131. Letter From the Ambassador in Panama (Harrington) to William B. Sowash of the Office of Middle American Affairs1
Dear Bill: Another indication of the Panamanian attitude toward the Canal Zone is the way in which Governor Seybold was allowed to depart without a single word of thanks for his unfailing helpfulness to Panamanians.2 When the Caribbean baseball series was played here who but Governor Seybold supplied the extra bleacher seats, at the personal request of President Arias, and did the hauling and installing as well. Seybold was constantly called upon for favors of that sort and complied willingly. Yet when he took his leave of President Arias and the Foreign Minister (I was present on both occasions) neither had an appreciative word to say, merely “bon voyage”. On the other hand they pinned a medal on Admiral Miles3 whose contributions to Panama were boat rides to Porto Bello once a year and picnics to Toboquilla.
[Page 268]Whether the Panamanians liked Seybold personally is unimportant but as Governor of the Canal Zone he was entitled to a few friendly words of appreciation. He did not get them. He, of course, personified the forces that are frustrating Panama’s aspirations and I am convinced that the Panamanian attitude toward him was planned at a high level to be consistent with the Panamanian attitude generally toward the Canal Zone and treaties in force. The only Panamanian officials at the station to see him off were Bobby Heurtematte and Levy Salcedo.
The time is ripe to take our gloves off and indulge in some verbal fisticuffs. What the Panamanians need is a good scare such as the threat of a completely independent operation in the Zone with a fence around it and non-Panamanian people working inside it. To change their present attitude may call for some drastic surgery. Without it I see nothing but friction ahead.
I question whether the type of action in connection with the radar sites, which Bob Memminger mentioned to me yesterday, will get at the root of the problem. Moreover, it plays into the hands of the Panamanians to the extent that the U.S. Government drags its feet in the pending treaty legislation. I am still groping around for ideas but as a first step I think we should publicize the Panamanian turndown, stressing the defense aspects of the request, and possibly inspire a few Congressmen to ask questions about it. However, this line of action does not get to the heart of the problem which is the problem of attitude.
You have been dealing with Panamanian problems longer than I have and may see nothing new in the present situation but to me, at this time when the atmosphere should be one of cordiality and friendly cooperation following the treaty of last year, it is just the reverse. This situation merits serious thought and I will welcome your views. I find it difficult to keep a proper perspective as well as my temper.
Sincerely yours,