Transcripts For CSPAN3 Panama Canal Past And Future Day 1 20140817

And Michael Kozak who helped negotiate the treaties. It features a 1978 address from are carter on the panama canal. First David Mccullough, he discusses the history of the construction and answers viewers questions. The path between the seas it traces the early days of the panama canal. Good evening, mr. Mccullough. Let me ask you first, why do you have a picture of jules burn in your book it was the idea that almost anything in the world miraculous and progressive could be accomplished through the miracles of modern medicine, science and technology. He was a great friend of the builder of the suez canal. It was the spirit that they would move on to panama. And that this was the wave of the future and that they would simply repeat their success in this very different part of the world. Forgetting that panama was a vastly different terrain and topography and climate, everything. Today if you go to panama you still see fernand around. A couple of years ago there was a steakhouse. What would he think of the video today . It would probably break his heart. He was something of a rainmaker. He wasnt really an engineer, he was a promoteder, and a great believer in the infinite capacity for human beings to accomplish the untried and difficult. He was swept up by his own rhetoric as a way, and he had tremendous backing, because anyone who had invested in the suez canal had done very well. So the selling of stock in the new Panama Canal Company was a big venture, it was exciting and like some of the stock speculation today with the wonders of technology. Their problem, the french problem, when they came to attempt the panama canal was that they were in effect ahead of science and technology, that science and medicine had not resolved the problem of yellow fever and malaria. Panama was a death trap, and the technology of the equipment to be used had not advanced sufficiently. Furthermore it was an undertaking that was beyond the reach of private capitalization. It really took the treasury of a great nation behind it in order to guarantee success, and furthermore, and i think probably as important as almost anything else. The engineers that came out to panama, very brave, very able, very admirable men, had been trained at the polytechnique. The idea of improvisization which is so ingrained in american life. You do what works, you try something until you find something that works, and when that works, you go with it. They didnt know how to do that. They never resolved the problem of what to do with all of that water in panama. It can rise 20, 40 feet in less than 48 hours. Rainfall is heavy on the atlantic side as almost anywhere in the world. The rainfall not measured in inches but in feet. And they just sort of thought well find a way. Science will find a way and technology will find a way and they never figured it out. The incredible extraordinary irony of it is, at a meeting in 1879. A french engineer stood up at a meeting at the society of geography on the west left bank in paris, and said if you proceed with this notion of digging a sea level at panama. You will fail because your workers will die from disease, you cant build a sea level canal at that terrain. Lift ships up over a series of locks, not through a trench, but a bridge of water. In other words, he proposed exactly the kind of canal that he was describing a few minutes ago, a canal thats quite complicated and quite miraculous in its conception. And they laughed him out of the room. They thought this was just preposterous. Off the french went off to dig the canal and everything that he predicted happened. The French Company went bankruptcy. And it was a very sad and sorry business. For one thing it gave rise to a wave of antisemitism in france which gave rise to the dreyfuss affair because several involved were jewish and it was seen by some in france as a jewish plot, because they had been claiming progress in panama that in fact had not happened. The company failed, and it was the biggest financial collapse in history until then. It rocked the government in france and the government fell and there this brave effort sat turning back to the jungle, so to speak, with equipment lying everywhere and what was going to happen to it. We have divided the phone lines this evening, if you live in the east and central time zone. 2026241111. We have also set aside a specific phone line for people who have during their lifetime spent some time and lived in the panama canal zone. So at what point, mr. Mccullough, did the Americans First start taking interest in it, what was it . American engineers had built a railroad across panama at the time of the California Gold rush, a 50 Mile Railroad that really set the path. The french were right. We had nicuragua would be a better place. We did all kinds of surveys. We tried to determine the best route and our determination was inspired by military necessity. We wanted a way to move our navy back and forth between the two oceans, but we also of course had the same kind of idealistic aspiration as had the french. Do you think it would have happened without Teddy Roosevelt . Yes, it would have. It wouldnt have happened as soon or as decisively or been as popular and patriotic. Theodore roosevelt put his stamp on panama. He went down to panama and had himself photographed down there at the controls of the 95ton erie steam shovel. He wore a white linen suit. Really, the perfect picture for that era, confident, power involved and progressive and constructive. And he thought, Theodore Roosevelt believed, that the panama canal was going to be the greatest achievement of his time and of his administration, and he was very proud of it, he was very excited by it and well he should have been and well that the country should have been. This was really an immensely brave and heroic undertaking. Nothing of this kind had ever been attempted before. It was the largest undertaking in the history of the world at that time. Who was john stevens . A brilliant american engineer a Railroad Builder with james jay hill, he plotted the packet of the Great Northern railroad who came in at the early stages of the project and saw several things. He saw it would be feudal to try and build a sealevel canal and he saw nothing could be done until the disease problem was solved. That they could eradicate yellow fever and get rid of malaria. It was a major event in the history of medicine and the world. It gave proof that tropical countries could be relieved of these two terrible diseases. Well talk about how he did that later. First up is silver spring, maryland. Thank you for taking my call. Having just returned from panama last month, im soon to be engaged to a Panamanian National. I would like to ask mr. Mccullough what he would reflect on, if we did not build the canal, what would have happened to that part of Central America and how it might have altered history. I think it was inevitable that we would build the canal, just the question of when. There was such a demand for it. You have to keep in mind how much economics were involved. A canal through panama would save 8,000 miles on a voyage from new york to san francisco. 8,000 miles is a long way and of course, it has all kinds of impact on insurance rates and labor costs and rest, so while the cost of the canal was phenomenal, really beyond anything that anyone had imagined up until that point, it was minor compared to what it would mean economically to nations all over the world. My guess is, if it hadnt been built before the first world war, it would have been built soon after. We were really the only country equipped to build it. Both economically and in terms of our capacity to mount that kind of an effort of labor and machinery and the rest. When it was built the canal was the largest manmade lake and the largest earth dam and the biggest concrete structure in the world. Hello, how are you . How do you do, mr. Schmidt . I worked 32 years for the panama canal and was born and raised in the canal zone, in 1936 i was born there and i went there to school. I assisted you when i was there. However i was behind the scenes and i worked for the marine director and many of the scenes within the locks and so forth and some of the items that you had to investigate, i was kind of behind the scenes and i do wish you well. Thank you, it is great to hear from you and thank you for what you did during those years. You wrote the book how many years ago, mr. Mccullough . It was published first in 1977. Is it Still Available . It is Still Available, never been out of print, im glad to say. Just reissued in new paperback edition. Any idea how many books have been sold . No, i dont know that that. We had a film done for the nova series on pbs a number of years ago. Once somebody has become interested in the panama canal, you really never lose that interest, and i think the veterans, if you will, of panama, the people who have worked for the canal or certainly those who worked building it never ever forget it. They love to talk about it. Panama is a wonderful country. It is beautiful and the people are terrific. Do they still call them zonians . I think that is dying out. I have a question i want to ask on the canal there. Are you familiar with the treaties that transferred over to the panama here at the end of the month . Yes, i am. Do you know it will be in