Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XXII, Panama, 1973–1976

112. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Scowcroft) to the White House Chief of Staff (Cheney)¹

Washington, February 16, 1976.

SUBJECT

• Panama Canal Negotiations

Status and Timetable

Despite recent Panamanian declarations that we are nearing conclusion of a Canal treaty, we are actually a long way from completion of an agreement.² Of the eight major points requiring resolution, we have reached preliminary agreement on only three.³ The five remaining include some of the most intractable issues.

Ellsworth Bunker has just gone back to Panama to attempt to narrow the differences. He will probably exhaust his present negotiating instructions during the course of these talks and have to return to seek new instructions from the President. Even on an optimistic timetable, Bunker does not expect to be able to resolve the outstanding problems before autumn of 1976. At that point the understandings would have to be transformed into treaty language. Therefore, we expect the negotiations to continue in a steady, careful, and undramatic manner during the rest of this year.

Issues

To be acceptable any agreement must permit us to retain control of operation and defense of the Canal during the treaty’s lifetime. We are willing to return jurisdiction over the Zone and its population to the Panamanians. Congressional concern will probably center on this return of jurisdiction and the disappearance of the American Government in the Zone and over reversion of the Canal’s operation to the Panamanians at the end of the treaty, towards the end of the century. The Defense Department is fully engaged in this effort and concurs in the above approach. This affords some protection against charges that an agreement would lessen our military security.

Attitudes

Over one-third of the Senate has signed the Thurmond resolution opposing an agreement eventually returning the Canal to Panama, but some of this support appears to be soft. A number of the groups most strongly opposed to a new treaty have indicated they are willing to take another serious look at it. This includes Senator Goldwater and the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.⁴ The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, church groups and big city press all support the negotiations. Nevertheless, we do not under any circumstances want the Canal negotiations to become an issue in the present campaign. It will obviously take time to develop firm support of two-thirds of the Senate even though support appears to be increasing.

Guidance

The following is the guidance we have been using in response to stories put out by the Panamanians that a treaty which would turn the Canal over to the Panamanians in 1995 was near completion:

—The negotiations are continuing. Some progress has been made but differences remain on a number of important issues. We hope that through careful and steady negotiation we can narrow these differences and ultimately achieve an agreement which protects the interests of both countries in this area.

—To questions relating to a possible termination date for the treaty, we have been responding that no agreement has been reached on the termination date of any treaty which might emerge from the negotiations.

—With regard to the specific involvement of the President, our position is that the President is of course interested and follows the progress of the negotiations. Specific guidance for negotiations of this kind are established by the President.

1. Source: Ford Library, National Security Adviser, NSC Latin American Affairs Staff Files, 1974–77, Box 7, Pan Canal Treaty Negotiations (7). Confidential. Prepared in response to a February 3 request by Cheney for more information about the Panama Canal negotiations. (Ibid.)
2. In telegram 551 from Panama City, January 24, the Embassy summarized the reports in the Panamanian media announcing that agreement had been reached to return the Canal to Panama in 1995. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D760028–0595)
3. Presumably a reference to the threshold agreements on jurisdiction, administration, and defense which correspond to principles three, six, and seven of the Kissinger-Tack principles. See Document 57.
4. See Document 106.