The next morning, November 3, the Commanding Officer of the Nashville visited the Cartagena at daylight. About 8:00 a.m., the Cartagena got under way, passed close to the Nashville, landed at a dock, and about 8:30 a.m. disembarked her troops. See M. DuVal, Cadiz to Cathay (Stanford U. Press, 1940), pp. 322-323). There was no interference by the Nashville with the indicated landing of Colombian troops as stated in the White House release. "November 18, 1903 - The United States and Panama's Comment: To avoid confusion, significant parts of Articles II and III "The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said canal..." with "all rights, power and authority within the zone...which the United States would possess and exercise if it were sovereign of the territory...to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority." The treaty provisions are unmistakably clear, a grant of supreme power, which is sovereignty. It is important to note that the White House's use of the term "as if," is not accurate. The term used in the Treaty is "which the United States would possess if it were sovereign of the territory" and not "as if." The reason for the grant of "sovereignty en bloc" was that in the Senate in 1904 there was a strong group advocating a canal at Nicaragua ready to seize upon any issue, such as what attributes of sovereignty were to be granted, as a means of defeating the treaty for the Panama Canal. American leaders in the early 20th Century, including lawyers, historians, members of the U.S. Supreme Court, and a U.S. President, all viewed the 1903 Treaty as a "treaty of cession," the Canal Zone as "American soil" and the United States as its "owner," with both "sovereignty and jurisdiction" over it. Another important aspect is that the $250,000 annuity was not a "rental" for the Canal Zone but the concessionary obligation of the Panama Railroad previously paid to Colombia that was assumed by the United States in the 1903 Treaty for the reason that the railroad was to be used in constructing the canal and its subsequent operation and the United States was to be the owner of the railroad. Other aspects in the subject ignored are the obligations under the 1905 Hay-Pauncefolt Treaty with Great Britain and the 1914-22 Thomson-Arrutia Treaty with Colombia. The 1901 Treaty was negotiated with Edward the Seventh of Great Britain. The former dominions and successor states to the British Empire inherit canal treaty rights, which they may demand be safeguarded. In the 1914-22 Treaty, Colombia has important treaty interests in both the canal and railroad. "1955 Another treaty was ments, increasing the annual signed, again modifying agreeannuity to Panama to $1,930,000 and increasing the number of Panamanians permitted to operate the canal." Comment: This treaty was negotiated without prior Congressional authority but contained provisions making the disposal of U.S. property in the Republic of Panama subject to the enactment of legislation by the Congress. (1955 Treaty, Article V) The 1955 Treaty also contained provisions for adjusting the annuity of $1,930,000 so as to cover future U.S. devaluations. (1955 Treaty, Article I.) As previously stated, the annuity in 1976 was $2,328,000 but the total benefits, including the annuity to Panama, from U.S. Canal Zone sources in that year were $243,190,000. 8. The White House Memo states (p. 4) that: "1959 and 1964 - Dissatisfaction in Panama over the Panama Comment: The demonstrations on November 3 and 28, 1959, were not spontaneous uprisings of the general population but the organized efforts of revolutionary activists, among them Aquilino Boyd, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs. (Hse. Doc. No. 474, 89th Congress, pp. 143-49.) The one on November 28 required the assistance of the U.S. Army to repel the attempted invasion and to protect the canal from "lawlessness and disorder" - a U.S. treaty responsibility. The more serious attempted mob invasion of the Canal Zone on January 9-12, 1964, was the result of prolonged preparation and was foreseen by local residents. The Panama Government kept its national guard in their barracks with the result that the U.S. Army was again required to repel the mobs and protect the canal. (Hse. Doc. No. 474, 89th Congress, pp. 305-44.) So far as known no list of American properties damaged in Panama or atrocities committed against Americans was ever published. In spite of the crisis on 9-12 January 1964, the Panama Canal continued to transit vessels without interruption. This is a tribute to the effectiveness of our canal policy in protecting the canal against "lawlessness and disorder." The historical record of the Isthmus, 1850 to 1977, shows that it is a land prone to revolution. Since 1940, however, the U.S. Canal Zone has been an area of stability in a region of endless political intrigue. It has often served as a haven of refuge for Panamanian leaders seeking to escape assassination. (Speller, Panama Canal: Heart of America's Security, 1972, pp. 130-41; and Gustave Arquizola, The Panama Canal: Isthmian Political Instability from 1821 to 1976, 1976.) A recent example of such use of the canal by Panamanians is the case of Senora Torrijos, who on 15 December 1969 fled there during an attempt to depose her husband. 