the treaties to transfer this that gives us the right to use military intervention, if we had to do it to defend the security of the canal and our usage of it . Yes, that is part of the treaties, very important part of the treaties that was passed in 1978. One of the men who wrote that treaty will be here later, mike kozak. Who were the people who actually built the canal. Where were they from . People from every part of the world worked on the panama canal at one point or another. If you consider both the french and american times there. Most of the labor came from the west indies, in the french time most of the people, men and women were from jamaica, in the years when the American Engineers were in charge of the project, most of the workers came from ba barbados. They were englishspeaking people and they came by the thousands. There were countless other people, too, from the workforce of the west indies. The real bruit labor, the real work, the front lines of this war, the infantry, if you will, were black men from barbados and jamaica. And one must never forget how many people died building the panama canal. How many died . No one will ever be able to calculate exactly, but a minimum of 25,000 people died building the panama canal. Most of those people, about 20,000 died during the french period, when as weve already talked about, there was no understanding of yellow fever and malaria. Most of them died from yellow fever and malaria. During the american time, over 5,000 people died, however, which is a great many human lives lost, and primarily from disease, again, but in this case, largely from pneumonia, but also from accidents, explosions, it was very dangerous work. The work in the yard cut the great excavation that went on and lasted for seven years. For seven years it was never silent. It went on night and day. The sound and the roar of the machinery, the movement back and forth of trains and steam shovels and armies of people working was really phenomenal and nobody in the world had ever seen such thing. It cost 10 million just to dig that seven miles of the cut. Thats a Million Dollars a mile or more. It is staggering to see those old photographs. When you go through the canal today it is filled with water, so youre only seeing part of it. But the phenomenal accomplishment of the canal, really, are the locks, and the locks, as Gilberto Guardia was saying, are genius and imaginative, inelectually fascinating. That great canal takes a ship, lifts it up about 80 feet above sealev sealevel, sends it across the lake, sets the ship back down, using nothing but the force of gravity and using nothing but this water that the french couldnt figure out what to do with, the genius of the canal is that it took the great problem of panama, which was this torrential water flow and turned it into the solution. This is a brilliant lesson that very often in life and in large problems, the problem itself is the solution to the problem. So the fact that there was so much water. The fact that the water would continually renew itself made it possible to expel, as he said, 52 million gallons of water for every ship that goes through and it uses no pumps, no power at all, except the power of nature. In other words, it is using nature, it is working with nature, not against, which is the greatest form of engineering. The scale of it is really breathtaking. These ships are almost as tall as the empire state building. These are enormous ships. If you took one lock and stood it on end and there are 12 of these locks, it would be and put it on the new york skyline, it would be one of the tallest buildings in new york, just a little less than the empire state building. So the monumental undertaking, pouring all of that concrete, dealing with a very unstable geology, which gave rise to horrendous slides, mudslides coming down into the channel. Every conceivable problem imagined. One of the most difficult terrains on earth. Snakes, disease, endless water, 2,000 miles from the base of all supplies, this is the first time that the United States marshalled a great overseas effort. Right at the start of the 20th century. So it is symbolically very important and interesting, too. One of the statistics we have is that one out of one person died for every ten feet of the panama canal. Next call, good evening, caller, where are you calling from . Im calling from richmond, virginia. Go ahead youre on the air with David Mccullough. Caller, go ahead. Mr. Mccullough, this is janise green. My question is would you know what is the reason for why did it take so long to pass a treaty for the panama canal . Well, there were many reasons why people were owe pesed to the treaties, they felt that this effort had been financed by the United States that american money, american leadership, american engineering, american equipment, american Political Leadership had built it, and it belonged to us. We had paid more for the panama canal than we had paid for alaska and the Louisiana Purchase and florida and california, all that we ever purchased in the way of the enlargement of our country geographically cost considerably less than what we paid for the panama canal. And so therefore why should we give it up. Particularly as it has military importance. I dont think the Carter Administration realized when they got into this fight about the treatys, what exactly what kind of fire storm they were going to face, because the opposition was terrific as you remember. However, please understand that this wasnt some notion dreamed up in the time of president carter. The realization that new treaties and new arrangement in panama something more in tune with the 20th century go back to the eisenhower administration, so it was bound to happen. I think one of the most admirable encouraging aspects of it, since the treaty was passed, both sides have adhered to it. It has been a smooth partnership. Hilton, north carolina, youre next. My name is frank. And i would like to make a few points about the canal. Caller, im going to have to ask you to turn your Television Set down, were getting a lot of feedback. Okay. In respect to the operation of the dates, i dont believe you have made it clear how a 25 horsepower motor can move those gates. How is it done . Those gates are seven feet thick and with two of them together or more, 110 feet, because they form a shallow feet to lock them when theres a waterhead behind them. Those gates, you can watch them and you wont realize this, unless youre familiar with machine rooms, those gates are floated up and then reset on the seal after they get in place. All of the weight is removed by floating, except a few hundred pounds and that way a 25horsepower motor moves them opened and closed. Then when they get on the seal. They are reset so they will hold water. Mr. Mccullough. Thats one of the miracles, one of the genius of this great creation and it is depending on water. The gates are hollow like an airplane wing. And they float. Water is supporting the gates just the way taking most of the weight of the gates, just as water is lifting the ships up all of those feet through the force of gravity. As it was stated earlier, and i dont think it could be stressed too much. That is the same insulation. Those are the same gates, and the same mechanisms within the walls of the locks, that were built in 1912, and 1913 to be ready when the canal opened in 1914. It was superbly built and engineered. It came in costing less than estimated and on time and despite the fact that they encountered one problem after another that nobody had reckoned on. Theres an earlier treaty that we havent talked about the verilla treaty. It was signed in washington by secretary of state john hay and verilla. They are doing business there at the start of the 20th century and mr. Verilla was a frenchman who worked on the canal at the time of the french effort. He became a promoteder and a dealmaker, who signed a treaty, as the representative for panama. And the treaty is one that gave us our legal right to build the canal in this 10 mile wide zone in which the United States would act as if sovereign. Not exactly sovereign, but as if sovereign. What year was that . 