[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6821-S6823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14--RELATIVE TO THE PANAMA CANAL

  Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
Thomas, Mr. Smith, and Mr. D'Amato) submitted the following concurrent 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                            S. Con. Res. 14

       Whereas the Panama Canal is a vital strategic asset to the 
     United States, its allies, and the world;
       Whereas the Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and 
     Operation of the Panama Canal signed on September 7, 1977, 
     provides that Panama and the United States have the 
     responsibility to assure that the Panama Canal will remain 
     open and secure;
       Whereas such Treaty also provides that each of the two 
     countries shall, in accordance with their respective 
     constitutional processes, defend the Canal against any threat 
     to the regime of neutrality, and consequently shall have the 
     right to act against any aggression or threat directed 
     against the Canal or against the peaceful transit of vessels 
     through the Canal;
       Whereas the United States instrument of ratification of 
     such Treaty includes specific language that the two countries 
     should consider negotiating future arrangements or agreements 
     to maintain military forces necessary to fulfill the 
     responsibility of the two countries of maintaining the 
     neutrality of the Canal after 1999;
       Whereas the Government of Panama, in the bilateral Protocol 
     of Exchange of instruments of ratification, expressly 
     ``agreed upon'' such arrangements or agreements;
       Whereas the Navy depends upon the Panama Canal for rapid 
     transit in times of emergency, as demonstrated during World 
     War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam conflict, the Cuban 
     Missile Crisis, and the Persian Gulf conflict;
       [[Page S6822]] Whereas drug trafficking and money 
     laundering has proliferated in the Western Hemisphere since 
     the Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the 
     Panama Canal was signed on September 7, 1977, and such 
     trafficking and laundering poses a grave threat to peace and 
     security in the region;
       Whereas certain facilities now utilized by the United 
     States Armed Forces in Panama are critical to combat the 
     trade in illegal drugs;
       Whereas the United States and Panama share common policy 
     goals such as strengthening democracy, expanding economic 
     trade, and combating illegal narcotics throughout Latin 
     America;
       Whereas the Government of Panama has dissolved its military 
     force and has maintained only a civilian police organization 
     to defend the Panama Canal against aggression; and
       Whereas certain public opinion polls in Panama suggest that 
     many Panamanians desire a continued United States military 
     presence in Panama: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the President should negotiate a new base rights 
     agreement with the Government of Panama--
       (A) to allow the stationing of United States Armed Forces 
     in Panama beyond December 31, 1999, and
       (B) to ensure that the United States will be able to act 
     appropriately, consistent with the Panama Canal Treaty, the 
     Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of 
     the Panama Canal, and the resolutions of ratification 
     thereto, for the purpose of assuring that the Panama Canal 
     shall remain open, neutral, secure, and accessible; and
       (2) the President should consult with the Congress 
     throughout the negotiations described in paragraph (1).
       Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy 
     of this concurrent resolution to the President.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in a moment I shall send to the desk, a 
resolution urging the President to negotiate a new base rights 
agreement with the Government of Panama to permit the United States 
Armed Forces to remain in Panama beyond December 31, 1999. Senators 
Craig, Coverdell, Thomas, Mack, Smith, and D'Amato are principal 
cosponsors of the resolution, as are several other Senators who desire 
cosponsorship, and we will add those names this afternoon.
  We feel strongly that it is in the United States strategic interest 
to maintain a military presence in Panama. Millions of Americans feel 
that the Senate allowed President Carter to give away the Panama Canal 
to the great detriment of the security of the United States, and it was 
indeed a perilous mistake.
  But what is done is done; I am not here today to reopen the Panama 
Canal Treaty debate. That may come later. For the moment we seek only a 
simple base rights agreement--the kind of agreement we pursue with 
other countries in Europe and in Asia.
  This resolution strongly advocates U.S. presence after the 
implementation of the existing canal treaties. We believe it to be 
obvious that a U.S. military presence offers the best means of 
protecting the canal and ensuring its neutrality.
  Eighty percent of the Panamanians agree with that. The Panamanian 
Foreign Minister agrees with that.
  If nothing is done, then the American flag will be lowered for the 
last time in Panama at noon on December 31, 1999, after having flown 
there for almost a century. Thus, absent any change in the matter, a 
historical and unique relationship between the United States and Panama 
will come to a close. The United States will withdraw completely its 
military presence from Panama, and this Senator is absolutely persuaded 
that should not happen.
  In the Exchange of Instruments of the Ratification of the Panama 
Canal Treaties, a protocol--in ``The Treaty Concerning the Permanent 
Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal'' [Neutrality Treaty]--
makes clear that nothing in the treaties precludes Panama and the 
United States from agreeing to the stationing of United States military 
forces or the maintenance of defense sites in Panama after December 
1999. Specifically, the Permanent Neutrality Treaty states:
       Nothing in the treaty shall preclude the Republic of Panama 
     and the United States of America from making, in accordance 
     with their respective constitutional processes, any agreement 
     or arrangement between the two countries to facilitate 
     performance at any time after December 31, 1999, of their 
     responsibilities to maintain the regime of neutrality 
     established in the Treaty, including agreements or 
     arrangements for the stationing of any United States military 
     forces or the maintenance of defense sites after that date in 
     the Republic of Panama that the Republic of Panama and the 
     United States of America may deem necessary or appropriate.
  Latin America is important to the United States, and vice versa. 
Every few years something dramatic happens in Latin America that has a 
direct impact on the United States, whether it be a security threat or 
a natural disaster. The United States needs a strategic military 
capability in the region, and maintaining United States military forces 
in Panama will give us the best option and capability.
  Many Americans have the misleading impression that Latin America is 
as close and accessible as their back yard. While parts of Latin 
America are indeed only hours away, the vast majority of the region is 
not that easily or quickly accessible. Geographically, Europe is not 
even half the size of South America. Brazil is larger than the 
continental United States.
  If total United States military withdrawal from Panama is allowed to 
happen, we will be left with no significant military presence in the 
region. Furthermore, it will be both politically difficult and 
enormously costly to reintroduce U.S. forces into the region.
  Keeping United States forces in Panama promotes stable democracies 
and market economies throughout the region; also it helps support 
United States efforts to counter the flow of illegal drugs. Without 
question, then, United States forces offer the best protection and 
defense of the Panama Canal.
  Although the United States is engaged in a draw-down of our forces 
both overseas and in the United States, we are, nevertheless, leaving 
more than 135,000 troops in Europe and almost 100,000 in the Pacific. 
Maintaining forces overseas is part of the military mission. Congress 
budgets for this.
  By the end of this year, however, only 6,000 troops will remain in 
Panama. This number will continue to diminish. In other words, United 
States presence in all of Latin America is a mere drop in the bucket 
compared to our presence in other parts of the world.
  A continued United States presence is also supported by the 
Panamanian people. Current polls in Panama indicate that more than 70 
percent of Panamanians questioned want the United States to maintain a 
military presence in Panama.
  Since a continued U.S. military presence is in the interests of both 
nations, it is the time to negotiate a new base rights agreement. The 
Panama Canal treaties provide for a continued United States military 
presence, and the Panamanian public overwhelmingly favors it. The 
United States Congress should strongly urge the President to begin 
negotiating a new base rights agreement to keep United States military 
forces in Panama.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the results of 
a recent public opinion poll commissioned by the U.S. Information 
Agency be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Panamanians Want U.S. Troops To Stay

