711F.1914/2–447: Telegram
The Ambassador in Panama ( Hines ) to the Secretary of State
58. Emtel 57, February 3.13 Following Cabinet session yesterday, First Secretary Foreign Office met with Wise. This time De Diego13a appeared to speak with confidence and authority, and to represent a much more united Panamanian front than formerly.
It would seem that President and Cabinet, including Dr. Alfaro, have decided: (1) to make no further issue of interpretation termination clause 1942 agreement; (2) to abandon position of refusing to discuss or negotiate new agreement until remaining defense sites are returned; and (3) to abandon request for a symbolic return of presently held defense sites or for an interim agreement. Using each article draft “D” as a basis for discussion, De Diego offered suggestions for a new draft agreement. His proposition may be summarized as follows:
The negotiation of an executive agreement which would become effective upon signature and which, according to De Diego, would not require the approval of the National Assembly, although it would later be presented to that body. It would consist of an opening paragraph or preamble referring to the obligations of the two countries under the 1936 treaty to provide for the adequate defense of the Canal. This would be followed by approximately six articles which in rather general terms would give the impression that the occupation and use of defense areas in Panama would be a joint or partnership undertaking of the two governments. Rights, duties, special relationships between the two governments, and legal specifications would be defined in an exchange of notes to accompany the executive agreement. Apparently the principal document of the executive agreement would be made public while the accompanying notes would not.
De Diego said that in the proposed “partnership” or “joint” agreement, the Commanding General, Caribbean Defense Command, would retain the military authority which his position and responsibility required. De Diego explained that the object of the Panamanian proposal is to avoid the use of such expressions as “leased”, “lands [Page 889] granted”, “sites returned”, etc., so that neighboring countries and the world in general would have the feeling that whatever is decided with respect to defense sites in Panama is based on the 1936 treaty and on consultation and mutual agreement rather than on a basis of the United States “requesting” and Panama “giving”. Wise told De Diego that his proposal would be considered to determine whether there was sufficient common ground for beginning a revision of draft “D”. De Diego said he would present informally a very rough draft of what he thought Panama would want in the proposed executive agreement.
It is believed his draft will be basically different in form and approach from our draft “D”. Nevertheless, Embassy will maintain stand that all legal rights established for military in draft “D”, approved by Department and War Department, are required even though form and phraseology may be changed.