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

130. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, August 4, 1976, 3:30 p.m.

SUBJECT

• Meeting with Mr. Eugene V. McAuliffe on the Panama Canal Negotiations

PARTICIPANTS

• Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker
• Eugene V. McAuliffe, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
• General Welborn G. Dolvin
• Richard C. Barkley

Ambassador Bunker explained that the Panama Canal negotiations were now somewhat in the doldrums and would probably remain so at least until after the Republican Convention and perhaps until after the November elections. He explained that Panama has been very understanding to date particularly in view of the fact that negotiations have been underway for over 12 years now. He said Foreign Minister Boyd as Chief Negotiator has brought a high level of professionalism to the Panamanian side in the talks and has been most understanding of our domestic problems. He noted that Boyd tended to be somewhat less moody than his predecessor, Juan Antonio Tack, which made him somewhat easier to deal with. He noted that the Secretary had contacted Boyd counselling Panamanian moderation both at the Non-Aligned Conference in Colombo and in the United Nations. Although Boyd responded well to the Secretary’s remarks, the Ambassador said that it was sometimes difficult to restrain Torrijos.² Under the circumstances he thought that it was possible that some difficulty may arise during the Non-Aligned Conference.

Mr. McAuliffe noted that the so-called non-aligned nations were not always so non-aligned, intimating that their positions may well be strongly biased against the West. General Dolvin noted that the Non-Aligned Conference would take place concurrently with the Republican Convention which may cause some difficulty. Mr. McAuliffe said that if trouble did arise it could very well further complicate the negotiations which already were complicated enough. He said in his view the Panama Canal treaty was one of the stickiest negotiations he had ever encountered.

Ambassador Bunker agreed saying that he personally had never been involved in a negotiation that had lasted this long or had been this complex. He noted that many of the toughest issues are still in front of us, such as those on duration and neutrality. He referred to Deputy Secretary Clements’ position on neutrality saying that although it may be difficult to sell the negotiators were willing to give it a try.³ He said that at least it had the advantage of eliminating US bases and military forces in Panama and to that extent may be attractive to the Panamanians. He noted that the issue would not be raised until after the elections although the negotiators did intend to return to Panama in September to discuss other issues. He remarked that it was our objective to attempt to get conceptual agreement by next January, which would be the 13th anniversary of the 1964 riots in Panama, although he noted that the drafting of treaty language would take a considerable period of time even after conceptual agreement had been reached.

McAuliffe said that he was struck upon taking over his new job in ISA by the dramatic political changes which have taken place in the Caribbean area over the past decade. He said he was amazed by the dynamics of the area and by economic as well as political developments. He noted that the presence of Cuba had complicated the picture considerably. In that regard he said that the political situation in Jamaica was very bad and that there were now indications that the Cubans were also becoming involved in the tiny island of Dominica. He said from the standpoint of ISA it was most difficult to foresee developments there and to plan to commit sufficient military resources to be able to cope with any contingencies which might arise. He said that it was a fact that previous administrations had pretty well neglected the area and that it was obvious that the United States does not have very clear ideas as to how to proceed there. He said that with regard to the Panama Canal negotiations he would be glad to be of help in any way possible.

Ambassador Bunker said that he was looking forward to working with ISA as the negotiations moved forward. He noted that he did not want to unduly bother Mr. McAuliffe with unnecessary details on the talks but did want to make sure that he was kept fully informed.

Mr. McAuliffe concluded by saying that in his view the negotiations were in excellent hands and that he had no complaints as to how things were proceeding. He only noted that the talks should be pursued at a “proper pace.”

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Ambassador Bunker’s Correspondence, Lot 78D300, Box 3, DOA–DOD, Liaison With. Confidential. Drafted by Barkley. The meeting took place in Bunker’s office.
2. Telegram 190452 to Panama City, August 1, contained a message from Kissinger to Boyd, informing the Panamanian negotiator that “we want to avoid the kind of international discussion of this issue during the coming months which could rekindle domestic controversy here and obstruct U.S.-Panamanian efforts to arrive at a suitable agreement.” (National Archives, RG 59, Ambassador Bunker’s Correspondence, Lot 78D300, Box 4, Key Documents) For Torrijos’ actions at the Non-Aligned Summit, see footnote 2, Document 129. In telegram 4837 from USUN, October 28, the Mission reported that Panamanian representatives had rehashed their “standard litany” on Canal issues at the United Nations General Assembly. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D760403–1040)
3. See footnote 2, Document 128.