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

55. Memorandum From the Deputy U.S. Negotiator (Bell) to the Chairman of the Department of Defense Panama Canal Negotiations Working Group (Koren)¹

Washington, October 11, 1974.

U.S.-PANAMA TREATY NEGOTIATIONS: Land, Water and Air Space Use

We appreciate your opportune message to Governor Parker of October 1, requesting recommendations on the possible disposition of land and water areas in the Canal Zone under a new treaty.²

We understand that Headquarters, United States Southern Command, is participating in the response, so that it will cover both military and Canal Company/Zone Government areas and facilities.

Since we must now begin to address the “land use” negotiating issue in its broadest aspect, you may wish to consider the following points.

Panama has agreed that the United States shall retain control over areas and facilities necessary for operation and defense of the Canal.

To implement the “partnership” spirit implicit in the Principles, however—and, indeed, to be certain of obtaining Panama’s agreement that the areas and facilities we specify are truly “necessary”—it is appropriate that the United States provide a rigorous justification for each of its needs. In the United States Negotiators’ judgment, Panama will not accept nor would it be fitting for the United States to table justifications based on convenience for Canal operation and defense rather than essentiality.

In the course of specifying areas and installations essential to the United States’s effective control over operation and defense, moreover, it is appropriate to begin with the premise that the United States treaty offer on “land use” must be more forthcoming than the 1971–72 offer with respect to relinquishment to Panama of areas and facilities. By agreeing to the Principles the United States has moved to a negotiating posture with which the latter would be incompatible.

Finally, in the course of specifying areas and installations it is appropriate to consider that the United States will not require a single, contiguous, monolithic “Canal Area” to exercise its operational and defensive control effectively. All areas and facilities which will appertain to the United States will be specified in the treaty or a suitable companion instrument, and all operational and defensive rights will be exercised with respect to them.

It would seem to follow from the foregoing that the Negotiators will have need of a categorization of areas and facilities along the following lines:

(1) Immediately and unconditionally releasable to Panama.

(2) Immediately and unconditionally releasable with appropriate arrangements to the effect that Panama will not use them in ways prejudicial to the performance of essential activities of Canal operation and defense.

(3) Immediately releasable provided the United States retains access rights.

(4) Immediately releasable provided Panama agrees to share their use with the United States (for example, joint training areas).

(5) Releasable at some point during the first five-year period of the treaty, under any of the circumstances described in (1) through (4) above.

(6) Not releasable for the treaty’s lifetime insofar as the United States can now determine.

For the categorization to be most useful to the Negotiators, areas and installations within each category should be identified in order of priority for Canal operation and defense.

It would also seem essential for negotiation and treaty-drafting purposes to identify each by approximate size and location, by facilities located thereon, and by the purpose for which it is now used. In the case of those not falling within category (1), a statement justifying their inclusion in another category would be needed. In the case of those included in categories (2)–(5), we would need a description of the particular limitations on their releasibility. In the case of those included in category (6) we would need an unassailable statement of justification.³

The matter of air space is inextricably linked to the “land use” issue. Thus the Negotiators would need a specification and justification of United States requirements in that regard.

The matter of “related activities” poses a special problem.

In response to the Negotiators’ informal assertion to Panama that they would be unable to entertain a proposal to discontinue these activities, Panama has said privately that as a general matter the activities may be continued but that the proper “cover” must be found, for Panama’s domestic purposes.

Clearly we cannot cover these by relating them to any significant measure of essentiality for Canal defense. Clearly Panama cannot accept a cover relating to “hemispheric defense” or “strategic Panama”—concepts which it has rejected flatly. Clearly, also, it would not seem to be in the United States’ interests that a treaty with Panama hinge on this issue.

The Negotiators will welcome recommendations in this regard.⁴

We recognize that categorization of land/water areas and facilities as well as air space requirements is an onerous task. Yet it is an essential one, and urgent in that we shall have difficulty avoiding some general discussion of these matters as we discuss the administration-defense-jurisdiction package at the October 28–November 6 session of the Chief Negotiators in Panama. It would be helpful if the Negotiators’ Support Group might be furnished with any proposals from Canal Zone agencies as they are received, so that the Group might in turn present recommendations for negotiating positions as promptly as possible. As circumstances develop it may become necessary to agree upon a more certain deadline.

From a negotiating standpoint, the United States’ positions on the land use issue are unusually sensitive in that they are likely to constitute important elements for important negotiating trade-offs. Thus we would be grateful if you would arrange that the proposals for those positions be closely held.

S. Morey Bell⁵ Deputy U.S. Negotiator

1. Source: National Archives, RG 84, American Embassy, Panama, Panama Canal Treaty Negotiation Files, Lot 81F1, Box 124, Treaty Negotiations, July–Oct 1974. Confidential. A copy was sent to Jorden. A handwritten note indicates that Jorden received it on October 15.
2. The message from Koren to Parker is in the National Archives, RG 185, Subject Files of 1979 Panama Canal Treaty Planning Group, Box 9, Land, Water, and Airspace Use I, 10/11/74–7/26/75.
3. In a December 20 letter to Bunker, Koren outlined the Department of Defense’s land and water requirements in Panama. (National Archives, Ambassador Bunker’s Correspondence, RG 59, Lot 78D300, Lands + Waters (Use Rights))
4. An October 23 telegram from USCINCSO to the JCS (2136Z) provided a list of Department of Defense requirements for airspace and for retaining certain non-Defense (ancillary) related activities in the Canal Zone. (National Archives, RG 84, American Embassy, Panama, Panama Canal Treaty Negotiation Files, Lot 81F1, Box 124, Treaty Negotiations, July–Oct 1974)
5. Bell initialed “SMB” above this typed signature.