711F.1914/5–1247: Telegram
The Ambassador in Panama ( Hines ) to the Secretary of State
257. Embtel 255, May 12, 9 a.m.31 After presentation Embassy’s note May 5 to Foreign Minister local press, reacting on indications from Foreign Office, reported agreement on principles had apparently been reached, negotiations would begin and likely would lead to prompt agreement. Few articles originating radical sources criticized Alfaro’s change in position about necessity our returning bases before further negotiations.
Tuesday p.m. May 8 Minister Vallarino, at President’s request, requested two members my staff see him urgently. In his possession was approximately 10-page analysis prepared by Alfaro of our May 5 draft proposal. He found most our modifications his previous document unsatisfactory and in strong language criticized and found unacceptable accessory notes as integral part of agreement. Analysis called for return to Alfaro’s language of April 9 for mast part and stipulated that proposed exchange of notes be left to joint authority. Vallarino said Alfaro would call session for preliminary discussion following day.
Discussion was held at Foreign Office late Friday, May 9. Present were Minister Alfaro, Vallarino and [Obarrio?], Comptroller General and Panamanian Ambassador to Washington. Wise and Collins accompanied me. Foreign Minister began saying our May 5 note had opened way for negotiations and that he was desirous taking up in preliminary way enclosures to note. Conference lasted 3 hours. Main point of difference centered around definition joint authority and method it would be exercised. Department’s insertion in Article 5 that availability of funds for rentals would be subject to Congressional appropriations was objectionable.
Alfaro pointed out that with few exceptions our modifications his April 9 draft were unsatisfactory and that Panama could not go along with accessory notes in present form for they completely nullified any plan for joint authority set up in main document. He said many matters covered were unnecessary and irritating to Panama. He believed all specific details must be given to joint representatives who could issue regulations through “joint orders”. Alfaro believed agreement must be based on Article 10 of 1936 treaty and therefore temporary. We insisted the second paragraph Article 2 was equally applicable, if not more so than Article 10. Memo of conversation forwarded today’s pouch.
News soon got around city that first conference had not gone well. Duque of Star and Herald to member of staff has severely criticized [Page 903] Alfaro for giving false impression to press after conference that all was going well. …
Saturday p.m. President called for Wise and stated his concern over Friday meeting and said he would give matter full consideration over weekend, would call meeting certain Cabinet members for 8 o’clock this morning, and that perhaps discussions could be continued with Alfaro this afternoon.
- Not printed.↩