       Most Panamanians still hold favorable views of the United 
     States, despite political and economic frustrations since 
     Operation ``Just Cause'' in 1989. Moreover, Panamanians 
     continue to believe that some U.S. troops should remain in 
     Panama after 1999, despite the Canal Treaty agreements on 
     complete withdrawal.


                              key findings

       In a September 1994 poll, large majorities expressed 
     favorable opinions of the United States. Most thought the 
     U.S. had ``done much'' to promote democracy and economic 
     development in Panama.
       An overwhelming majority rated the U.S.-Panama relationship 
     as ``good;'' many called it ``very'' good. Many also thought 
     the U.S. treated Panama with ``dignity and respect,'' but 
     opinion was more negative on U.S. efforts to understand 
     Panamanian problems. And a large majority thought the U.S. 
     expected Panama to cede to its wishes on important issues.
       Better than eight in ten continued to believe that at least 
     some U.S. troops should remain in Panama beyond 1999--with 
     half endorsing the maintenance of present troop levels and 
     one-third favoring reduced levels. The main reasons given for 
     the extended U.S. military presence were ``security reasons'' 
     and ``employ-ment opportunities.''
       Eight in ten or more also said it would be acceptable for 
     U.S. troops to remain in Panama to provide security for the 
     Canal, to continue the regional counter narcotics, fight, and 
     to provide assistance in natural emergencies or for refugees. 
     Better than six 
      [[Page S6823]] in ten thought it acceptable that the U.S. 
     provide support for American military forces in other parts 
     of the hemisphere from Panama bases.
       In contrast to widespread doubts expressed in previous 
     years, half the public thought the Panamanian government 
     would be able to manage the canal well when it assumes full 
     control in the year 2000.
             opinion of the united states remains very high
       Panamanians have faced a variety of political and economic 
     frustrations since 1989 when General Manuel Noriega was 
     removed from power. These appear to have had little effect on 
     the favorable views most Panamanians have held of the United 
     States.\1\ In a September 1994 poll, eight in ten (82%)--
     across all regional and educational levels--voiced favorable 
     opinions of the United States. Half (47%) expressed ``very'' 
     favorable views, while just over one in ten (14%) regarded 
     the U.S. unfavorably. On two key U.S. initiatives:
     \1\ A USIA poll in mid-1990 found that 87 percent approved 
     (77% ``strongly'') of the U.S. sending troops to remove Gen. 
     Noriega and 75 percent considered the operation a 
     ``liberation'' rather than an ``invasion.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Eight in ten (83%) agreed that the U.S. had ``done much to 
     promote democracy'' in Panama. Six in ten were in strong 
     agreement, perhaps influenced in part by the successful 
     democratic elections in May.\2\
     \2\ The winner, Perez Balladares, was inaugurated just a week 
     before interviewing for the poll began on September 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A similar majority (82%) also thought that the U.S. had 
     ``done much to promote the economic development'' of Panama. 
     Again, six in ten agreed strongly with the statement.


