Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume V, Microfiche Supplement, American Republics

PM–52. Memorandum of Conversation, by the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Merchant)¹

Washington, September 1, 1960

SUBJECT

• Various Problems Relating to Panama Including the Flag Issue

PARTICIPANTS

• The President
• Secretary of State Herter
• Major General Wilton B. Persons, Assistant to the President
• Livingston T. Merchant, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
• Wilbur Brucker, Secretary of the Army
• George H. Roderick, Assistant Secretary of the Army
• Lt. Col. John S. Eisenhower, Assistant Staff Secretary

(The attached memorandum for the President² which had been intended to be jointly signed and jointly presented to the President by the Secretary and Governor Brucker as being reflective of the talk yesterday between Messrs. Herter and Brucker, was not given to the President in light of Governor Brucker’s unwillingness, expressed just prior to going into the President’s office, to concur in item IV “Flying of the Panama Flag in the Canal Zone.” Accordingly, it was used by Secretary Herter in his presentation.)

The Secretary of State informed the President that agreement had been reached with Secretary Brucker that the Department of State will be represented on the Board of Governors of the Panama Canal Company at the Under Secretary of State level, the first appointment to be made when the next vacancy appears. He said that they had further agreed that each nomination would be a matter for consultation between the two Secretaries. Governor Brucker confirmed this agreement and, after a brief discussion of the topic, the President gave his approval.

The Secretary of State then informed the President that he and Governor Brucker had agreed it was neither necessary nor desirable to attempt at this time to establish the principle that future Governors of the Canal Zone should be civilians. The President remarked that 30 years ago the defense of the Canal Zone was the most important element in our relations but that with the development of missiles this factor was no longer controlling. Hence his general thought was that whereas the management should be in the hands of engineers the Governor should be a civilian. He agreed, however, that any such decision should be deferred at this time and left to the next President.

The Secretary of State then reported his agreement with the Secretary of the Army for the establishment of the primacy of the United States Ambassador over the Governor of the Canal Zone in matters affecting the relations between the United States and the Republic of Panama or any other nation. He indicated, and the Secretary of the Army concurred, that they had reached agreement on a draft letter to be sent by the President to the Secretary of the Army confirming this relationship.³ He also mentioned that the relationship of the Ambassador to CINCARIB would be worked out promptly in the future by himself with the Secretary of Defense and their agreement thereafter referred to the President. The President indicated his approval.

The Secretary of State then raised the question of the flying of the Panama flag in the Canal Zone. The Secretary said that, whereas Governor Brucker did not wholly agree with him, he believed that the Panama flag should be flown daily with the American flag in the plaza called Shaler’s Triangle in the Canal Zone opposite the Panamanian Legislative Building, with both flags raised and lowered by U.S. personnel only. He said that this act should be announced with the statement that the flag was being flown as an act of grace on the part of the United States in recognition of our friendship for the Panamanian people and our recognition that titular sovereignty resided in Panama. It should likewise clearly be stated that this unilateral act did not modify in any way our treaties in force with Panama. The Secretary added that he believed Secretary Brucker, who would wish to speak to this point, thought the flag should be flown, if such was the President’s decision, only on national holidays. The Secretary went on to say that time was important since agitation was beginning to build up on the issue in Panama, looking toward their national holiday on November 3, and it was important that the decision on our part should not be announced under circumstances of any apparent pressure on us. The Secretary indicated also that we should simultaneously start flying our flag daily in front of our Embassy. He concluded by pointing out that the so-called Gross Amendment to the Department of Commerce appropriations bill prohibited the use of such funds for the erection of flag poles for this purpose and recommended that the necessary funds for construction be provided from the President’s own special projects fund.

The President said that he thought only jingoistic criticism in this country would be aroused by this act on our part, and he saw no reason for being deterred. He admitted that there was some merit to the argument that if we flew the flag the Panamanians would interpret this as a concession on our part and demand further concessions from us. He felt strongly, however, that it was the right thing to do and said he would welcome the opportunity to defend the decision under political attack. He mentioned, however, his strong belief that we should fly our flag daily at our Embassy and that the Panamanians should understand in this general connection that we would do so. On the question of frequency of flying, he said he thought that if it were flown on holidays the principle was thereby established, and that there was no reason why it should not be flown on a daily basis.

Governor Brucker then launched a long argument against flying the Panamanian flag under any circumstances. At the outset he noted that in his view it would be undesirable to give them any implication that we would be trading our right to fly our own flag at the Embassy for the flying of the Panama flag in the Canal Zone since this would look like a reciprocal agreement and not a voluntary act of grace on our part. (The President agreed on this point.) The Governor stated that newspaper editorials throughout the country were running 20 to l against the flying of the flag. He referred to the Gross Amendment and Selden Resolution⁴ in the House. He thought that the injection of this issue in the campaign in this country this fall would be emotional and divisive. He concluded by saying that if it were decided to fly the flag he thought emotions would be minimized both in the United States and in Panama by flying it only on holidays.

There followed a prolonged discussion pro and con in which General Persons and Mr. Merchant also participated.

The President at the conclusion of the discussion decided as follows:

(1) The Panamanian flag should be flown together with the American flag in Shaler’s Triangle on Panama’s Independence Day, November 3, and on other days of special significance to Panama and to the United States. The United States flag would not fly in that place except on days the Panamanian flag was flown. Two flag poles would be erected (the source of funds was left undecided), but no elaborate steps at this time would be taken to create a formal plaza.

(2) The decision should be announced as late in the fall as it was deemed possible to do without risking the building up of public pressures in Panama for agitation on the issue. September 20 was suggested as the general time period in which this condition might be met.

(3) The announcement should be made by the Governor of the Canal Zone in a public statement to the press to the effect that the President had approved the flying of the Panama flag with the American flag on holidays and other days of special significance to Panama and to the United States. The Panamanian Government would be informed by formal note of this forthcoming statement two hours or so before it was given to the press. An announcement before October l was desirable in order to avoid the implication that this was an action directly tied to the inauguration of a new President in Panama. (Theodore Roosevelt’s birthday on October 27 was incidentally mentioned as one day suitable for flying of the flag.) Discretion was left to the Secretary of State as to the determination of the date for the announcement but the President requested that he be given adequate advance warning before such an announcement was made.

(4) A statement elaborating on and justifying the announcement should be prepared by the State Department and furnished the White House for Mr. Nixon’s and Mr. Lodge’s use if questions arose after the announcement during the course of the election campaign.

(5) The American Ambassador in Panama should promptly institute the practice of flying the U.S. flag in front of the U.S. Embassy without reference to or other connection with the impending action on the flying of the Panamanian flag.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.19/9–160. Top Secret. The meeting began at 9 a.m.
2. The memorandum intended for the President is not printed.
3. A copy of the draft letter was attached to the memorandum intended for the President.
4. On January 18, 1960, Representative Armistead I. Selden, Jr., (D-Ala.) introduced a Concurrent Resolution in the House of Representatives expressing the sense of the Congress that any variation in the traditional interpretation of the treaties between the United States and the Republic of Panama should become treaty items requiring the approval of Congress. After full debate in the House of Representatives on February 2, 1960, the Resolution was approved by a roll call vote of 381 to 12. For the debate as well as the text of Concurrent Resolution 459, see Congressional Record, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., vol. 106 (pt. 2), pp. 1798–1809.