Office of the Historian

22. Memorandum of Conversation1

Washington, October 11, 1973.

SUBJECT

  • Panama Treaty Negotiations

PARTICIPANTS

  • The Honorable Dante Fascell of Florida, Chairman, SubCommittee on Latin America, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
  • The Honorable Ellsworth Bunker, Ambassador at Large
  • S. Morey Bell, Country Director for Panamanian Affairs

(See Memorandum of Conversation of October 9 with Speaker Albert for substance of Ambassador Bunker’s presentation.)2

The Congressman said that while the temper of the House could not be tested until an issue were laid before it, there are perhaps 100 members who would be opposed to concessions to Panama, some influenced by Dan Flood, others by the Defense Department, still others because of pure patriotism.3 Still, he explained, some of those 100 are far from as hard-line as we have regarded them—Mrs. Sullivan and Congressman Leggett, for example.4

As for himself, the Congressman thinks the Canal is not vital to American security but significant for international commerce; that Panamanian nationalism has its legitimate side; and that concessions are in order. Information reaching him indicates, he said, that Torrijos has become disenchanted with confrontational tactics and may be ready to negotiate “rationally”. If the Ambassador finds that to be the case, he should try very hard to conclude the negotiations in a matter of weeks, not years—and “before something happens to make positions [Page 65] harden further still”. “What most of us who follow Panama want is a solution, not dragged-out negotiations”, he concluded, and offered his assistance and that of his SubCommittee to the Ambassador.

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Ambassador Bunker’s Correspondence, Lot 78D300, Box 3, Congress. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Bell. The meeting took place is Fascell’s office.↩
  2. In his meeting with Speaker of the House Albert (D-Oklahoma), Bunker presented his “‘first-blush’ thoughts” regarding retaining certain operational and defense rights, while eliminating rights in the existing treaties no longer needed. (Ibid.)↩
  3. On October 29, Bunker met with Congressman Flood (D-Pennsylvania) who gave a “55-minute lecture” that “confirmed his [Flood’s] well-known opposition to a new Panama treaty and his threat to lead 200–300 members of the House to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings to oppose ratification if a new treaty is submitted by the President.” (Ibid.)↩
  4. In Bunker’s October 15 meeting with Sullivan (D-Missouri), she said that the Government of Panama was not trustworthy and that “the US must retain sovereignty.” She was, however, open to certain unilateral actions to improve U.S.-Panamanian relations such as the return of Old France Field to Panama. (Ibid.) For Leggett’s position on the Canal, see Document 11.↩