1904. And the bunauvarilla treaty was done quickly. The deal was all signed and delivered and this was very much of a slap in the face to them, and it remained a bone in the throat of panamanians ever since and understandably. Our political engineering was nowhere near what our actual engineering was. And it was a shame. But we were in hurry and it was a different time and we had a president in office who was eager to get things done. He later said in a kind of showoff fashion, i took the canal and took panama and let congress debated it afterwards, while i went ahead and built it. It was quite arrogant and also very popular with people that he said that. In a way, it caused longrange problems of the kind that are regrettable, but it is important to understand how much these insul insults, as they were perceived by people in panama and by people in latin america, in general, how long lasting the hurt was from that. And this had happened just one year after panama had gotten its independence from columbia . No, it happened almost right away and the independence from columbia of course is a whole another story. There was a question to what extent was this a legitimate revolution and to what extent had it been injured by people like mr. Bunauvarilla and the roosevelt administration. Panama was part of columbia, and so columbia lost its most valuable province, because the prediction was that the canal would be built there eventually and this was to be a jewel. This was to be the goose that would lay the golden egg and this sliver was broken off from columbia, because we wanted to get a better agreement with the panamanians than we thought we could get with the columbians. It sounds crude and it sounds selfserving, but thats what it was about. Saratoga springs, new york, hello. Hello, mr. Mccullough. I enjoy your scholarship and i lived in the zone from 1970 to 1972. I was really impressed with the new technologies that the canal zone demonstrated. One was concrete and the other was electricity, which the General Electric company pioneered in that area. Yes. But i was also i was a member of the United States army and observed some of the colonialism, i guess you could say, that existed at the time, in the canal zone. Or actually it existed up until recently. Where were you based, caller . I lived in fort clayton. Which was the one that was just turned over last week. Right. And you know, it was easy to notice that bessasically all pee who lived in the canal zone were u. S. Citizens and they were employed by the u. S. Government. They were either employed by the canal zone or the various military services. I was there during vietnam and there was of course quite a bit of military activity at the time. Everyone there was required to have id cards. Anyone who wanted to buy food within the canal zone needed to show id cards. I mention this specifically because of a couple of people we happened to meet in a store that we were purchasing minor things, deodorant and a magazine, i recall, and they did not have u. S. Id cards but obviously u. S. Citizens and members of the peace corps, and they were not allowed to buy these items in a panama canal store because they did not have id card. We showing fort clayton in october, if you go here, it kind of looks like a ghost town. I imagine. The caller just brought up several very important points. One is that the electrification of the canal. The idea that all of these mechanisms and valves and motors inside the locks, the locks are like watches inside, it is all run by electricity, it was conceived and designed and built before factories in america were electrified. And the idea that we didnt keep our way of life in the zone in harmony with the changing world and in juxtaposition with the life in panama. A panamanian, for example, couldnt buy anything in a store in the canal zone. Where the prices were lower. If a panamanian were accused of some wrongdoing or breaking the law in the canal zone, he would be tried in an american court, in the english language, a language he couldnt understand. It was just made for trouble. This was because of the 1904 treaty . This is because of the way of life that set in there. Nobody lived in the canal zone except employees of the canal. When i went down to do research on my book, i have a number of children, i thought it would be fine if we could stay there for several months and the children could go to an american school, which wouldnt be much of a disruption of the pattern of their life back home here. No, i couldnt live there, because i wasnt employed bit panama canal. It was a company town, it was a government town. Ironically it was socialism in a model form and much of it was marvellous, wonderful. Lovely climate. Interesting work, important work, work to be proud of. Good schools and services. Fire department. Postal system, handsome environment all around you, buildings, and palm trees. Here is a map, youve got panama here and here, and right down the middle is this canal zone and right in the middle of that, you see the actual panama canal. Two ports. One is balboa port here. Which is on the pacific side, is that correct . I think so, mr. Mccullough and then you have the other area, on the atlantic side. Yes. And we had bases on both sides of this that now have reverted back to the panamanians. Next. How were black workers treated in the building of the canal and were they treated the same as others . Are there families there that are descendants of those workers . Yes, there are. Many are descendants of the jamaican workers who came there and who are fluent in english and read english. English is the operative language and for all that goes on there, and all that goes on there is very important. You have to really know what youre doing and you have to communicate exactly whats happening, these enormous ships going back and forth, it is ticklish. The black workers who came to panama were not treated equally with the white workers, they didnt live in quarters that were anywhere near as attractive or as adequate. They were paid less, and this he were you know, their work was infinitely more dangerous. Some of them lived in real genuine squaller, however this doesnt justify the differential. But they were getting paid more than they ever had in their lives. There was never any problem about getting people to want to come and work there, and their pride and i know this because ive interviewed many of the people who worked and black people who were alive 20 years ago when i was working on my book, their pride in what was accomplished there. Their pride in themselves, that they were part of this great work, just as great as anybody else that i was able to talk to who worked on the canal. Hello. My name is michael smith, im a retired army colonel that was stationed there from 76 to 80. I wanted to pass on to you the tremendous delight that my soldiers and i enjoyed from your book, as an infantry lieutenant in the dark and in the jungle, i would oftentimes read stories from your book to them. They liked the leadership, and perseverance and all of these wonderful traits was that of marine lieutenant isaac strain. He led an exhibition of some 20odd marines, i believe they were searching for a path between the seas at the lowest point trying to verify a certain path they had heard of. As you know, they encountered many difficulties, but his leadership got them through. I just wanted to pass on the tremendous delight. I cant tell you how much that means to me. Thank you very much. Thank you cspan for having me on here and mr. Mccullough for being there for us tonight and i would like to let you know that ive seen the documentary on pbs many times. I watch it every time that it is on that i get the chance. You did mention in the documentary that the canal was proposed to go through nicaragua. I would like to know if you can elaborate on that. I understand there was a stamp that was commemorated on it and could you touch on that some . Actually, mr. Mccullough, we have that stamp that we can show viewers. It was popular with the country, particularly people in the south. It would have been a much shorter trip from new orleans to nicaragua than new orleans to panama. If one keeps in mind the geography of Central America. Central america swings way over to the east. Many people think of it somewhere down below mexico, when in fact it is actually east of florida. So a ship coming out of new orleans could go through a Nicaragua Canal in much shorter time and much less distance than going through panama. Also, it was believed there was little, if appreciably less disease in nicaragua than in panama. Therefore that would be advantageous, and the people of nicaragua were somehow more receptive to building the canal there. It would have been a much longer canal and much more complicated and it wasnt the best route. Panama really was the best route. The reason there was less disease, because malaria and yellow diseases feed on disease. The mosquito bites on somebody carrying the disease and carries that disease, like a mailman, if you to another person who has not been infected. The more people around who have the disease, the more the disease blossoms and spreads. The fight was intense, because there were a great many people that were determined that the canal would be built in panama. But mr. Bunuavarilla put on a Great Campaign that panama was the only place to go. He was trying to sell the french works at panama, trying to bailout the old French Company with their rights and equipment for which we paid 40 million, which was a tremendous amount of money. I want to ask you who gorkus was. Varillas point was there were volcanos in nicaragua, the opposition said there were no volcanos in nicaragua. And produced a nicaraguan stamp and he made that sure that every senator received one of those stamps as proofpositive that there were indeed volcanos in nicaragua and these volcanos might destroy any canal that was built there. And there was the stamp. Dr. Gorkus had worked on yellow fever after the spanish american war. He contracted yellow fever, if you contract yellow fever and you survive it, you are then immune from the disease for the rest of your life. They both had had yellow fever, so they could if to panama. They knew all they had to do was get rid of the yellow fever mosquito was to get rid of standing water. It is quite different from other mosquitos, it will only lay its eggs in fresh water held in artificial containers. The real problem comes back to water. They had to get rid of the standing water. Water standing in open cisterns. Water standing in tin cans. Fresh water held