91. Memorandum of Meeting1
SUBJECT
- Panama Canal Negotiations at State Department
PARTICIPANTS
- Deputy Secretary of Defense Mr. William P. Clements, Jr.
- Deputy Secretary of State Mr. Robert S. Ingersoll
- General George S. Brown, JCS
- Ambassador at Large Ellsworth Bunker
- Assistant Secretary of State Mr. William D. Rogers
- Mr. Steve Low of NSC
- Mr. Maury [Morey] Bell, Ambassador Bunker’s Staff
- Mr. Robert Duemling, Administrative Assistant to Secretary Ingersoll
- Lt. General Vernon A. Walters, CIA
Secretary Ingersoll opened the meeting by saying that we should have an agreed paper for the President by his return on August 4th.2 It should define Land and Water Use. He suggested that the present group hold a meeting on the 1st to consider the paper.
Mr. Bell of Ambassador Bunker’s Staff then said that to get duration of presence, we must give moderately on Land and Water Use and to ensure a U.S. presence after the end of the period covered in the treaty (20/45 years). To do this, that is, achieve duration, we must have some give on the Land and Water situation. We cannot get everything, that is, 45 years and free use of Land and Water. We can get an acceptable treaty if we work out a balance between Land and Water Use and duration.
The Panamanians needed:
1. Something that would have initial impact, that is, near urban areas where U.S. profile was too high.
2. Some jointness on Canal operation and military installations.
3. Some progress over lifetime of treaty in reducing our military profile and military structure.
4. Economic development (including highway corridor for Panamanians) perhaps Albrook Field.
[Page 249]Bell said it would be very helpful if we could promise to turn over one military installation right after the treaty—perhaps Fort Gulick.
The foregoing was an educated guess of what the Panamanians wanted.
General Brown asked what we were defending the Canal against. Was it against some other power or against disorders in Panama. He asked me my opinion and I said fundamentally it was the latter case. General Brown philosophized aloud about whether it might not be more desirable to pull out completely and give the Canal and Zone to the Panamanians. In reply to a question from General Brown, Ambassador Bunker indicated the Panamanians would not seek removal of the School of the Americas.
I asked what percentage of Panama’s GNP was dependent on their share of Canal tolls, and expenditures of U.S. Forces. Secretary Rogers said 13% and both Secretary Clements and General Brown found this figure very low. Secretary Rogers said it was a good figure and reliable. It seems low to me, too.
There was some discussion of how much tolls could be raised without reducing traffic and it was reported that the Governor had had a study made by a California firm3 and the conclusion had been that the tolls could be raised as much as 50% without cutting traffic. Secretary Rogers voiced some doubts about this.
I asked if any input was expected from CIA for this paper which was to be drafted by Defense (JCS) and the reply was “nothing.” General Brown, however, asked that we make an input as to the possible threat from Panamanian instability or subversives. I agreed.
It was agreed that the paper should go beyond mere Water and Land Use and give:
1. Issues
2. Points of agreement between State and Defense
3. Points of disagreement between State and Defense
4. Scenarios
5. Discuss operation of Canal.
Lieutenant General, USA
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
- Source: Central Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, Job 80M01066A:ERSubject Files (1961–1976), Box 10, Folder 17: Executive Registry Subject Files—1975 P–17 Panama. Secret. Prepared by Walters. A copy was sent to Marengo.↩
- Ford was in Europe from July 26 to August 4 to meet with heads of state and attend the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The paper is printed as Document 94.↩
- Not found.↩