17. Telegram From the Embassy in Panama to the Department of State1
4368. Subj: Letter From Secretary to Panamanian Foreign Minister. Ref: State 156307, Panama 4206.2
1) Summary: I delivered to Foreign Minister on Aug. 16 original of Secretary’s letter of Aug. 6 on Canal negotiations. Foreign Minister handed me his reply of Aug. 14.3 I conveyed Secretary’s best wishes [Page 51] as Secretary had requested me to do. Foreign Minister was pleased with Secretary’s initiative on negotiations. Foreign Minister said that Panama would not raise Canal issue in UNGA but speech would have to mention it. He said Panama would participate in non-aligned conference as observer only and had resisted pressure to become full member.
2) I called on Foreign Minister Tack at 1645 on Aug. 16 to deliver original of Secretary Rogers’ letter of Aug. 6 on Canal negotiations. I told him that I had discussed US-Panamanian relations with Secretary and Secretary had asked me to convey to him his best wishes. Tack was obviously pleased with Secretary’s initiative and considered that it indicated significant effort to reach agreement.
3) Foreign Minister handed me reply to Secretary’s letter. He said Secretary’s letter was very positive but he had to comment specifically on sentence which stated Canal Zone is Panamanian territory under U.S. jurisdiction. He said that Panama’s position since 1904 has been that U.S. jurisdiction is limited to certain functions and a Panamanian Foreign Minister in 1973 would be subject to severe criticism if he did not reiterate that position for the record. I said that there is considerable misunderstanding in the U.S. about the status of the Canal Zone with the popular view being that the zone is U.S. territory. I therefore regarded the sentence in the Secretary’s letter as very helpful in preparing the ground for a successful negotiation. The Foreign Minister agreed and wanted his restatement of Panama’s traditional position to be understood as simply a statement for the record. He said he understood the Secretary’s point to be that the existing situation regardless of differing interpretations could only be changed by a new treaty and he accepted that.
4) The Foreign Minister then said that Panama would be attending the non-aligned conference as an observer only. He said that Panama had been pressed to accept full membership but had not done so. He did not know who would head the Panamanian delegation but implied by his emphasis on “observer” that he would not be going.
5) He said that he also wanted to inform me that Panama would not ask that the Canal issue be put on the agenda of the UNGA session. The speech by Panama’s representative would refer to the Canal issue, however. It had not been decided whether he would go to the UNGA and, if not, Ambassador Boyd would be speaking for Panama.
6) Comment: The Foreign Minister was obviously pleased with the indications of progress on the negotiations. He expressed satisfaction with the selection of Ambassador Bunker and indicated his awareness of the time it would take for Ambassador Bunker to study the issues, consult with Congress, and obtain instructions from the Secretary and President. Although the Panamanian decisions on the non-aligned conference and the UNGA are helpful with respect to relations generally [Page 52] and the Canal issue specifically, and I told the Foreign Minister so, the one on the non-aligned conference especially is probably intended to avoid further disturbing the internal political situation. The GOP now has an internal crisis over Communists and leftist elements in government. Tack is identified with the group within the GOP that has favored bringing these elements into government and also with establishing closer relations with Cuba, etc. He is therefore being cautious and drawing back to protect his position.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840114–1808. Confidential; Priority; Nodis; Stadis.↩
- See footnote 1, Document 16.↩
- The full text of Tack’s reply was transmitted in telegram 4370 from Panama City, August 17. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840114–1808)↩