STATEMENT BY HENRY A. KISSINGER ON
PANAMA CANAL TREATY

I have now been briefed in great detail by Ambassador Bunker and by Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force General Jones, on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I have spoken with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown, about the details of the Panama Canal Treaty that has recently been negotiated. On the basis of these briefings I wish to express my strong view that the new treaty is in the national interest of the United States. The treaty embodies the conviction shared by the last four Presidents, of both political parties, that a new arrangement worked out cooperatively between the United States and Panama is the best means of guaranteeing our vital interest in the free, open, and secure operation of the Canal. It reflects the principles signed by the US and Panama in the presence of a bipartisan Congressional delegation in 1974.

-- The new treaty preserves for the rest of this century the significant elements of the existing arrangement for management and defense of the Canal.

-- After the end of this period, the United States will continue to have the right to guarantee the Canal's neutrality and impartial access to it even while its management has been turned over to Panama.

The new treaty marks an improvement over the present situation in that it assures continuing, efficient, non-discriminatory and secure access to the Panama Canal with the support of the countries of the Western Hemisphere instead of against their opposition and eventually their harrassment. While the United States would have the means in any case to defend the Canal unilaterally, it would have to do so under difficult circumstances. Needless to say, were the regime of neutrality established by this treaty to be challenged in the future, the United States would have the right as well as the duty to defend its vital interests in the free, neutral and unimpeded access through the Canal. The new treaty, freely negotiated with the support of the Hemisphere nations, would enable it to do so under more favorable international conditions than exist today.

The new arrangement, cooperatively arrived at, makes the efficient and neutral operation of the Panama Canal a joint commitment with the broad support of the international community. It is the essential foundation of a long-term relationship of friendship and cooperation with the nations of the Western Hemisphere. It enhances our security and raises new prospects for a peaceful and constructive international order.

This treaty, sought by four Administrations over a period of 13 years, advances fundamental national purposes. Support for it is required by statesmanship, patriotism and wisdom. I therefore support Senate ratification.

REMARKS BY DR. KISSINGER, 2:30 p.m., August 17, 1977

[LC]

I have now been briefed in great detail by Amb. Bunker and by General Jones, representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I have also spoken with Gen. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the Panama Treaty. On the basis of these briefings and discussions it is my strong view that the treaty that has been negotiated is in the best interests of the United States. It reflects the conviction held by four Presidents of both political parties over a period of thirteen years that a new arrangement would reflect the vital interests of the United States in the secure, neutral and unimpeded access to the Panama Canal. And I am particularly reassured by the provision in the new agreement which gives the United States the right to guarantee the neutrality of and free access through the Panama Canal even after the operation of the Canal has been turned over to the Panamanians. Under these circumstances, I believe that the negotiation of this treaty can mark a new stage in our relationship in the Western Hemisphere. It improves, over a period of time, the international circumstances in which we may have to defend our vital interests in the Canal. I believe the ratification of this treaty is required by statesmanship and by wisdom in the national interest of the United States. And I support it strongly. Thank you.

Q: Dr. Kissinger, you have no reservations, then at all, about this treaty giving us the full right and power, I believe you used those words, to defend free access to the Canal?

[LC]

A: As I read the treaty, and as it has been explained to me by the negotiators and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the United States has the right to defend the neutrality of and free access to the Canal even after the operation of the Canal has been turned over to Panama.

Q: Dr. Kissinger, how does this treaty that was agreed on differ from the negotiating objective that you had in two previous Administrations.

A: I believe that the treaty implements the principles that were agreed to in 1974 in the presence of a bi-partisan Congressional delegation. It reflects the instructions that President Ford gave to his negotiators as he pointed out yesterday. On some details there are minor differences but on the essentials it reflects the negotiating position that has been held by four Administrations, and in the right of defending the neutrality of the Canal it marks a step forward.

Q: What provisions in the treaty give you the most trouble?

A: Like most Americans, I find the present arrangement more familiar and more convenient and I understand that it is difficult for many people to adjust to the circumstances that, in my view, make the change desirable. There are no provisions that I am unhappy with and I believe that a careful and thoughtful examination of the treaty will lead to the conviction that over a period of time it actually improves the American position

[L]

with respect to our vital interests, which are free, unimpeded
and neutral access through the Canal and a guarantee that
American military movements through the Canal will be
handled expeditiously. And that is written in the treaty.

Q: Dr. Kissinger, what do you make of the conservative opposition that is once again coming to the forefront opposing this pact?

A: I think these are very serious and very patriotic individuals and I hope that as they study the treaty and as they have an opportunity to reflect not only about the military circumstances, but about the foreign policy implications, that they will come to the view that, in fact some conservatives like William Buckley have arrived at, namely that it is in the best interests of the United States.

Q: Are you now ready, sir, then to give your wholehearted support to the treaty in testimony before Senate Foreign Relations?

A: I would be prepared to testify on behalf of the treaty.

Thank you.