in an artificial container, and they could reduce malaria by spraying oil on all standing water of any kind. In swamps, or lowlying marshland, wherever the malarian mosquito would also breed. This was a major breakthrough in medical history. Medicine, disease, illness, so often affects history far more than most historians or most of us appreciate, this is a dramatic example of that. Any zonian has probably been to the gorkus hospital that took care of a lot of people there. It is closed now. Well, the antiMosquito Campaign was a big project and costly. And when the colonel came down to take charge sent by Theodore Roosevelt to be in charge of the engineering, he would figure out what this antimosquito project, the mosquito eradication was costing. Youve realized that i computed that this Mosquito Campaign of yours is costing 10 a mosquito, for every mosquito you kill it is going to cost 10. Thats an awful thing to burden the American Government with. The doctor said yes, but what if one of those 10 mosquitos got you. So the campaign continued. A fumigation gang was sent out. They cleaned up everything. Sewage, normal practices that we take for granted today, which had to be brought to bear on the whole community there, and keep in mind, that we really build whole towns, hospitals, schools, to house all of the people that came there from elsewhere in the world. This was it was you could imagine the mills set, compounded 100 times or a thousand times and thats what it was like and then when the water was to be let in and the canal was to be filled. They cut through and they struct the sets and they took it all away. When youre sailing across the lake in a cruise ship, lets say, there were whole towns and whole communities with dances saturday night and all of that. Miami, florida, youre next, go ahead. Good evening, im currently on active duty in the marine corps and i spent the last four months in panama as one of the base closers. I left right before the closing of fort clayton, thats where i lived when i was there. I just want to say thank you, mr. Mccullough, i read the book while i was there and enjoyed it very much. Just an interesting historical fact, the marines under then captain lejune. Right after the declaring of independence in panama to help keep the peace and after the u. S. Army pulled out of panama this summer, they sent a small group of marines down and i was one of them to be the final round of base closers, it was kind of a whole full circle thing. The marines were the first and last ones to be there. Mr. Mccullough, i commend you for your interview. It was very instructive, however i have a couple of questions i hope you can elaborate. My understanding and ive been to the canal and my understanding is that dr. Carlos j. Findley was the person who discovered the yellow fever that caused so much trouble at the canal and i saw a monument there that they have for him. Also, i would like you to comments, if possible, panama has to have an army to protect the canal in order for us to be able to turn it over to them. Now with invasion in panama and what have you, panama no longer has an army to defend it. Whats the outcome of that . Well, on the first question, the first point, dr. Findley was the one who did the pioneering work on yellow fever in havana, and justly deserves a statue in panama or anywhere else in the tropical world. The protection of the panama canal, the military protection of the panama canal, as stipulated in the treaties is the responsibility of the United States. This is the clause that was brought up by an earlier caller. It is a very important part of the treaty. If the panama canal were to be in jeopardy from an outside force, it is the United States right and responsibility to step in. Your book ends where . My book ends in 1914 with the opening of the canal. In the meantime, between 1914, were going to take our next move up to 1964. How did the treaty that we have been talk being, the earlier treaty, set up this relationship between the United States and panama that led to the unrest that began or really started to culminate in the 1960s . Well, it was, as i said before, it was just a bone in the throat. It was more than a burr under the saddle. Imagine a strip of territory, ten miles wide, cutting right through the center of your country. Every time you want to go from one side of your country to the other, youve got to go through this nomans land of american sovereignty, quasi sovereignty, and you, if youre a panamanian, you resent that. I remember omar terios describing how as a little boy he had been on a bus driving across the canal zone with his mother, how the bus had been stopped and some american policemen had come on board the bus and scared him. He felt that somehow his mother was threatened and he didnt like that. Nobody would like that. And our flag flying and all of the rest. Now, keep in mind, there was much that we did was very good for panama. The lake itself, was brought up by Gilberto Guardia at the start of our program, is the finest form of freshwater, i suppose anywhere in latin america. A marvellous source of freshwater, and american personnel, in addition to the economy of panama, and of course panama shared in the revenue, as well as the prestige of the panama canal. But there was always the feeling, some day this has got to be different, and a riot was touched off in the 1960s, 1964, over the raising of a flag at a high school in the canal zone. And it got rough, it got out of hand. We have just seen recently how riots can get out of hand in seattle. It sort of was a wakeup call for people in washington, long overdue, that something had to be done. Thats where were going to move next. Well say good night to David Mccullough, the author of this book the path between the seas, the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his work on truman. What you working on now . A book about john and abigail adams. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next well talk to a panamanian who was negotiator and then following the treaties. President , do you remember the first time that someone approached you and asked you started talking to you about being involved in a treaty that would become the panama canal treaty . Yes, i remember. Told me there was a new president in the United States, james carter, and a new time for negotiations and that two negotiators had been appointed by president carter. He told me the names and we took our first meeting with them in march of 77 in the embassy of panama in washington. What were your emotions at that time . Well, the house was empty and very cold. He remained the whole time with his coat on, because there was a cold, a cold morning, and was a little bit rude. Because we came from panama after certain years of negotiations. As you can see in these photographs here. After that president linden johnson, we assumed the conversations with panama with some scopes after years, those scopes had not reached any success. So we were a little a little scared that we were not going to have any new treaty. And for that reason, when we approached the negotiators of the United States, we did not believe that they really wanted to do justice for panama. Not that in that moment. Not in that time. Take a step back from that. One of the negotiators was saw linowitz. He wrote about this period, he said for panamanians, the arrangement by and under the earlier treaty, the 1903 treaty that president roosevelt signed, were a source of shame to the panamanians. Do you agree . Yes. It was a source of pain. Also there was a shame for the United States citizens, because i remember that in the discussions of the treaty of 1903, the senate and the congress of the United States, some senators rejected that treaty, and said it was too good for the United States and that probably that the panamanians wont like that treaty, and he was right. I remember, also that mr. Tuft, who was also president of the supreme court. He was a man very concerned about that treaty. You know, maybe you know that the reason for that treaty so favorable to the United States with that kind of treaty, they were sure it would be rejected. It was really a treaty that was a shame for both countries. And for us, because it was a frenchman, the one who signed those treaties and he signed the treaties at 6 00 p. M. On november 18th of 1903. That means two hours before the panamanian delegation arrived in washington. So it was something of disgust and surprise for panamanians to know that this man signed the treaty without any sort of advice. You were born when . Me . Uhhuh. I was born in 1940. Do you remember growing up what your reaction was to the fact that the americans had this strip through the middle of panama that they could do anything they wanted to . Well, when i have explained the emotions that i felt to the european, they dont believe. When i explain that the panamanian has to use two plates, one plate, the panamanian one and the other plate the canal. So every car in panama in order to travel through the canal zone. That means in order to cross the canal to go to the rest of the country. They have to use two plates and two licenses, two driving licenses, one panamanian and one the american. I had a brother who died and he worked at the canal company. And he was very white man with green eyes and brown air and he cannot use the commisary for white people. All