The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Second Canal Treaty Vote

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . Funding for this program has been provided by this station and other public television stations and by grants from Exxon Corporation, Allied Chemical Corporation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Could you explain, General, what you meant in your speech when you said? A car, look, and then you have to do nothing about you. About the root of liberation, as of the morning of the 19th. And the armed forces. How young did he do? They had decided. He said, tell her, tell her, tell her. That if the treaty was not ratified? Amen, tell her, tell her, tell her, tell her, tell her.

Or if it had been amended in such a way that it was not lifted a condition that it could be acceptable to Panama? Then we would not negotiate anymore. Then, tomorrow morning, right away, we would start. We would have started. Now, we would have struggled for liberation. That possibly by tomorrow, the canal would not have been in operation. We would like you to clarify, please. The concept that you are, the people who defend the canal most. Because you are the people who could destroy it. We are in the capability of destroying it.

General Omar Torrias, the Panamanian head of government, holding a press conference at this moment live in the holiday in Panama City. Immediately after the vote, President Torrias spoke to the Panamanian people who had been huddled all day as they have been many days this past month around their radio sets, listening to a broadcast of the Senate debate. Some of them cheered and ran out into the streets and began celebrating a few left-wing demonstrators demonstrated and opposed the treaty as they have done in the past. The main points of General Torrias' announcement to the Panamanian people were that he accepted the treaty as voted by the U.S. Senate, and he was now announcing the full, the restoration of full political rights to the Panamanian people which had been suspended for the 10 years of his military regime. Congressional elections will be held in August. Now, back to Washington, Capitol Hill, and Jim Lehrer. The vote, of course, was on the second treaty, the one that actually turns ownership of the Panama Canal over to the Republic of Panama in the year 2000.

The vote was 68 to 32, and here on audio tape are the last few moments of that historic count. Senator Joe Biden cast the 65th vote. That's 66. The vote of West Virginia. Senator Robert Byrd cast the 67th vote. The treaty is ratified. The treaty is approved. The Senate gives its advice and consent to the treaty. Senator Robert Byrd, the Senate Majority Leader, cast the 67th and deciding vote. That audio was from the Burlai broadcast of National Public Radio. Linda Wordheimer was the NPR reporter. Tonight, with three key Senate players in this drama, Senators Alan Cranston, Jake Garn, and Dennis Decansini, a look at the dynamics behind the vote itself and the reaction both here and in Panama.

Robin? Well, we've heard some of the reaction in Panama. The reaction everybody wanted to hear in Washington immediately was that of the other man who, like General Torios, has been personally committed and politically extended in this long battle President Carter. A few moments after the results of the vote were known, President Carter entered the White House Briefing Room and spoke to cameras and the reporters. This is a day of which Americans can always feel proud. For now, we have reminded the world and ourselves of the things that we stand for as a nation. The negotiations that led to these treaties began 14 years ago, and they continued on the four administrations, four presidents. I'm proud that they reached their conclusion while I was president. But I'm proud that we, as a people, have shown that in a fall and open debate about difficult foreign policy objectives that we will reach a decision at all in the best interest of our nation. The debate has been long and hard, but in the end, it's given our decision a firm base in the will of the American people.

Over the last eight months, millions of Americans have studied the treaties, have registered their views and, in some cases, have changed their minds. No matter which side they took in this debate, most Americans have acted out of sincere concern about our nation's interest. I would like to express my thanks to a few for the job they've done under the leadership of Senators Byrd and Baker and Sparkman and others. The Senate has carried out its responsibility of advice and consent with great care. All of us owe them our thanks. I feel a special gratitude and admiration for those senators who've done what was right because it was right. Despite tremendous pressure and, in some cases, political threats, the loyal employees of the Panama Canal Zone and the Canal Zone Government also deserve our gratitude and our admiration for their performance during these months of great uncertainty. And General Tarihos and the people of Panama who have followed this debate closely and, through every stage, have been willing partners and cooperative and patient friends.

There is no better indication of their prospect for a friend of relations between us in the future than they are conduct during the last few months. We now have a partnership with Panama to maintain and to operate and to defend the Canal. We have the clear right to take whatever action is necessary to defend the Canal and to keep it open and neutral and accessible. We do not have the right to interfere in Panama's internal affairs. That is the right we need to possess nor desire. These treaties can mark the beginning of a new era in our relations not only with Panama but with all the rest of the world. They symbolize our determination to deal with the developing nations of the world, the small nations of the world, on the basis of mutual respect and partnership.

