81. Letter From the Governor of the Panama Canal Zone (Parfitt) to the Secretary of the Army (Callaway)1
There is increasing local concern over statements by United States authorities publicly predicting violence unless a new treaty is reached with Panama and suggesting that such violence would gain for Panama as much or more of its objectives than the treaty would provide. Among those expressing concern locally are employee union and civic council members. It is their feeling that such statements may feed violence-prone elements within Panama and breed support for their tactics that would not otherwise be forthcoming. This feeling is shared by many other knowledgeable local observers, both U.S. and Panamanian.
The validity of this concern is probably shown by the treatment the Panamanian news media have given to statements of Assistant Secretary of State Rogers and to Ambassador Bunker’s address to the Rainier Club in Seattle.2 Emphasis, often with sensational treatment as you can see from the attached clippings,3 has been placed on the portions of the addresses in which the predictions of violence are made.
Public predictions by U.S. spokesmen are being construed by some here as U.S. acceptance of violence as a politically legitimate means for Panama ultimately to gain its treaty objectives. The foremost concern here is that Canal Zone employees and their families may be the victims in a situation of Panamanian violence protesting Congressional intransigence, inspired in part by their interpretations of statements of U.S. officials.
I share Secretary Rogers and Ambassador Bunker’s concern over the potential for violence here under certain conditions. I understand their desire that the Congress and U.S. public should be fully informed of the possible consequence of an intransigent position vis-à-vis a new treaty. It is conceivable, however, that violence might be avoided if the Panamanian Government is convinced such acts would be counter-productive to gaining ultimate treaty objectives, as I feel certain they would be. Public statements by U.S. officials indicating the contrary [Page 228] diminish the likelihood of Panama adopting the latter course and tend to lower the local threshold for violence.
I realize that the U.S. authorities concerned are faced with a dilemma. There is a need for the Congress and the people to be fully informed on alternatives. On the other hand, U.S. authorities have a responsibility for the welfare of U.S. personnel in the Canal Zone and this responsibility is best served by persuading Panama that violence would be counterproductive to the fulfillment of its objectives.
If you share this concern with me, I hope there will be an opportunity for you to discuss with U.S. spokesmen on treaty matters the need to balance carefully the probable effect of their statements on the very dissimilar United States and Panamanian audiences.
Sincerely yours,
- Source: National Archives, RG 84, American Embassy, Panama, Panama Canal Treaty Negotiation Files, Lot 81F1, Box 125, POL 33.3–2/Jurisdiction, 1975. Official Use Only. Harold R. Parfitt assumed his duties as Canal Zone Governor on April 1.↩
- See footnote 3, Document 78. Rogers’ statement has not been found.↩
- Not attached.↩
- Printed from a copy with this typed signature.↩