1
Congressman Levels
With Constituents
A weekly newsletter
by Rep. Paul Simon,
D. 111., to his conservative
district
The headline in the Salem
(111.) Times-Commoner
reads: "Poll Indicates Salesmites
Oppose U. S. Giving
Away Panama Canal." The
sub-head reads: "Carter to
Appeal to People for Giveaway
Treaty."
Salem is the county seat of
one of the large counties in
my district, and if the
question is posed in terms of
a "giveaway" as that newspaper
posed it to the people
in my district or anywhere
else, the results will be the
same.
But let me ask the
question differently: "Do
you believe this nation
should follow the advice of
U. S Military leaders on the
only practical way to keep
the canal open, a treaty with
Panama?" My guess is that
the answer might be different
from the people of
Salem.
We are not observing a
movie with the villains on
one side and the heroes on
the other. We are making a
fundamental decision about
the security of the United
States, and I hope enough of
my colleagues in the Senate
and the House - and enough
of the people in the nation will
look at the hard facts,
and make a decision based
on them.
Here are a few questions
and answers that I hope will
be helpful:
What is our main interest
in Panama?
It is to keep the canal
open While the canal cannot
take the largest ships, it
continues to be important to
the United States and other
nations.
Don't we have a treaty
that gives us the right to
stay there?
Yes, there is a treaty, but
it is not one we can be proud
of. As conservative columnist
James J. Kilpatrick
wrote the other day, it "is a
matter of national shame."
Panama was created as a
nation (formerly part of
Colombia) through a revolution
with our indirect help.
Fifteen days after the
revolution, a French citizen
seeking personal enrichment
signed a treaty for
Panama with the United
States that gave us the
Canal Zone. As a form of
apology, a few years later
the United States paid
Colombia $25 million as a
gesture of goodwill.
Interestingly, "The Great
Commoner," William Jennings
Bryan, who was born
in Salem, 111., and for whom
the newspaper there is
named, called our seizure of
property in Panama immoral."
While creation of
the canal was a great feat,
the treaty itself is not one we
can be proud of.
But even if the treaty were
valid, that was more than 70
years ago, and we have to
recognize that colonialism is
now dead. We cannot take a
strip of land through the
middle of another country
and expect that country to
like it.
What do our top military
leaders believe?
- The new treaty is supported
not only by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, but also both
publicly and privately by all
the top U. S. military people
in Panama. I went there
about 1 % years ago and met
with Lt. Gen. McNair and all
the top Army, Navy and Air
Force people. I spent
enough time with them to
get their candid views. They
feel that for us to jail to work
out a treaty would invite the
closing of the canal.
How many nations favor
the United States* keeping
the canal?
None
The shippers have the
most at stake economically.
What do they favor?
The .organization tnat
represents the largest num
ber of shippers favor® ®
treaty. They recognize that
without a treaty there may
be no canal.
Doesn't Panama have a
military dictatorship?
Yes it does, unfortunately.
We have to deal with the
facts as they are, not as we
would like them to be. But it
has been a stable regime.
They have had fewer
changes of leadership in
recent years than we have.
Is there a danger that we
would play into the hands of
the Communists by having a
treaty?
One of the persons I
visited in Panama was the
top Roman Catholic churchman,
Archbishop Marcos
McGrath. He said that
nothing could play into the
hands of the Communists
and other extremists more
than our failure to have a
treaty. It is worth nothing
that in Panama the Communist
elements now oppose
the treaty. It is an
interesting partnership. It is
also interesting to note that
the Republic of Panama
does not recognize either the
Soviet Union or Mainland
China, and judging by that
flimsy standard we are
more of a "Communist"
nation than it is.
Why w ould the canal be in
danger if a treaty is not
agreed to?
t-artn slides now close the
canal occasionally. More
than 75 per cent of the 13,000
people who work on the
canal are Panamanians.
Any one of them with a hand
grenade can close the canal.
The territory is tropical with
terrain like Vietnam. If
Monday-morning quarterbacks
here believe we can
keep the canal open despite
the feelings of the people of
Panama, they are living in a
dream world. We could try,
but it would mean the blood
of Americans — including
those from Southern Illinois
and Panamanians spilled
needlessly. And the chance
of success would be slim.
Who supports a treaty?
Among the supporters of a
treaty are not only President
Carter and former
President Ford, but conservatives
like Sen. Barry
Goldwater (R-Ariz.) and
columnist William Buckley
and liberals like Sen. Hubert
Humphrey (D.Miun.).
There are, however, many
who conscientiously oppose
the treaty, and the vote in
Congress probably will be
close.
One final word.
Whether we like it or not,
the United States is the
leader of the Free World. If
we take a position of
refusing to give back their
own land to the people of
Panama by the year 2000,
our effectiveness in leading
the world will be hampered.
From any logical viewpoint,
we should move
ahead as our nation's
leaders ask. But emotions
are strong on this, and we
will know in about six
months whether the sensible
answer emerges.
The vast lowland of the
Peten region encompasses
about a third of Guatemala's
42,042 square miles.
This green heartland stands
as a last frontier-half
jungle, half savanna, underpopulated,
rich in timber,
wildlife, and history.