But the treaties also reaffirmed a spirit that is very strong, constant and old in the American character. 64 years ago, when the first ship traveled through the Canal, our people took legitimate pride in what our ingenuity, our perseverance, and our vision had brought about. We were a nation of builders and the Canal was one of our greatest glories. And today we have shown that we remain true to that determination, that ingenuity, and most of all that vision. Today we have proven that what is best and noblest in our national spirit will prevail. Today we have shown that we are still builders with our face still turned confidently to the future. That is why I believe all Americans should share the pride I feel in the accomplishments which we registered today.

When I was coming in to make this announcement, the ambassador of Panama, Gabriel Lewis, and formed me that General Tarihos has accepted the terms of the treaty that passed the Senate this afternoon. And I want to reaffirm my thanks and my commitment to a true partnership with John Tarihos and the people of the Great Nation. Thank you. President Carter reacting to the vote on the second treaty in the Senate a few moments after it was announced late this afternoon early this evening. Gabriel Lewis, the Panamanian ambassador, the president spoke to just before you saw him come into the room there, also paid a tribute to President Carter himself.

He says, now I really feel Panama is an independent country and Mr. Carter was putting at stake his political future. Jim? All right, now let's go to the specifics of what happened in the Senate Chamber this evening with Senate Majority Whip, Senator Allen Cranston, Democrat of California, Senator Jake Garn, Republican of Utah, a leader of the anti treaty forces, and Senator Dennis DeConcini, Democrat of Arizona, the man who became a central figure in this climax as a result of his now famous DeConcini reservation to the first treaty past last month. Senator Cranston quoting Ambassador Lewis that President Carter put his political future at stake in this vote. Was it that important to the president? I think it became very, very important. He said it a meeting before he took office in January of 1977, a meeting on foreign policy and defense issues that he felt. The first big crisis and perhaps crisis and his administration and foreign policy and defense would be the effort to ratify the canal treaties. It turned out to be that way.

Had the treaty gone down to defeat, there would have been many people hurt. I think the president and his ability to conduct our foreign policy would have been very badly set back. Now he has some new strength that I hope can be used for good causes. Senator Garn, you see this as a victory for the president? Well, obviously it's a victory for the president how important it is. I would disagree with my distinguished colleague. I don't think it was that important either way. Because I feel very strongly that the president and foreign policy has been very weak, inept. The Horn of Africa, the Middle East, his defense issues, that he's been very indecisive, has changed signals. And I think the general feeling across the country is that his foreign policy has been very weak. I don't think the ratification or the defeat of the Panama Canal Treaty would change that image very much. I sincerely hope he is stronger for the good of the country. I hope he does come to grips and is decisive with some of these other foreign policy issues. And if he is not in a ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, we'll do nothing for his image in this area.

How do you feel about that, Senator DeConcini? What this does to the president is, Emmy? I think the president acted as a real leader. He inherited two treaties that were really negotiated under a Republican administration and negotiated prior to that under Democratic and Republican administrations. Secretary of State, former Secretary of State Kissinger and former President Ford put this package together. The president could have started all anew, but he didn't. He picked up what was important that he thought was important for this country and moved it ahead. I had great disagreement with him on him, many parts of this treaty. But the overall assessment is that he acted like a real leader and he put forward what he thought was best for this country. All right, Senator Crafton and the Senate itself this afternoon. The vote was 68 to 32, which was the same vote on the first treaty. And in fact, the same people voted the same way, second time around. Why was there no change? It was very difficult for anybody who voted against treaty number one to vote for treaty number two.

The people who voted for treaty number one had taken, I think, a courageous stand. And in many cases, one that they felt was very unpopular in their home states. And having gone through all the fire and brimstone and still having done it, I don't think it was too likely that they were going to switch on the second one, although we did have some concerns at various points that one Senator or another or a group might switch. So we were never really confident until about one hour before the vote today. That's when Senator Abaras, Senator Hayakawa and Senator Cannon, those were the three that were kind of uncertain going into the vote this afternoon. That was right. Last night, I was in a somewhat gloomy state of mind. I was afraid we might lose two of those three or maybe all three, and then we would probably lose the treaty. We did a lot of work today and about an hour before the roll call started. I was pretty comfortable with the knowledge that came to me in one way or another. That probably we were going to get all three.

So I was very reasonably confident when the roll call began. Senator Garn, why were you not able to, your side, not able to bring over any converts? Well, I think Senator Cranston is outlined the reasons pretty well. I'm sorry that I've been such a true prophet twice on this program, a month in advance, not last night, but a month in advance. I predicted the exact outcome. I wish I had been wrong, but I think after the first treaty, the reason I felt so strongly it would not change. His commitments had been made very strongly. And what we saw the last few days when some of my colleagues in the opposition felt all were going to get these and Senator Cranston and others were worrying. I felt very strongly my political instincts that were seeing some posturing. We're seeing some new rain to help the constituents home say, I'm driving for a tough bargain on these treaties. I'm going to put the president's feet to the fire and make him make the treaty stronger or his foreign policy stronger. And I just felt when it was all over, they would come right back into the fold. And again, I was right. I'm sorry that I was right.

