Office of the Historian

69. Memorandum From Stephen Low of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs (Scowcroft)1

Washington, March 21, 1975.

SUBJECT

  • Panama Canal Negotiations: Status and Comments

I. Status

—Bunker and Bell have just returned from what they consider the penultimate negotiating session in Panama.

[Page 191]

—A SOFA was initialed which they claim Defense considers to be the best agreement anywhere in the world (with the worst format).2

—They expect that one more negotiating session will wrap up an agreement in principle. That should last through the month of April.

—The four issues which will have to be dealt with more or less simultaneously at that session are: lands and waters to be retained for U.S. use; compensation; treaty duration; and U.S. rights in any Canal expansion.

—It will then take about a month to draft actual treaty language.

—They are aiming at having an agreed treaty ready for submission to the Senate June 1st.

—The transfer of Old France Field promised by President Nixon in December 19733 was accomplished by Governor Parker acting in his own authority under a 1936 amendment to the Canal Treaty, instead of seeking special legislation. This was Parker’s idea, supported by the Army and cleared by all those interested in the Canal on the Hill (Sullivan, Thurmond, Flood, McClellan, Stennis). Thurmond was enthusiastic about the idea as a substitute to “transferring sovereignty” in the future. The Panamanians are delighted and everyone is happy for the moment.

—State is preparing a memorandum to the President which can be used as the basis for an SRG meeting on the slight differences between State and Defense on the matter of treaty duration.4

II. Comments

I believe we ought to urge a meeting on the Canal question at an early date with the President, including HAK, Bunker, Secretary Schlesinger and Secretary Callaway, and possibly General Brown. This could well be an NSC meeting on the subject of negotiating instructions, either following or replacing the SRG.5 Until Defense gets an impression of the President’s views, I believe it will continue to be lukewarm on this. It has some valid reasons for being so.

As we consider what foreign policy accomplishments may be available for the Administration a year hence, we should keep in mind that [Page 192] a signed and ratified agreement with Panama, enlisting its cooperation in a joint enterprise with OAS and UN blessing, would not be an insignificant achievement.

  1. Source: Ford Library, National Security Adviser, NSC Latin American Affairs Staff Files, 1974–77, Box 7, Panama Canal—Treaty Negotiations (2). Confidential. Sent for information.↩
  2. See footnote 3, Document 66. Final agreement was reached on the SOFA by March 3 and Bunker initialed it on March 11. (Telegrams 1191 and 1430 from Panama City, March 3 and March 12; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D750074–0110 and D750087–0058)↩
  3. See Document 28.↩
  4. It is possible that the State Department used the paper originally submitted by Kissinger to Ford, Document 65, as background for the SRG meeting. (Memorandum from Low to Marengo, April 16; Ford Library, NSC Institutional Files, Box 14, Senior Review Group Meeting, 4/22/75—Panama Canal (1)) See also footnote 3, Document 72.↩
  5. See Document 77.↩