9. The White House Memo states (p. 4) that: "February, 1974 - Secretary of State Kissinger and Panamanian Comment: This 8-point agreement, signed without prior authorization by the Congress, can now be seen as a blueprint for an ignominous surrender of U.S. sovereign control over the Canal Zone to Panama. 10. The White House Memo states (p. 4) that: "The 10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.. is owned, operated Comment: This is a correct statement so far as it goes and contradicts the public statements of State Department officials. (See article on Congressman Gene Snyder's telegram on this point in Washington Post, August 6, 1977, p. A12.) The Canal Zone is an unincorporated territory of the United States over which the United States holds full sovereign rights, power and authority. 11. The White House Memo states (p. 5) that: "A Frenchman with a financial stake in the old canal drafted Comment: This is a grossly misleading statement, referring to Phillippe Bunau-Varilla. As a young man he had served as Acting Chief Engineer of the French Panama Canal Company and understood Isthmian matters very well. Highly connected in both France and the United States as well as Panama, he was the best choice that could have been made for appointment as the first Minister of Panama to the United States. He rendered great services to Panama, the United States, France and the Panama Canal. Although he may have provided some of the major ideas embodied in the 1903 Treaty, there were others involved in its preparation, including Secretary Hay and other officials of the State Department. He had made a lifetime study of the Panama Canal and was eminently qualified for the task of aiding in the choice of the Panama site in the "battle of the routes" and the creation of the Republic of Panama. "The U.S. Government controls all facilities servicing Comment: The ports evidently in mind are those of Cristobal and Balboa, the terminal ports of the Panama Canal, both of which are located in the U.S. Canal Zone and not in Panama. The maintenance and operation of these ports for ocean vessels of all nations is a highly technical responsibility requiring constant supervision. Panama is a technologically underdeveloped country with neither the resources nor the competence to undertake such responsibility as seen in its failure to maintain the Boyd-Roosevelt Highway. The facilities of both Cristobal and Balboa are available for all who pay the required charges, including Panamanians. "The U.S. exercises power over the territory with a law on Panamanians as well as Americans." Comment: This is fortunate. Anyone familiar with the practices of Panamanian law enforcement would prefer American justice in preference to the other. Many examples could be cited of cruel and unusual punishments being inflicted upon Americans in the clutches of Panamanian law. Detentions and harassments of U.S. citizens in Panama are well-known and have been reported to the Congress. Because of the uncertainties involved there has been a sharp increase in resignations by U.S. citizens from Panama Canal employment. They prefer not to take a chance on living under Panamanian law. Such attrition will surely make it increasingly difficult to operate the canal in an efficient manner. How many American technical experts that are needed to run the canal will stay on if they are required to forfeit their constitutional rights and live under the laws and "justice" of Panama? The White House Memo makes no mention of this problem. 14. The White House Memo states (p. 5) that: "The Panamanian has observed the contrast between the Comment: Such a comparison can be drawn between the living conditions of Americans and the peoples of most countries, but the giveaway of American property, whether in Panama or any other place, cannot be justified on grounds of envy. In truth, Canal Zone employees pay rent for their homes there, which are no better than homes of Americans of similar income levels in the states. I would say that it is modest Except for the Governor's As Governor Parfitt stated in recent Senate hearings, "We have quite a wide range of quality of housing. and represents a kind of middle America. house there are no really resplendent quarters." 15. The White House Memo states (p. 5) that: "Objections also are raised to the stationing of U.S. |