            Most judge the U.S.-Panama Relationship as Good

       A great majority believed that relations between Panama and 
     the United States were good (89%); four in ten (39%) felt 
     they were ``very'' good. Seven in ten agreed (72%)--and half 
     (48%) ``strongly'' agreed--that the U.S. treats Panama with 
     ``dignity and respect.'' (The university-educated were 
     somewhat less likely to agree with this statement than 
     Panamanians with less schooling.)
       Public opinion was less favorable on two other aspects of 
     the relationship:
       Opinion was split about evenly on whether the U.S. tries to 
     understand the problems facing Panama (44% said it does, 49% 
     said it doesn't).
       A large majority agreed (80%; 58% ``strongly'') that the 
     U.S. expects Panama to ``give in to its wishes in matters of 
     importance to both countries.'' This perception apparently 
     did not influence favorable opinions on other issues, 
     however.


              most still want some U.S. troops to Remain--

       Panamanians continue to want a U.S. military presence in 
     Panama beyond December, 1999, when the Torrijos-Carter Canal 
     Treaties stipulate the withdrawal of all American troops. 
     There has been virtually no change in public attitudes on 
     this issue since 1991: Half the public (50%) said the U.S. 
     should maintain ``about the same number of troops it has 
     now,'' while a third (35%) said the troop presence should 
     remain in ``reduced'' form. Just one in ten (10%) preferred 
     that all U.S. troops leave Panama. In general, the less-
     educated tended to support the status quo, while the 
     university-educated were somewhat more likely to favor a 
     reduced presence.


                  for security and employment reasons

       When those favoring a continued U.S. presence in Panama 
     were asked why they thought the troops should stay, most 
     mentioned either the security of the canal (46%) or 
     employment opportunities generated by the U.S. base (34%). 
     Political stability was mentioned by only a few (7%).
       In addition, when asked if it would be ``acceptable'' for 
     U.S. troops to remain in Panama for selected purposes, large 
     majorities say yes to the following: to provide security for 
     the canal (87%); to continue the fight against illegal drugs 
     in the region (87%); to provide assistance in times of 
     natural disasters or for refugees in Panama (81%); and to 
     provide support for U.S. military forces in other parts of 
     the hemisphere (64%).
       Only the last purpose, ``support for U.S. military forces 
     in other parts,'' was considered ``unacceptable'' by 
     significant minorities of the general public (27%) and the 
     university-educated (40%).


         confidence increases on government management of canal

       Public confidence in the Panamanian government's ability to 
     manage the canal when it assumes full control in 2000 appears 
     to have increased in recent years: Half (51%) believed the 
     government would manage the canal at least fairly well, while 
     four in ten (42%) thought it would manage the canal badly. 
     Interestingly, the university-educated were considerably more 
     optimistic about the government's management capacity than 
     the less-educated (62% to 45%). Polls in 1990 and 1992 had 
     found that large majorities believed the Panamanian 
     government was paying little or no attention to canal-
     management matters and that it would be best if the U.S. and 
     Panama managed the canal together.


                        how this poll was taken

       This public opinion survey was commissioned by USIA and 
     conducted by CID-Gallup of Costa Rica. It is based on face-
     to-face interviews with 1200 adults aged 18 and over in all 
     regions of Panama. Fieldwork took place September 8-18, 1994. 
     Sample construction and fieldwork were performed by CID in 
     accordance with USIA instructions. Questions were written by 
     USIA in consultation with AID and USIS Panama. They were 
     translated by the contractor, with final review by USIA.
       The survey sample was selected by a modified probability 
     method, and covered both urban and rural populations. When 
     necessary, respondent selection was adjusted for age, sex, 
     and education to more closely match estimated population 
     profiles.
       Ninety-five times out of one hundred, results from samples 
     of this size will yield results which differ by no more than 
     about 3 percentage points in either direction from what would 
     have been obtained were it possible to interview everyone in 
     the population. The comparison of smaller subgroups increases 
     the margin of error. In addition, the practical difficulties 
     of conducting any survey of public opinion may introduce 
     other sources of error.
       Additional information on methodology may be obtained from 
     the analyst.

                          ____________________