because he was panamanian. All of that luckily is over. So those were the emotions that you brought with you when you walked into the negotiations in the 1970s . There are many more. [laughter] ill tell you one. Sure. Since im a lawyer, i remember when you broke a low in the canal zone, you were judged by an american judge in english, if you make an appeal that appeal has to go to the court in louisiana. Louisiana, because it is a state in the United States that has some sort of law in the codes, so it is more or less similar to the panamanian law, but have you to go to the United States to obtain an appeal. So when you walked into the negotiating room, those first days, what was the one thing that you knew you wanted to walk out with . Well, let me tell you very frankly something, we did not believe at that moment that we were to obtain that. We were pretending to obtain a lot of advantages. We were attempting to alleviate but we really did not think that on december 31st of 1999, the panama would be totally panamanian. We began to understand that after some meetings and sessions, of course we want that, but we were not sure we could obtain. You know when we became convinced . When . When the negotiators told us that president carter really wanted to make justice to panama. In that moment when he said that phrase, he will remember, we became convinced that we can obtain everything. Did the americans make any mistakes in the negotiations . Well, i dont think they made any mistakes well, sometimes they tell us that many of the things they were granting to us they were conceding would become very difficult in the capitol hill. We did not believe that. We thought that was a strategy of them when the critics came, we became convinced that they were saying the whole truth. And only the truth. That was very difficult to understand in the capitol hill. When you watched the debate after the treaties were signed and you watched that Senate Ratification debate. Or you didnt watch it, you probably just heard about it. What was that like . We were watching. We were the general, and we were watching on tv the negotiations, the process, and you know, we won by one vote. So we were very concerned. After the ratification, we went and announced to the nation that a treaty had been ratified by the United States. And then we went to barbara walters, we went all together to the naturalized guard. That was the name of the army at that time. Then from the balcony. Announced that the operation that was conceived was not necessary. I dont remember the name. If they were not ratified, he would have a proposal to cause some kind of disturbance in the area of the canal. And he would use some soldiers to do that, that was very secret and only that night, the secret was revealed. Would this treaty have happened with without general torrijos . Well, that would be very difficult. It was Something Like the struggle of the nations. But he was a man that was necessary to broker what was previous relations with the United States and panama. He visited france, germany, the united kingdom. He visited brazil. He tried to obtain support. He formed a group with the president of venezuela, with president s, and these four nations venezuela, columbia, costa rica and panama, they conformed the group. And they make a lot of support for panama. As youre saying at the time in was a much broader issue than that for the leaders of the country and some of the south american, and Central American countries . Yes. And you know why, because we all considered that that we will rule the canal, but we think panamanians, we can now lease the service to the world and we thought that we had the justice on our side. We have to find that the United States made justice for us. So lets say the Great Success was to obtain support for south americans and the rest of the world. Would you have done it sooner, if you could have . In 1978 77 and then 78 for the ratification. Yes. So were talk being quite a few years until the actually turnover. In the year 77, we thought there was a long time. Let me tell you more. There was another negotiators death. So we have had some losses. But i think this time has been very helpful for panamanians. Helpful in the sense that we have been prepared, we had the transition time necessary for our preparation to operate the canal. So these 23 years have been a nice time for us to prepare. Im looking at the young man, how old were you there . I was 37 years old at the time. Would you have ended up being president of this country for four years if you hadnt been involved in those negotiations . Well, maybe that helped a little bit, but in this time, besides being negotiator, i had been in touch with a lot of students, teachers, professors, so i was a very wellknown person in the cabinet. But i should say that helped. The treaties themselves, why two . Why were they divided . Whose idea was that . The treaties . Uhhuh. Well, i will say there was there was a secession of previous generation and the previous took from the other generation and from then on. So we should remember that after 1903 treaties we had new treaties, in 1936, we obtained something. In 1955, we recover some other things. And then in 1967, there were another treaty, that redacted because the terms were too long, 99 years to recover the canal. We were not in agreement with that. More than a moderator of legal terms, he was a martyr of political issues. We wanted to have the justice. We wanted the schools to become panamanian. We wanted the police could become panamanian. Wanted all of the services to become panamanian and we considered that a canal made in 1914 should be panamanian. So, and that would not jeopardize the relations between the United States and panama. What we would happen i hope that it will pass, as always, as that would be the best success for panama and the United States. That the canal would remain open forever. Economically did panama get what it needed to get to move into this next step . There will not be any annual money coming from the United States; is that correct . After the 31st of december, no. That would depend totally on us. When the treaties were signed, the team integrated. They make a request with a lu lumpsum, Something Like 1 billion. For all of these years they remain here. They made, and the United States they know. But let me tell you this, which is very important, you know that the economic issue was the last represented by the United States, because we wanted to give them, the american negotiators and president carter that the economic that money was not very important to us. That we had much more important issues to present, and to claim for. So we were not interested in that. When the americans construct the canal in 1914, the United States was a country and a nation very concerned about money, they did not build the canal to make money. They built the canal as a business. They built something as a service for the world. We have to keep the canal. So as panamanians, we should see the canal as a source of great income for our nation, we have to see the canal as a service we have to render. We have a great responsibility, because we will have to invest a lot of money in the improvement of the canal and thats another issue. The part of the treaty in which america, the United States, can come back in to this country if the canal is ever in jeopardy, do you regret negotiating that . No. When we signed the treaties, i remember that the opposition, that we well, that we may may having like defeat. I do not agree with that. Thats the canal. From any other country, we would never have had. The United States has the right and the duty to defend the canal. Because we have no army. And even if we should have an army, that army would not be capable to avoid destruction of the canal. So i am totally in agreement with what we signed with the neutrality treaty. If the canal has any problem, that could not be the United States has to defend that canal. If jimmy carter would not become president of the United States, we still would be making negotiations and talking with the americans. This man, when he arrived to power in the United States, he promised himself and he promised to panama that he would do justice for us and he accomplished that. President royo, thank you. Thank you very much. If you just joined us, were talking about the panama canal and were going to talk about the panama canal treatys with mr. Kozak. I got started in 1971 with nixon and the negotiations had started earlier with president johnson and i continued on through the Ford Administration and into president carters administration. In one sense they had bipartisan support in this. On the other hand, it was president carter who put the effort in and got it done. My guess is that treaties would have happened at some point. It was sort of a historical inevitability, but president carter deserves a lot of credit for taking the bull by the horns. What were the circumstances that brought you into writing the treaty. I was just out of law school and i was the last guy to arrive that year. I was put in Latin American Affairs and my boss had broken his knee playing tennis that weekend. Somebody has got to cover this, you do it. Many years later, i was scared to death, but as a result, i got involved in that time and ended up become the the veteran on the u. S. Side after we changed negotiators