Gambar halaman

cult decision, one to be made by the President, of exactly how we would respond to that. Am I correct in stating that? Do you agree with that premise?

General MCAULIFFE. Yes, sir, I do. I would like to relate that a little bit to the answer I gave to Congressman Hughes. I do believe that the turbulence and possible violence accompanied by a possible closedown of the canal, would occur right at the beginning. But then, as you suggest, sir, if the Panamanians determine that we are not delivering on certain of the provisions of the treaties, the transfer of their railroad, and the port, and many other things, then of course they would have ample right to declare the treaties null and void, and there would have to be some very basic decisions made on the part of the U.S. Government as to what we would do with respect to our American citizen employees there, what we do with our military forces, and also the equipment, and facilities that we have. I will have to say that the reason for the uncertainty at that stage would be that we could not fall back on the provisions of the original 1903 treaty because it ceases to exist when this new treaty goes into effect.

Mr. BOWEN. On October 1?
General MCAULIFFE. On October 1.
Mr. BOWEN. And therefore, although you did --

General MCAULIFFE. So in effect we are denied the legal basis for staying there.

Mr. BOWEN. And you stated that you would do your best to defend the canal, if instructed to do so, but you have agreed really if Panama took that action based upon noncompliance with the treaty on our part, the President then would have to make a decision as to whether to withdraw American personnel, or whether to attempt to confront Panama, which would undoubtedly bring about very tragic resort to violence, I rather suspect.

As you pointed out, that would create the worst of all worlds for us, because we would then face the shutdown of the canal.

I talked with one or two members as we were going to the floor to vote on this issue, and there was some doubt as to whether or not there was a capability of shutting down the operations in the canal. You said you could defend it physically from conquest, but if someone were to sit back in the hill and lob mortars in to scatter the personnel, or if they wanted to sink ships in the approaches, it could conceivably be years before you get the thing going.

Would you comment again on what is likely to happen to the actual operation of the canal in a situation of military confrontation?

General MCAULIFFE. I think that the operation of the canal itself would be jeopardized under such a scenario, because for one thing, we could never be sure as to whether the Panamanian employees, on which the operation depends, whether they would be, let us say, permitted to come in and continue to run the canal. Many employees, American and Panamanian, would elect not to stay there if they thought that there was some physical danger involved.

If there were some acts of terrorism, an occasional bomb going off, an occasional mortar round being thrown in some of these areas where there are high concentrations of employees, you would

only need to do that a few times a week and you would keep that canal in a state of stagnation indefinitely.

Mr. BOWEN. Am I correct, or perhaps I should ask Mr. Grove, is there is a linkage between the two treaties, if we violate one of the treaties—if one of the treaties is terminated, is the other one terminated also? What is the linkage between the two treaties?

Mr. GROVE. We have an expert witness in the room, in the person of Michael Kosak, who can answer precisely those questions, and may I ask him to reply to that?

Mr. HUBBARD. I have no objection, except I would remind Congressman Bowen-

Mr. BOWEN. Just one question.

Mr. HUBBARD. We were on somebody else's time, right before we went for the rollcall.

Please state your name?

Mr. KOZAK. Michael Kozak. I am the State Department Legal Adviser for Inter-American Affairs, and I will try to keep it brief.

The answer, as regards the two treaties, is that we are linked with respect to their entry into force. One is not entered into force without the other. So they would both go into force together. The termination of the Panama Canal Treaty would not affect the termination of the Neutrality Treaty, unless the breach that was in question was one that went to our obligations under both treaties. It would depend on the particular nature and circumstances, but you certainly would have the type of scenario that has been discussed, that would involve primarily a violation of the Panama Canal Treaty, which would be the basis for right to operate the canal, and the basis for our right to remain in Panama.

Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you for that answer.
Congressman Wyatt?

Mr. WYATT. Did I understand you to say that there were, in essence, two treaties, the Neutrality Treaty and the Treaty of the Panama Canal? If those became effective on October 1 are the other treaties abrogated at that point, or terminated?

