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

146. Memorandum From the Deputy Director for Operations, Central Intelligence Agency (Wells) to Multiple Recipients¹

FIRDB–312/03856–76

Washington, December 24, 1976.

SUBJECT

• Preliminary Panamanian Drafts Regarding a Canal Treaty Clause Dealing with the Treaty Issues of Canal Neutrality, Free Passage and Defense

1. The following information was obtained from [2 lines not declassified].

2. As of mid-December 1976 Foreign Minister Aquilino Boyd Guardia and other members of the Panamanian canal treaty negotiating team had prepared working papers containing three alternative treaty clauses dealing with the issues of canal neutrality, free passage and canal defense after the year 2000. The working papers were prepared by Boyd; Carlos Lopez Guevara, treaty negotiator; and Jorge Illueca Sibauste, Ambassador to the United Nations. Boyd requested the proposed treaty clauses on the presumption that the United States might be willing to accept the year 2000 as the duration period of the new canal treaty if Panama gave sufficiently broad guarantees to the United States regarding the right of free passage after the year 2000.

3. The Panamanian negotiators probably will not discuss the proposed alternative treaty clauses among themselves until late January 1977. Once a final draft has been agreed upon, it will be forwarded to General Omar Torrijos Herrera, Chief of Government, for approval.

4. Boyd’s paper was entitled “Draft Article for a Friendship and Cooperation Pact between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama” and read as follows:

“Article 7: The two contracting parties manifest their profound interest in the maintenance of the neutrality and security of the Panama Canal; as well as their concern for the peace and security of the nations. Therefore, they attribute a great importance to the coordination of the actions of their governments in the fight for international peace. To this end, the two parties agree to consult with each other regularly at various levels in relation to all important matters of reciprocal concern. In the case that situations arise which in the judgment of both parties constitute a threat to peace or a violation of the peace, the two contracting parties will enter immediately into communication for the purpose of coordinating their positions to the end of eliminating the threat which has arisen or to restore the peace. (Article 7 of the Accord of Friendship and Cooperation between the United Arab Republic and the USSR, 27 May 1971, and Article 7 of the Accord of Friendship and Cooperation between the USSR and Angola, 11 October 1976.)”

“Article 11: This treaty shall take effect beginning with the year 2000 and shall have a five-year term of duration, renewable by means of an exchange of notes, for successive periods of one year each. (Article 11 of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the United Arab Republic and the USSR, and Article 14 of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the USSR and Angola, and Article 19 of NATO of 19 June 1951.)”

5. The paper submitted by Carlos Lopez² for consideration read as follows:

“It would be agreed that an ‘act’ (acta) of the treaty negotiations, signed by both negotiating missions, would be included as follows:

A) The United States would ask Panama: The United States delegation wishes to ask the Panamanian delegation if it has some objection to a declaration to be formulated by the United States in the following terms: ‘The United States declares that any attack on the Panama Canal or any threat of attack on the same will be considered by the United States as an attack or threat of attack against the United States; in consequence, the United States will respond in accord with its constitutional process in the form which it judges most fitting.’

B) The Panamanian delegation would respond: ‘The Panamanian delegation has no objection to the declaration which the United States may make in the terms indicated in the question transcribed above, with the understanding that any action of the United States within Panamanian territory shall depend on the previous express consent of the republic of Panama.’”

6. The third alternative draft, prepared by Jorge Illueca, read as follows:

“Without prejudice to the respect due the territorial integrity of Panama, and to the end that any interruption of free transit of the canal be avoided, the contracting parties shall agree to act with the objective that the waterway forever remain open, efficient and neutral. In case of disagreement, the contracting parties agree to refer immediately their discrepancies to the Consultative Organ of the Organization of American States (OAS) for its urgent consideration, and they agree also to comply with the decision effected by the said Consultative Organ.”

7. The above information is being made available to the United States Ambassador to Panama. No further distribution is being made.

William W. Wells³

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Ambassador Bunker’s Correspondence, Lot 78D300, Box 4, Neutrality. [name not declassified] signed for Wells. Secret; [handling restriction not declassified]. The memorandum was sent to Saunders, Bunker, Dolvin, Bell, and Lazar.
2. Presumably Carlos Lopez-Guevara.
3. Printed from a copy that indicates [name not declassified] signed for Wells.