several times. What was the key time period of the negotiations . Well, it is hard to put an exact fix on that, because when you go back at the treaties now, portions of them were negotiated over the entire 13, 14 year period that royo was just talking about. The crucial period was during the Carter Administration when the real push was on to bring it to closure. A lot of the work was done both internally in the u. S. Government, i would say from 1973 on. In the latter part of 73, we had resumed negotiations. In 71, those came to naught. Later the chief administrator of the canal was the youngest guy on their team at that time. The two of us got the job of writing text and we saved a lot of it and used it in the final treaties. Starting in 73, there was a big push put on in the nixon administration. Secretary kissinger, he negotiated a set of principles, which kissinger went to panama and signed. There was a fair amount of drama involved there. That gave a new impetus to the negotiation. Then we had a clear idea of what it would take on both sides to make a treaty. It was not clear that the wi willpower was there to bite the bullet and make the deal. Thats where, i think, president carter came in. He put Saul Linowitz in. The ambassador linowitz put a lot of support in, coming up with formulas and we were able to bring it to fruition. It was really a cumulative efforts. Where would you negotiate . During the rounds that finally brought us to fruition, we spent a lot of time at an island off the coast of panama. If got the negotiators away from your bureaucracies. When you were in capitols, you got phone calls about other matters. Later on during the last few months, most of the negotiation was actually done in the state department building, and that was because at that point, moving the bureaucracy was more important. It was how to get us from here to there, so being close and engaged was convenient. So the last round we did was in panama in a hotel, so it really it varied. Who would be in the room during the negotiations . Well, on both sides, we had our chief negotiators during my early part, when i first started, it was ambassador robert anderson, and then ambassador bunker came on at 73. Joined by ambassador linowitz in 77. Occasionally they would meet by themselves. But most of the time they had their deputies, we had for a long time, maury bell, who was the panama country director. We had the general who was the secretary of defenses representative and deputy negotiator. Would you sit around the table and chat or was it much more and then the panamanians had an equivalent. Personalities changed from time to time. There was a fair amount of stability and we would sit on both sides of the table as you can envision in a negotiation. You had a lot of conversations on the side, too. That was one of the advantages of going out to the island. You would finish up the formal session and then sit down somewhere and have a sandwich or a cup of coffee. I know your guidance is so and so, what do you think about this . We were able to make a lot of progress that way. If we just stuck to the official positions as you can see from some of the panamanian commentary, it was such an emotional issue that they had developed that theology over the years about how everything had to be right and just. Very hard to negotiate with somebody who is operating under that kinds of guidance. So we were able to develop, and ambassador bunker was very strong on this. Look, we got to get these guys talking reality here. We would try to get them off to the side and say, look, lets put aside our formal guidance for a moment. What if we were able to do this, what would you be able to do . Explore it around without having to go back without the bureaucracies and the politicians on both sides to agree to something before you could tell whether it was going to be productive or not. It is not unique to this negotiation, thats the way you negotiate. It was particularly important because there was so much emotion involved in the issue. Was language a difficulty . No, not especially. A lot of americans spoke spanish and a lot of panamanians spoke english, and we had good interprete interpreters. Side conversations were usually a mix of both languages. Theres one called the panama canal treaty and theres a second one called the treaty concerning the panama canal. Both of them signed at the same time. Ill give you background as to why that came about. Youve heard from David Mccullough and royo, some of the background with the 1903 treay. D you have to understand it, to understand what we did later on. It was negotiated by a frenchman. It granted the United States virtually total jurisdiction as David Mccullough said, we had all rights, powers, and authority as if we were the sovereign in the canal zone. So it was a geographically designed jurisdiction. We could marry and divorce panamanians and give them traffic tickets. Thats fairly easy to write, actually. It gave it to us as long as we paid 250,000 a year. The enclaves of the cities were closer than five miles. The result was they got surrounded by the canal zone and their growth was constrained by that. That was the situation we were dealing with. When we said well have a new treaty relationship that will have a fixed duration. The model we used and this is the panama canal treaty, the model we used were the post world war ii base rights agreement that we had done around the world. You have rights of territory and to do certain things. You dont take a piece of territory and say you have authority over everything there. We need this territory to to do canal operations and in that ter territory we can do all things necessary to that. You have to put in easements for your power lines and what have you. You also have associated with that the equivalent of the canal for agreement. The americans will be exempt from customs duties, exempt from taxes, if they get into criminal problems, a certain degree of criminal jurisdiction over them and the like. At the same time panamanians are not going to be subject to u. S. Jurisdiction on those matters. The treaty basically says we cancel the old treaty, get rid of perpeptuity. It also grants the United States the functional rights to defend it and to maintain military bases there. Then theres implementing agreements for each of those articles that have all of these details about customs, duties and the like. It also, the panama canal treaty, made provision for this gradual transfer of operation of the canal to panama. And this was actually one of the great contributions of ambassador linowitz. The board of directors of the u. S. Canal commission would be made of five americans and four panamanians. You started having panamanians getting experience at that the board of directors level in the operation of the canal. It also made provision that the chief executive officer of the Canal Commission for the first ten years would be an american with a panamanian as deputy and then it switched and a Panamanian National became the director, and the deputy became american. So even though those guys were working for an American Government agency, they were panamanians and gauge that experience and then that was replicated down the line. I think thats one reason were in very good shape. I would second what roger said about people in the canal zone. They were dedicated to the good operation of the canal and making a good seamless transition to panamanian authority. Thats the scheme of the panama canal treaty. Let me ask you one more question. That treaty in and of itself said how much money we would give to panama directly every year. To be clear in saying we, we in this case isnt the u. S. Taxpayer, we is the users of the canal and via the toll system. Under the original 1903 treaty, they got 250,000 a year. Under the 1977 treaty, they got a fixed payment, a little bit complicated. A fixed payment of 10 million a year. They got royalties based on the amount of traffic going through the canal. A certain amount of cents per ton. There was another provision saying if the canal made a profit that the first ten million of that would go to panama. There was also payments taken out of that to the u. S. Treasury that was paid as interest as original u. S. Investment on the canal. Theres been money flowing out from both governments. Not money from the u. S. Taxpayer into the panamanian system. Thats one treaty. And thats also the canal operation to be clear. I think one of the earlier callers raised it. The u. S. Did, of course, pay for the operation of our military bases, and the salaries we paid and so on, though come out of the Defense Department budgets, but the canal operation, the payments weve made to panama and to ourselves, that came out of the toll space. It provided this new scheme of sort of modern base rights type agreement functionally defined rather than geographically defined. That was a good treaty to deal with a lot of the issues, but the one thing you couldnt do is to deal with whats going to happen after the United States gives up the authority over the canal. So we did a second treaty called the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the canal. This treaty interestingly was roughly methoodeled. It was done between the treaty with many of the european powers at the time. Both of them what they have in common. The canals will be open to ships of all nations on