This is a time for calm and reason.

The record will show that the Peace Committee has worked tirelessly and selflessly, literally day and night, in Panama and in Washington, and always in the spirit of utmost impartiality and helpfulness in its efforts to bring the two parties together. My Government wishes to express its deep gratification to the Inter-American Peace Committee, and individually to the distinguished members who make it up, for their significant contribution to the peacekeeping tradition of our organization. I shall have occasion to refer again to the Inter-American Peace Committee, Mr. Chairman, but I now wish to turn to the specific charges which have brought us together today.

The truth is that the United States has at no time committed any act of aggression against the Government or the people of Panama. There is no basis in fact for the charges which have been made. Since we have not committed aggression, we are obviously not responsible for the damages and injuries to which Panama alludes.

The United States therefore welcomes a full investigation of the charges which have been made by an appropriate body of the Organization of American States and will, of course, cooperate fully in such an investigation.

If an investigation is made it will demonstrate that the civil police and the United States military forces in the Canal Zone never made any attempt to enter Panama itself and, indeed, that they only attempted to protect lives and property in the zone. It will show that, as a result of the attacks which were made on the zone, there were more than 100 American casualties, both civilian and military, including 4 killed. It will show continuous sniping with rifle fire from buildings and the roofs of buildings in Panama City into the zone and great restraint on the part of United States forces notwithstanding these attacks. It will show that violent mobs, infiltrated and led by extremists, including persons trained in Communist countries for political action of the kind that took place, assaulted the zone on a wide perimeter, setting fire to buildings inside the zone and attacking with incendiary bombs and rocks the people who were inside. It will show that the Government of Panama, instead of attempting to restore order, was, through a controlled press, television, and radio, inciting the people to attack and to violence. It will show a delay for some 36 hours on the part of the Government of Panama in restoring order. It will show looting and burning by violent mobs in Panama City itself. And it will show that no small proportion of the Panamanian casualties were caused by Panamanians themselves, including those who died of fire and suffocation in buildings and in automobiles which were set on fire.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right at a future meeting to make specific comments on these details of alleged happenings to which the

distinguished representative of Panama referred, which unfortunately do not correspond with the facts.

We also think it important that any investigation include the full story of the efforts of the IAPC in the last 20 days. For we are confident that that will demonstrate that the United States has gone more than halfway in seeking to resolve this matter.

43

As to the most appropriate mechanism by which such an investigation might be undertaken, my delegation believes that there are several possibilities which might be explored, and certainly it would be essential to have a full investigation before seeking or implying any judgment on the charges. In addition to the present proposal to invoke the Rio Treaty, it is possible, and in the view of my Government would be quite appropriate, for the IAPC itself to undertake an investigation. This has the advantage that its members are thoroughly familiar with so much of the situation. Alternatively, the U.S. would be willing to undertake a joint investigation with representatives of Panama under the chairmanship of a representative of the Council. Perhaps, as an initial step before taking final action on the current proposal, the Council might request one of its own committees to gather the necessary information and evidence.

In determining what action should be taken, however, it seems to me important to bear in mind the principal stumbling block at the moment which has divided the United States and Panama and the real objective which we seek. This point was well stated by the distinguished delegate of Panama himself when he said, if I heard him right, that "Since it has not been possible to attain an express manifestation of the intention of the Government of the United States to initiate negotiations for the conclusion of a new treaty... the Government of Panama finds itself under the painful necessity of presenting its case to the Council of the OAS."

Whether the Rio Treaty is the proper instrument to seek to force a revision of existing treaties is a question which the Council will, of course, want to consider. However, the most important consideration which guides our deliberations and action is the objective which we seek. So far as the United States is concerned, our consistently held objective remains to restore diplomatic and friendly relations with the Government and the people of Panama and to sit down together with them at the conference table to seek to resolve all outstanding issues. As President Johnson has said,

Our obligation to safeguard the canal against riots and vandals and sabotage and other interference rests on the precepts of international law, the requirements of international commerce, and the needs of free-world security.

These obligations cannot be abandoned. But the security of the Panama Canal is not inconsistent with the interests of the Republic of Panama. Both of these objectives can and should be assured by the actions and the agreement of Panama and the United States."

We have taken the position that, while we cannot agree to preconditions which impair existing treaties in advance of discussion and

I.e., The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Text in American Foreign Policy; 1950–1955: Basic Documents, vol. I, pp. 789-796.

** Ante, doc. III-51.

agreement, we are prepared to engage in a full and frank review and reconsideration of all issues-may I repeat, all issues between the two countries including those arising from the canal and from the treaties relating to it, in an effort to find practical solutions to practical problems and to eliminate the cause of tension.

We have made it abundantly clear that in the discussions which we propose, each Government would be free to raise any matters it wished and that each Government must be equally free to take any position it deems necessary on any issue raised by the other.

In short, Mr. Chairman, the United States rejects all charges of aggression.

The United States reiterates its appreciation for the work of the Inter-American Peace Committee and its conviction that the instrumentalities of the OAS are competent to deal with this problem.

The United States is prepared to cooperate in a full investigation of the facts if that is desired.

The United States urges that the Council issue a call to prevent any further violence.

The United States feels that the principal stumbling block at the moment is the insistence of one of the parties on a precondition of treaty revision.

The United States maintains its objective of resuming talks on all issues.

The United States is willing to do this on the basis of the communique of January 15.45 It is willing to accept the wording of the draft communique which was discussed in the sessions of the InterAmerican Peace Committee. In any event the United States is prepared to resume meetings with the Peace Committee and with the representatives of Panama to seek to work out a new solution.

And finally, the United States Government and people continue to extend the hand of friendship to Panama and to the Panamanian people.46

Document III-55

United States Information on the Events of January 9 and 10, 1964 in Panama: STATEMENT MADE BY THE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (BUNKER) BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE OAS, FEBRUARY 4, 1964 47

Mr. Chairman, I regret that my distinguished colleague from Panama has seen fit to return to these charges which he made at the last meeting. As President Johnson said, it seems rather futile to rehash these past events; 49 what we ought to do is-it seems to me—

45

48

Ante, doc. III-49.

48 At the conclusion of this statement, the Council decided to hold another extraordinary session on Feb. 4, 1964. See infra.

47 Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 24, 1964, pp. 302–304.

48 The previous meeting was Jan. 31, 1964. For Ambassador Bunker's statement at that meeting, see supra.

49 Ante, doc. III-51.