Mr. KOZAK. There are two new treaties, the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and the Neutrality treaty of 1977. Those are the two that enter into force together on October 1. At that time the Panama Canal Treaty in force there will terminate the past treaties, the treaty of 1903, the treaty of 1936, and the treaty of 1955. So you

will lose those old treaties, and then the two new ones come into force together, and continue on from October 1.

Mr. WYATT. You lose the 1903, the 1936, and the treaty of 1955?
Mr. KOZACK. Yes.
Mr. WYATT. The treaty of 1903, 1936, and 1955 are abrogated?

Mr. KOZAK. Yes, and terminated and superseded are the words used. That means as a result that moment they are gone. They are no longer in existence, and it is as if they had never been in effect.

Mr. WYATT. Thank you.

Mr. HUBBARD. We are skipping around out of line. I will call on Congressman Bauman and then Congressman Hansen.

Mr. BAUMAN. I want to direct a question to you. I listened to your statement very carefully, as I listened to Mr. Atwood's statement yesterday.

While I disagree with much of what you said, I want to commend you for a very fine statement, as compared to the impudent, arrogant witness we had yesterday, the most impudent and arrogant witness I have had before any committee. In fact, he was insulting to the committee in what he said.

Mr. GROVE. I am surprised to hear that.

Mr. BAUMAN. I think I conveyed that feeling to him yesterday. I still feel that way, after rereading his testimony.

I read through your testimony, because I have used a press dispatch which says that the State Department today released a 16page report contributing the violence in Nicaragua, not to gunrunning through Panama, but to the dictatorial leadership of Anastasio Somoza's administration.

Reading further, Hodding Carter issued his own blast, for the record, in which he said the two questions should not be tied together, and said the problem arises primarily because of the forces and the political situation in Nicaragua.

Did you say anything in your statement about this 16-page report?

Mr. GROVE. No. I wonder whether that is not the statement of Ambassador Bowdler-Ambassador McGee's presentation that he released on Monday in the Organization of American States--or the Department of State released as part of Ambassador McGee's presentation. It is quite possible that that is the document referred to. It is not my testimony that is referred to.

I have been away, but it could well be that the report of the Ambassador is what is referred to, which I believe in its summary is 16 pages, could be what that is referring to.

Mr. BAUMAN. The dispatch says that Mr. Carter attacked the inviting of a high foreign dignitary to testify before a congressional committee, a procedure which he said had few precedents on Capitol Hill, and then went on to issue the 16-page report.

It appears from this story that these were conjunctive actions. I wonder what the hell is going on down there. We are holding a hearing, trying to find out what a constitutionally elected government is doing, and then it is attacked. One of the aggressors seems to be Panama, or at least in some way implicated, and your Department issues a report criticizing Nicaragua.

Have you heard of the human rights violations in Panama, in which they are literally-have you ever seen the OAS report on human rights violations in Panama? Whose side are you folks on?

Mr. GROVE. First of all, let me say that I am certainly with you. I do not know what happened in the Department, because I have been here all day today. I am sorry I cannot answer the question any better. I do not recognize the 16-page report, if it is not the-

Mr. BAUMAN. I think it is unfortunate that they send you up here to testify, and not tell you that they were going to issue this report while you were present here testifying. It seems to me someone would have told you.

I assume UPI would get the story right. The State Department attacking Nicaragua at a time when that country is being undermined by Panama. That is a magnificent arrangement of events that is worthy of the Nixon administration.

I would like to know whether this is the case. Apparently Mr. Grove does not know. As usual we get this in the mail 2 weeks later.

Mr. GROVE. I will provide the committee a response to the 16page document. I am sorry I do not know what it is.

Mr. DORNAN. Do you have any time left? Were phone calls made to the Department, or downtown today—the general said he was on a telephone call out there before? I know with the weight of responsibility that you are both obviously feeling it seems to me you would be remiss if you were not in touch with your offices, and the White House is certainly watching what is going on.

May I ask a direct question? This is an open hearing, at taxpayers' expense. Have either of you called to report on what is going on?

