144. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State 1
5027. IO pls repeat present and prospective SC member capitals as appropriate.
Subj: SC meeting in Panama.
- Panamanian Amb Boyd, who apparently returned unheralded over week-end,2 distributed to SC members Nov 27 copy of letter from Panamanian Foreign Affairs Minister Tack to SYG dated Nov 23, informing him that GOP proceeding with plans to invite SC to hold meeting in Panama March 15–21, 1973, and that Panama considering formal invitation to SC during December 1972. Text of letter follows:
- “I have the honour to inform you that the Govt of Panama is proceeding with its plans to invite the SC to hold its meetings away from headquarters in Latin America. My country would be honoured if it were accepted as the venue for such meetings.
In view of the fact that the great majority of the members of the Council have responded favourably to the preliminary inquiry carried out by our Permanent Representative, we have tentatively considered that the period Wednesday 15 to Tuesday 21 March 1973 would be appropriate and we are studying the political, legal and financial implications which these meetings would have for Panama in order to reach a decision on the presentation of our formal invitation during December 1972.
The Republic of Panama attributes the greatest importance to your visit and the visit of the Security Council to our territory, because it is our hope that, through ‘preventive diplomacy’, international peace and security will be strengthened and formulas will be found for cooperation and good understanding among our peoples.
I take this opportunity of reiterating, sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.”
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 3 SC. Limited Official Use. Repeated to Panama City.↩
- Boyd had left for consultations on November 5. Before his departure, he told a U.S. Mission officer that he had the support of all Security Council members except the United States, Britain, and Australia. Although not discussing the Canal issue “would be like going to church and then not praying,” Boyd said he would avoid rhetoric that might complicate negotiations about the Canal. (Telegram 4407 from USUN, November 6; ibid.)↩