n nondiscriminatory basis. Making it available to everybody at just and reasonable tolls, to not impose regulations that arent necessary to the efficient operation of the canal. To impose those on an equality basis, regardless of the nationality of the ship coming through. That was one important part was to in the original treaty that could be covered because that treaty was in perpuity. It will be binding on panama they are obligated to the same standards during the time they operate the canal in the future. That treaty had a couple of important points that were mentioned earlier. One was the idea of expeditious transit for u. S. Ships. During the Senate Debate that got clarified and made more precise. War ships of the United States and panama, would be able to transit the canal, you know, sort of at the head of the line, during wartime. In perpetuity. Yes. It is a bit of an exception to the neutrality and nondiscrimination that we do discriminate a bit in terms of priority. The second provision was the one that was just mentioned in the interview with president royo. It was very dicey to draft and even more dicey to debate later on. The idea was a provision that would allow each incountry. It would obligate each of us to take whatever action was necessary to keep the canal open and functioning on a n nondiscriminatory basis. The enforcement clause of the neutrality. For panama there was also the fear that this was going to turn into a u. S. Or the u. S. Would interpret this as a right to intervene in their internal affairs and change their government in a way we might like or something. On the u. S. Side we were very keen to have it spelled out as clearly as possible in order to protect the operation of the canal. Not to interfere in panamanian affairs. The concepts are clear, but how you write it in a way that everybody is comfortable became a difficult thing. We found some language in the treaty, it was interpreted later by president carter and the general torrijos. It was incorporated by the leadership of senator baker and bird being the two leaders. The amendments that were made during the treaty debate made it more precise, or more explicit with a was already there. It didnt change the understanding. If there were another emmanuel norwega, and he were take over panama. We could go back into panama. I think what both sides really envision is being a more likely. He, for one thing, shot some of our people. The more likely thing is if somebody else was bothering the canal, terrorists from another country, another power, or insurgency or Something Like that, that panama could call upon us. The idea is that the two parties have an absolute common interest in this and would act in cooperation. The occasions that we might find ourselves acting unilaterally were rare, but we wanted to make sure they were covered, too, and this he they are. The signing ceremony, do you remember it . I remember it well. I was working on the treaties up until 10 minutes before the ceremony. Really . Last minute issues in translation and all of that. Where was it . The Panamerican Union headquartered in the United States here. All of the heads of stay, virtually all of the heads of state of the hemisphere were brought together to witness the signing. This was february 1st, 1978, when president carter gave his fireside chat about the panama canal. Good evening. 75 years ago our nations signed a treaty which gave us rights to build a canal across panama. The result of the agreement have been of great benefit to ourselves and to other nations throughout the world who navigate the high seas. The building of the canal was one of the great engineering feats of history. It is relatively simple in design and has been reliable and efficient in operation. We americans are deeply proud of this great achievement. The canal has also been a source of pride and benefit to the people of panama. But because of some continuing discontent, because we have controlled a ten mile wide strip of land across a heart of their country, and because they consider the original terms of the agreement to be unfair, the people of panama have been dissatisfied with the treaty. It was drafted here in our country and was not signed by any panamanian. Our own secretary of state who did sign the original treaty said it was vastly advantageous to the United States and not so advantageous to panama. In 1964, after consulting with former president s, truman and eisenhower, president johnson committed our nation to work towards a new treaty with the republic of panama. Last summer after 14 years of negotiations. Under two democratic president s and two republican president s, we reached and signed an agreement that is fair and beneficial to both countries. The United States senate will soon debate whether these treaties will be ratified. We were determined that our National Security interest would be protected that the canal would always be open and neutral and available to ships of all nations. That in time of need, or emergency, or war ships would have the right to go to the head of the line for priority passage through the canal and that our military forces would have the permanent right to defend the canal if it should ever be in danger. The new treaties meet all of these requirements. Let me outline the terms of these agreements. There are two treaties, one covering the rest, and the other guaranteeing the safety, openness and neutrality of the canal. After the year 1999, when panama will be in charge of its operation. For the rest of this century, we will operate the canal, through a nineperson board of directors, five members will be from the United States and four will be from panama. Within the area of the present canal zone. We have the right to select whatever lands and waters our military and civilian sources need, to maintain, operate and to defend the canal. About 75 of those who now maintain and operate the canal are panamanians. Over the next 22 years, as we manage a canal together, this percentage will increase. The americans who work on the canal will continue to have their rights of employment, promotion and retirement, carefully protected. We will share with panama, some of the fees paid by shippers who use a canal as in the past, the canal should continue to be selfsupportive. This is not a partisan issue. The treaties are strongly backed by president gerald ford and by former secretaries of state ross and kissinger. They are endorsed by businesses and professionals. Especially leaders who represented good trade with leaders in this hemisphere. This week moved closer to ratification, by approving the treaties, although with some recommended changes, which we do not feel are needed. And the treaties are supported enthusiastically by every member of the joint chiefs of staff general george brown, the chairman, the chief of staff of the army, admirable james holloway. General david jones, chief of staff of the air force and general wilson of the marine corps. Responsible men whose the defense of this nation and the preservation of our securities. The treaties have been overwhelming supported throughout latin america, but predictably they are opposed abroad by some who are unfriendly to the United States and they would like to disorder in panama and a disruption of our political, economic and military ties with our friends in central and south america. And in the caribbean. I know that the treaties also have been opposed by many americans. Much of that opposition is based on misunderstanding and misinformation. I found when the full terms of the agreement are known. Most people are convinced that a National Interest of our country will be served best by ratifying the treaties. Tonight i wants you to hear the facts. I want to add to the serious questions and tell you why i feel the panama canal treaties should be approved. The most important reason, the only reason to ratify the treaties that they are in the highest National Interest of the United States and will strengthen our position in the world. Our security interests will be stronger, our trade opportunities will be improved. We will demonstrate that as a large and powerful country, were able to deal fairly and honorably with a proud but smaller sovereign nation. We will honor our commitment to those engaged in world commerce that the panama canal will be open and available for use at a reasonable and competitive cost, both now and in the future. Let me answer specifically the most common questions about the treaties. Will our nation have the right to protect and defend the canal against any armed attack or threat against the security of the canal or of ships going through it . The answer is yes. It is contained in both treaties and also in a statement of understanding between the leaders of our two nations. The first treaty says and i quote the United States of america and the republic of panama commit themselves to protect and defend the panama canal. Each party shall act in accordance with its constitutional processes to meet the danger resulting from an armed attack or other actions which threaten security of the panama canal or ships transiting it. The neutrality says the United States of america and the republic of panama agree to maintain the regime of neutrality established in this treaty which shall be maintained in order that the canal shall remain permanently neutral. To explain exactply exactly what