I'm disappointed in the way the Senate behaved. We've been told that we're the greatest deliberative body on the face of this earth. And even if we opponents had won tonight, I still would have been disappointed the way this went. The president said that we had given our advice and consent. No, we gave our consent, but we were told from the very beginning, don't change it, accept a leadership amendment. All emotions were tabled, the amendments, and on the basis of Torios. The first de-concini was accepted by everyone, voted by over 80 senators. And the only difference was that Torios objected. So suddenly we're not exercising our independence. And I think that's sad when we do not act as an independent body without the outside influence of a man like Torios. Let's talk about de-concini reservations for a moment. Senator, your reservation was attached to the first treaty, the neutrality treaty, and there was concern that if there was not something that did not come, was not added to this treaty, that Panama might not accept it. In fact, President Torio said he would not, and there would be problems.

What kind of heat did Senator Cranston and others possibly even the president put on you to accept this leadership reservation that was attached today? Well, I had no undue pressure or heat if you want to use those terms. It's great to be in the United States Senate and work with the caliber of men of Senator Cranston, Byrd, Baker, Church in Sarabanes, and on the other side of the issue, Senator Garn and Senator Laxo, these men and women in the Senate have strong convictions. And I have strong convictions, and that's the process. And that's how it's supposed to work. I have to disagree with my colleague from Utah that we did function as a Senate. I think my reservation, Senator Nun's reservation, other controversial reservations were attached that are binding, and that is different than when it came from the president, and from the signing of the two presidents of the two nations. There were a lot of newspaper editorials criticizing you in a very direct way over the Deacon City Reservation and saying that you were the single stumbling block

to the ratification of these treaties. Did that get to you at all? No, it didn't get to me. No, it didn't get to me. I'm used to the heat, and that's part of political life. What's important is to do what you think is right. I could have voted against those treaties if I didn't get what I thought was important. All right, let's talk about what the end result of these two reservations is. Yeah, right. At this point on your comment about the editorials in the paper, particularly the Washington Post. I totally disagree with my friends' votes today, but I certainly don't doubt Dennis D. Concini's integrity or his sincerity in what he did. I think the Washington Post editorial was totally irresponsible and they ought to give Dennis a apology. He was not one of those that you referred to a moment ago who was posturing them for the folks back home. Well, I think there's a big difference between posturing. I'm not naming any names and being in sincere. I think that some of my colleagues can sincerely have cast their votes in favor of the treaty while trying to posture to look a little bit better at home.

I may wish they had not, but there's a difference between honesty and sincerity and posturing. Let me ask you. Let me ask you that editorial on the post was very unfair to a very fine candidate. And a few words, gentlemen. Let me ask each one of you what the end result of these two reservations is. Does the United States have the right to unilaterally intervene in terms of the canal? Does that mean going into the land of Panama and violating their sovereignty? Or what's your view of what the end result is in regard? As I said a month ago on this program, I agree completely with the substance of the de-concini amendment. But it was not made to the actual treaty. It was defeated as were eight or nine other amendments. It was added to the resolution of ratification, which is quite a different story than actually amending the treaty. I said then, I still feel that a unilateral agreement like that is not binding on the Panamanians. I think we went through a charade today in trying to modify on a completely separate treaty, what Dennis said on the first treaty.

I don't think it has any legal impact at all. I think Senator Allen was correct when he said we were throwing some rhetorical sops to the Panamanians. A charade Senator Cranston? No, it has real meat to it. And it's very significant in terms of the final step taken by the Senate. It was to make very plain that while we have asserted our right to go into the zone to go to the canal to protect it, if we need to, that we do not intend that action, and we do not intend to have that action interpreted as any intervention in these sovereign affairs, the domestic issues of Panama. And it's very important, intervention is a terrible word done in Latin America. They're very concerned about Yankee imperialism that we've made very plain that that is not our policy, and it was necessary to do that in relationship to Panama and relationship to the Western Hemisphere, in relationship to many other nations elsewhere, and in terms of the concerns of many senators who didn't want to vote for a treaty that was interpreted correctly or incorrectly

