711F.1914/4–1947: Telegram
The Ambassador in Panama (Hines) to the Secretary of State
202. Have just completed one-hour conference with General Crittenberger on defense sites draft submitted in despatch 3741, April 10.21 [Page 896] The draft is unacceptable to General Crittenberger because it violated three important principles:
First, the use of language indicating the agreement is temporary in nature and therefore not in accordance with the principles of the general treaty of March 2, 1936.
Second, it does not cover clearly and differentiate on the manner of military command and maintenance of defense bases.
Third, that it lacks flexibility and makes no provision for additional defense sites needed.
General Crittenberger talked from a draft of notes which he promises to put in definite form so that I may transmit to Department. Taking up the preamble and articles of the agreement in order, the objections raised by General Crittenberger are the following:
The preamble—the use of the language “the wartime emergency” he feels is misleading and emphasizes the trend of the temporary nature of the agreement: also the use of the language “complete interchange of information” is incorrect, General Crittenberger’s feelings being that this is actually a misstatement of facts. Also feels the language “for a prudent time the maintenance and functioning of certain of them” would still emphasize the temporary nature of the agreement. In other words, the preamble does not consider the long range defense policy of the Panama Canal, in its present form.
Article 1—the language declaring the termination of that agreement on [of?] March 18, 1942 when read in connection with Article 10 is considered dangerous in that failure on the part of the National Assembly to ratify the agreement might find the US having terminated the 1942 agreement without having a new agreement in its place.
Article 2—the words “temporarily” in first line and “limited” in the fourth line are objectionable; also the last sentence will require modification to indicate that maintenance of the bases is a military function of the US and not of both governments.
Article 3—is objectionable and ambiguous in that it sets up the joint authority by naming the Minister of Justice of Government of Panama and the Commanding General of the CDC on part of US and then in the last sentence indicates “the two governments will determine by agreement”.
Article 4 is incomplete and General Crittenberger feels should be modified more in keeping of Article 4 of the 1942 agreement, particularly in relation to jurisdiction of civilian and military personnel not only on defense sites but those who have access thereto.
Article 5 is acceptable provided the rate per hectare is less than $50 per year. Also 3rd paragraph requires modification in regard to [Page 897] the exceptions from provisions of 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the article rather than paragraphs 2 and 3 as indicated.
Article 6—General Crittenberger feels that function of determining when a defense site is no longer needed is that of the military authorities and should not require decision on the part of the representatives of Panamanian Government.
Article 7—the use of word “temporary” in second line further emphasizes temporary nature of the agreement and requires clarification.
Article 8—this article should be clarified in order to indicate that all personnel will be free of all duties, taxes, etc., whether supplies come from Canal Zone or outside it. It is no more restrictive than the provisions of the 1942 agreement.
Article 9 still carries forward the temporary nature of the agreement and General Crittenberger feels that provisions should be such as to emphasize that the 1936 obligation of defending the Canal is not of a temporary nature.
Article 10—no objections.
General Crittenberger indicates that he will furnish me on Monday data requested by Foreign Minister relative to cost operation bases now in use. His estimate is approximately one million dollars per month. President and Foreign Minister are exceedingly anxious that I give them some reaction on their last draft. In lieu of draft submitted by Panama General Crittenberger recommends we submit to Panama Government in regular form our draft of March 13, 1947 (reEmbdesp 3614, Secret).22 I recommend using Panama draft making necessary changes to meet important objections.