Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XXII, Panama, 1973–1976

123. Memorandum From the Deputy Department of Defense Negotiator (Dolvin) to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Clements), the Secretary of the Army (Hoffmann), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Brown), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (McAuliffe)¹

Washington, May 14, 1976.

SUBJECT

• Panama Canal Negotiations

1. General. During the period 29 April–7 May 1976 I visited Panama and the Canal Zone. The purpose of the trip was: (1) to participate in the Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations; and (2) to discuss the status of the negotiations with USCINCSO and the Governor, Canal Zone. I also had the opportunity to hold a lengthy private discussion with General Torrijos. The results of the visit are addressed in the Enclosure.²

2. Negotiating Sessions.

a. The United States Panama Canal Negotiations Team was in Panama from Saturday, 1 May, to Friday, 7 May. The primary purpose of this negotiating round was to get acquainted with the new Panamanian Foreign Minister and Chief Negotiator, Aquilino Boyd, and to review with him the progress in the negotiations to date. There were, in all, three meetings of the two full teams and one technical-level meeting on the issue of lands and waters.

b. At the first meeting the United States Team presented their view of the progress in the negotiations to date, emphasizing the movement over time (since 1967) in the United States’ positions. At the second team meeting the Panamanian Team presented their view of the progress in the negotiations, including a statement of their formal negotiating positions on the issues.

c. The third team meeting was devoted to a discussion of the differences in the Teams’ respective views of progress, particularly in the issues of duration, expansion, the level of US Forces, and the nature of the new administrative entity. The results of the discussion on the issues are summarized below:

(1) Duration. The Panamanian position on this issue now is a termination date for both defense and operation of the year 2000 but a transfer in majority voting control to Panama in 1995. The Panamanian team stressed the impossibility of their going beyond the year 2000 and suggested that the US begin to formulate its positions on other issues with this shorter duration in mind. They wanted, in essence, a list of what Panamanian concessions would be required in order for the United States to accept 2000 as the Treaty’s termination date. The United States team responded by pointing to its movement over time on this issue, to the February discussions on possible avenues of accommodation, and to Panama’s backward movement, and by suggesting that it was for Panama to propose a solution on this issue.

(2) Force Level. The Panamanian position on this issue now is that at the inception of the Treaty, the level of US Forces shall not exceed the level of Guardia Nacional Forces and that there shall be a process of reducing this level over time—a process linked to dates. The Panamanians stated that the level would not apply in times of “conflagration”—that the US Forces could be reinforced unilaterally in these cases. When pressed on what they meant by that term, they suggested that the US would have the unilateral right to reinforce not only in cases of conflict with third countries but also in cases of threats to the Canal from non-governmental sources within Panama. The US negotiators noted the Panamanian comments.

(3) Nature of the New Canal Administrative Entity. On this issue the US team stressed its position that the new entity must be a US Government agency, arguing that it is not only a political necessity but also consistent with the Statement of Principles. The Panamanians are continuing to ask that the Canal be administered by an international juridical entity created by the Treaty, with the US exercising effective control through a majority of votes on the Board of Directors.

3. Chief Negotiators Session. A separate meeting of the Chief Negotiators, Minister Boyd and Ambassador Bunker, was held during the evening of 6 May. Also in attendance were LTG Dolvin, Minister S. Morey Bell, Ambassador Nicolas Gonzalez-Revilla and Romulo Escobar Bethancourt.

At this meeting Foreign Minister Boyd said that the Panamanian Team has a “message” to deliver to the United States negotiators. It was to the effect that Panama is “firm” on a duration period for both Canal operation and Canal defense which terminates in the year 2000. Ambassador Bunker stated that he understood the “message” but reiterated that it was nearly impossible to conceive of a set of concessions which Panama could, as a practical matter, make that could lead the United States toward agreement on the year 2000.

4. Technical Meeting—Land and Waters. On 6 May, General Dolvin and Edwin Fabrega, together with other US and Panamanian representatives, met to review the land and waters issue at the technical level. No maps or documents were exchanged or utilized in the discussions. General Dolvin emphasized that the US representatives were working hard to develop a position which would address the Panamanian areas of “high impact”. He indicated that this approach in turn would require the Panamanians to agree to US retention of certain areas we deem important. General Dolvin also indicated that our approach which substituted specific treaty land and water “use rights” for large areas under Entity control was controversial. Edwin Fabrega stated that there was also great controversy within the Panamanian Government regarding the issue of land and waters. Various other aspects of the issue were discussed in general terms.

5. Discussion with General Torrijos. The attached memorandum describes the substantive issues discussed during the meeting between General Dolvin and General Torrijos held 5 May 1976.

6. Conversation with General McAuliffe and Governor Parfitt —Land and Water Areas.

a. General Dolvin directed the DoD Support Group to draft an unofficial US land and waters position in March 1976. This revision was developed in response to the new Panamanian land and waters proposal presented during the negotiations of December 1975 and February 1976.³ The unofficial US position was revised in April 1976 based on comments and discussions with USCINCSO, PCC/PCG representatives, Panamanian officials and the PCNWG.⁴ The latest revision was reviewed by USSOUTHCOM and PCC/PCG representatives during the period 28 April–3 May 1976. The land and waters position will be incorporated into the US presentation at the next negotiating round. The position still has no official status; consequently, it will be presented on an unofficial basis. Since the proposal has been subjected to numerous discussions with both US and Panamanian representatives, it is believed that the areas of disagreement have been narrowed to the point where the interests of both sides may be accommodated.

b. General Dolvin and General McAuliffe met for 2½ hours on 30 April to discuss the land and waters issue. As a result of their discussions, it appears that most of the defense related aspects of the land and water issue have been accommodated, provided the “unilateral US defense requirement” is resolved.

c. General Dolvin and Governor Parfitt met for 2 hours 30 April to discuss the land and water issue as it applies to the Entity. The Governor did not modify his position regarding the issue. He did, however, agree to review and comment on General Dolvin’s land and waters position. Detailed comments were developed during the period 30 April–3 May 1976. These comments will be provided to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Upon receipt they will be incorporated into the land and waters proposal.

7. Summary.

a. The next negotiating session will take place in early July after the conclusion of the primaries. At that time the United States negotiators plan to present a comprehensive position on all the major issues, i.e., duration, nature of the entity, neutrality, land and waters, employee rights and benefits, and expansion. The position will be unofficial and be presented on a “what if” basis. It is anticipated that the Panamanians will respond in kind.

b. In order to prepare the US position, Ambassador Bunker has directed the Deputy Negotiators to provide him with a coordinated position not later than 15 June 1976. The PCNWG will meet shortly to coordinate this effort.

Welborn G. Dolvin
Lieutenant General, USA (Ret)
Deputy Negotiator from the Department of Defense for the Panama Canal Negotiations

1. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD Files, FRC 330–79–0049, Panama 821 (May–Dec) 1976. Secret.
2. The memorandum of Dolvin’s May 5 meeting with Torrijos is attached but not printed.
3. See Documents 108 and 114.
4. The Lands and Waters technical sub-group began meeting on April 2 to explore revising the U.S. and Panamanian positions. (National Archives, RG 84, American Embassy, Panama, Panama Canal Treaty Negotiation Files, Lot 81F1, Box 125, POL 33.3–2/Lands & Water, 1976)