as having something attached to it, or to the instrument of ratification that would seem to be an assertion of the right to intervene. Senator Deacon City, finally you do not see these two reservations as canceling each other out. No, of course not. I think what's really important is that they are binding now, if General Torreo says accepted the treaties as we have passed them today. That's was the real key issue. And that's why the controversy arose because they were binding, of providing the Panamanian government accepts these treaties. They've accepted them. My reservation, along with Senator Nuns and other senators who had reservations, are going to be binding on the Panamanians and binding on us. Robin? Just to add to that, Jim, General Torreo, speaking to the Panamanian people over television about an hour ago, expressing Panama or responding to Panamanian concern over unilateral U.S. action in Panama. Torreo's told the nation, quote, I can assure you, with all sincerity there is nothing in the treaties which justifies intervention here. Revising the canal treaty arrangements has been considered by several American administrations to be an important symbolic step in improving U.S. relations,

not just with Panama, but with Latin America as a whole. Will that purpose be achieved with the treaties that have been approved? Harry Jayla, an American businessman who's worked in Panama, is President of the Council of the Americas, which represents U.S. investment in Latin America. Mr. Jayla has the bitter struggle over the treaties in the U.S. undone some of the good that various administrations thought might have been achieved in Latin America. Basically, no, I don't think it has made any difference. I think on some of the rhetoric and some of the insults have taken a little bit of the fine edge of joy, signing of the treaty, but I think it will soon be forgotten, and I believe it will accomplish its purpose a thousand times over. What message will the people of Latin America get from the passage of this that is actually important to their psyches? What are they going to read? What does it mean to them? Because stated by the senators, which is perfectly correct, that it's going to be the recognition of the fact that a small nation can stand on its feet and be recognized by its own sovereignty and its own integrity and its own independence by a large nation who has been tagged as, quote, being, imperialistic.

For those people in Latin America who thought the existence of the canal under U.S. control was a sort of residual colonialism, will the rhetoric that has attended this debate in this country not convince many of them that all the United States up there is still all the same old United States? No. In fact, that it comes out by a narrow one vote margin this way will that erase that worry from their minds? It was a one vote margin, but there was a two-thirds majority of the Senate, and that I would think that it had been by a broader margin, but I don't think the fact that it was by one or two votes made any difference. I see. There have been stories to the effect that Torios, whatever his own reservations about these treaties, simply had to agree to them and swallow his pride because the economic situation in Panama, unemployment, wages frozen for 17 months, very high inflation was so bad that he had to get this thing moving and get it settled, whatever his reservations, because the economy needed it. No, I certainly don't agree with that. I think that he would have rejected the treaties very definitely if the clarification of the continuing amendment hadn't been made.

The economy of Panama has been at a standstill for logical reasons. I think everybody's been waiting to see what's going to happen here. Nobody's going to make a move. There's not going to be any new investment come in. One thing which I think has been overlooked and great deal, in fact, I haven't heard it brought up at all. All the emphasis has been on the waterway. Aren't people forgetting what is really going to add to the GNP growth of Panama as five miles of potentially very valuable real estate on either side of that canal stretching 55 miles across the peninsula? The growth is going to occur, not on the diminishing waterways. I think there will be a very good reaction to the United States from the approval of the treaties. I think a new era of better relations, a very warm relations with all of Latin America should follow from this event.

Do you agree with that Senator Garn? I hope that takes place. I think publicly there will be a lot of people who say this is great. When I was there with Senator Baker, the public opinion was they supported the treaties, but privately most of them said we're concerned about to reosoperating the canals. We wish you were going to continue to operate it. So I'm sure the official replies will be very warm and friendly, and I do hope Senator Cranston is wrong. I should say that things will be warm and friendly in the future. I don't share his optimism at this point, but I would like to be proven wrong because of the seriousness of the situation. Senator DeConcini, you have a lot of Spanish-speaking Americans in your state. How do they feel about this? Are they on the side of the Latin and Spanish-American people, Spanish-speaking peoples of Latin America?

I think they're on the American side, the Mexican-American community in Arizona, and I think the Southwest consider themselves really Americans. They're very proud of their heritage, and they're cognizant of the pride and culture. They're from their background, and just like I am of my Italian and Irish background, and I think they are going to be satisfied that we've done what is fair, and not only fair to the Panamanians, but fair to the American people. I have to end it there. Thank you all three senators. Goodnight, Jim. That's all in Panama tonight. The other big world-new story today is Italy. The red brigades, the left-wing terrorists who kidnapped former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro on March 16th, claim they have executed him and dumped his body in a remote lake. Tomorrow night we'll be back with terrorism in Italy. I'm Robert McNeil. Goodnight. For a transcript, send $1 to the McNeil Air Report, Fox 345, New York, New York, 1-0-0-1-9.

The McNeil Air Report was produced by WNET and WETA. They are solely responsible for its content. Funding for this program has been provided by this station and other public television stations, and by grants from Exxon Corporation, Allied Chemical Corporation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Thank you.

Thank you.