that means. Under the neutrality treaty panama and the United States will ensure that it remains open and secure to ships of all nation. The correct interpretation of this principle is that each of the two countries shall defend the canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality and consequently will have the right to act against any aggression or threat directed against the canal or against the peaceful transit of vessels through the canal. It is obvious that we can take whatever military action is necessary to make sure that the canal always remains open and safe. Of course, this does not give the United States any right to intervene in the internal affairs of panama, nor would our military action ever be directed against the territorial integrity or the political independence of panama. Even with the Panamanian Armed forces joined with us against brothers of a common enemy. It would take a large number of troops to ward off an attack. I would not hesitate to deploy whatever armed forces necessary to defend the canal. I have no doubt that even in a sustained combat that we would be successful. But theres a much better way than sending our sons and grandsons to fights in the jungles of panama. We would serve our interests better by implementing the new treaties, an action that will help to avoid any attack on the panama canal. What we want is a permanent right to use a canal. And we can defend this right through the treaties, through real cooperation with panama. The citizens of panama and their government have already shown their support of a new partnership and a protocol to the neutrality treaty will be signed by many other nations, thereby showing their strong approval. The new treaties will naturally change panama from a passive and sometimes deeply resentful bystander to an interested partner. This agreement leads to cooperation and not confrontation between our country and panama. Another question is, why should we give away the panama canal zone . As many people say, we bought it, weve paid for it, it is ours. I must repeat a very important point. We do not own the panama canal zone. We have never had sovereignty over it. We have only had the right to use it. The canal zone cannot be compared with United States territory. We bought alaska from the russians, and no one has ever doubted that we own it. We bought the louisiana territories from france and thats an integral part of the United States, from the beginning, we have made an annual payment to panama to use their land, you do not pay rent on your own land. The panama canal zone has always been panamanian territory. The u. S. Supreme court and previous president s have repeatedly acknowledged the sovereignty of panama over the canal zone. We have needed to own the panama canal zone. Anymore than we need to own land all wait through canada and alaska for the pipeline. It gives us not ownership of the canal but the right to use it and protect. As the chairman of the joints chief of staff has said it lies in its use. Another question, can our naval ships, our war ships, in time of need or emergency, get through the canal immediately instead of waiting in line. The treaties answer that clearly. By guaranteeing that our ships will always have expeditious transit through the canal. To make sure that there could be no possible disagreement about what these words mean, the joint statement says that expeditious transit and i quote, is intended to ensure such vessels through the canal as quickly as possible without any impediment, with expedited treatment, in case of need or emergency to go to the head of the line of vessels in order to transit the canal rapidly. Will the treaties affect our standing in latin america . Will they create a socalled power vacuum which our enemies might move in to fill . They will do just the opposite. The treaties will increase our nations influence in this hemisphere. It will help to reduce any mistrust and disagreement and they will remove a major source of antiamerican feeling. A new era, a friendship and a cooperation is beginning. What they regard as a last remnant of alleged american colonialism is being removed. Last of all, i met individually with the leaders of the this hemisphere. Between the United States and latin america, theres already a new sense of equality and trust and respect that exists because of the panama canal treaties. This opens up a fine opportunity for us, in goodwill, trade, jobs, exports and political cooperation. If the treaty should be rejected, this would all be lost and disappointment and despair, among our Good Neighbors and traditional friends would be severe. In the peaceful struggle against alien idologists, this would be a good step in the right direction. What if a new sealevel canal should be needed in the future . This question has been studied over and over throughout the century, from before the time the canal was built and throughout the last few years. The every study has reached the same conclusion that the best place to build a sealevel canal is in panama. The treaties say that if we want to build such a canal, we will build it in panama and if any canal is to be built in panama that we the United States will have the right to participate in the project. This is of clear benefit to us. It ensures that say, ten or twenty years from now, no unfriendly, but wealthy power will be able to purchase a right of the sealevel canal, to bypass the existing canal. Perhaps leaving that other nation in control of the only useable waterway. Are we paying panama to take the canal . We are not. Under the new treaty, any payments to panama will come from tolls paid by ships which use the canal. What about the present and the future stability and the capability of the panamanian government . Do the people of panama themselves support the agreement . Well, as you know, panama and her people have been historical allies and friends. The president leader has been in office for more than nine years and he heads a stable government which has encouraged the development of Free Enterprise in panama. Democratic elections will be held this office to choose the members of the Panamanian Assembly who will in turn elect a president and a Vice President by majority vote. In the past, regimes have changed in panama. But for 75 years, no panamanian government has ever wanted to close the canal. Panama wants the canal open and neutral. Perhaps even more than we do. The canals continued operation is very important to us, but it is much more than that to panama. To panama, it is crucial. Much of their economy flows directly or indirectly from the canal. Panama would be no more likely to neglect or close the highway that is we would be to close a highway here in the United States. The people of panama gave the new treaties their support. The major threat to the canal comes not from any government of panama, but from misguided persons, who may try to fan the flames of dissatisfaction with the terms of the old treaty. Theres a final question about the deeper meaning of the treaties themselves to us and to panama. Recently i discussed the treaties with David Mccullough author of the path between the seas the great history of the panama canal. He believes the canal is something we have built and have looked after for many years. It is ours in that sense. Which is very different from just ownership. So when we talk of the canal, whether we are old, young, for or against the treaties, we are talking about very deep and elemental feelings about our own strength. Still, we americans want a more humane and stable world. We believe in goodwill and fairness, as well as strength. This agreement with panama is something we want because we know it is right. This is not merely the surest way to protect and save the canal. It is a strong, positive act of a people who are still confident, still creative, still great. In new partnership can become a source of National Pride and selfrespect in much the same way that building the canal was 75 years ago. It is a spirit in which we act that is so very important. Theodore roosevelt, who was president when america built the canal, saw a history itself as a force. And the history of our own time and the changes it has brought would not be lost on him. He knew that change was inevitable, and necessary. Change is growth, the true conservative keeps his face to the future. But if Theodore Roosevelt were to endorse the treaties, as im quite sure he would, it would be mainly because he could see the decision as one by which we are demonstrating the kind of great power we wish to be. We cannot avoid meeting great issues, all we can determine for ourselves is whether we shall meet them well or ill. The panama canal is a vast heroic expression of that ageold expression to bridge or divide. We can sense what roosevelt called the lift toward nobler things. In this historic decision, he would join us in our pride for being a great and generous people with a National Strength and wisdom to do what is right for us, and what is fair to others. Thank you very much. 200 years ago on august 24th. 1814. British soldiers routed american troops at the battle just outside washington d. C. It left the nations capitol wide open to forces. You can learn more about the burning of washington during the war of 1812 this thursday from author and historian anthony pitch at an event hosted by the smithsonian associates