Mr. GROVE. I have not.
General MCAULIFFE. No, sir.
Mr. DORNAN. That is surprising.

Mr. GROVE. Let me say, if I may, were there some document in preparation of 16 pages dealing with the Nicaraguan situation, in the Department of State, I would have known about it. I would have been involved in it. It would not have been done this morning between breakfast and lunch. I have not been involved in any such document, the preparation of such a document, which leads me to think there is an element of confusion.

Mr. BAUMAN. United Press International is not more given than any other journalists to incorrect stories. Mr. Hodding Carter is a well-known figure at the State Department and the statements stand for themselves. I think it is unfortunate they do not inform you when they are trying to sabotage Nicaragua when they send you up here to testify. It is inconceivable. Not that it has anything to do with the Panama Canal treaties, of course.

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. I received that same UPI report earlier in the day so I do not think it is a misprint for the benefit of the gentleman from Maryland.

I would like to ask you, General McAuliffe, and before I do, I would like to say I would like to thank you for you have indeed been a fine host. You have been very open about getting me around to see what I wanted to see, and I guess in closed briefings and so forth, you have been very candid, more candid than you are able to be here today.

I would like to ask you some background questions.
Are you a lawyer?
General MCAULIFFE. A lawyer?
Mr. HANSEN. Yes.
General MCAULIFFE. No, sir.
Mr. HANSEN. Have you a crystal ball?
General MCAULIFFE. No, sir.
Mr. HANSEN. Have you talked to the President personally?
General MCAULIFFE. Yes; I have.

Mr. HANSEN. Regarding his intentions in case the treaties are not implemented?

General MCAULIFFE. No, sir, I have not.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HANSEN. I guess I would like to know how you can predict with such certainty what will happen when there is so many constitutional lawyers who say the House of Representatives is a free agent. We have the right to implement the treaties or not to implement them to some degree that we feel. You can sit here like other people have tried to do and tell us we are held hostage to a course certain and designed by the President and the Senate of the United States? Are you trying to tell us that is what we are married to? That we have no options?

General MCAULIFFE. I do not have a crystal ball, but I believe I have a pretty good feeling as to how many people feel in Panama and I might add some of the other countries of Latin America. This represents my judgment of a very likely occurrence.

Mr. HANSEN. I would like to ask the general if you feel that catering to one case of blackmail will get us off later? For instance, if we pass it by the Panamanians, later does this mean that this marriage we are asking for is going to be better tomorrow or the next day from the excesses that we go to?

General McAULIFFE. I do believe that we will have a better cooperation from the Panamanians on the operation and security of the canal.

Mr. HANSEN. I would like to interrupt you.

How can you have—I hope it would be better because right now you do not even seem to know as the commander of the Southern Command what is going on in your own bailiwick as far as gunrunning is concerned or a number of other things that are happening, and more than that, I do not see any indignation on your part or the part of the gentleman from the State Department about what is going on as stated by the Congressman from Maryland a minute ago. Instead, we seem to be holding to the fact that Nicaragua is having difficulty controlling its internal affairs. But no one talks about people manufacturing contraband and selling it illegally in the United States and outside the United States and so forth.

I get very tired of us comparing Panama to Nicaragua. Nicaragua is not at stake. We are talking about Panama whose behavior is related to the treaties.

I would like to suggest to the gentleman from Mississippi, who seems to be concerned about what would happen if we do not pass the treaties, that if Panama has violated the treaties, and I think you have to read the treaty which states that there is an obligation on the part of Panama to maintain itself so there is no retaliation. And Panama obviously is behaving so there would be retaliation, how in the world can you as long as there is behavior like this, say you are not going to have trouble in Panama?

We could lose the zone. Not only that, but we would have to confront Panama and all the enemies of Panama instigating or dumping bombs in the canal. It seems you are not asking for one problem but a whole host of problems.

Have you given that some thought?

General MCAULIFFE. I have given it a lot of thought, Mr. Congressman, and I believe that to have Panama as a partner and a responsible partner in running that canal is going to be beneficial and going to help keep that canal open.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »