**Diplomacy Produces Positive Results: In his first conversation with the President of Panama after the January 9, 1964, riots in the Canal Zone, during which U.S. security personnel shot and killed some 20 Panamanians, President Johnson portrayed himself as “cold and hard and tough as hell.” But by April, when he appointed a special ambassador to engage in treaty negotiations, Johnson had adopted a proactive diplomatic attitude which helped contain the dangerous and explosive threat of unrest targeting the Canal Zone for the duration of his presidency. Mitigating unrest through the promise of diplomatic negotiations for a new treaty was also a strategy of the Nixon/Ford administrations. Carter had far more empathy for Panama’s historical grievances than his predecessors—“It is obvious we cheated the Panamanians out of their canal,” he wrote in his diary—but according to Kai Bird’s biography, The Outlier, Carter was influenced by intelligence briefings of how vulnerable the Zone was to political unrest and that 100,000 U.S. troops would be needed to defend it. To defend the canal, and assure stable access to it, diplomacy offered far more promise than the use of force. Carter’s special ambassadors, Sol Linowitz and Ellsworth Bunker, quickly negotiated a two-treaty solution—one on jurisdiction and administration and the other securing the U.S. rights to defend the Canal against threats to its neutrality. At a White House meeting with General Torrijos one day before the September 7, 1977, signing ceremony, according to the summary posted today, Carter told him that “the treaty opened the way to a new era of mutual respect, equality and friendship between our peoples.”
For almost half a century since the signing of those historic accords, that “new era” has more or less endured; notwithstanding the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 to seize General Manuel Noriega, the Canal Zone has functioned to the advantage of the U.S., Panama and the international community—until now. “As the U.S. threatens a return to an era of gunboat diplomacy in Panama,” notes Archive analyst Peter Kornbluh, “the historical record of the Canal Zone negotiations reflects the pragmatic promise of actual diplomacy to advance U.S. interests.”
THE DOCUMENTS
KENNEDY AND JOHNSON
AND THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY
Document 1
Jun 12, 1962
Source
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XII, American Republics, Document 405
During a state visit to Washington, Panamanian President Roberto Chiari meets with President Kennedy at the White House regarding the status of the Canal Zone. Chiari presents the case for renegotiating the 1903 Canal treaty—arguments he has previously shared with Kennedy in a September 8, 1961, letter—suggesting that the original agreement has led to “misunderstandings” for many years. Chiari “asked in the name of Panama that the treaties be revised and not considered sacred just because they were signed 58 years ago.” According to this summary of their White House meeting, Kennedy’s response is diplomatic but negative. Kennedy “could not see the end of the road in sitting down to rewrite the treaty nor how he could demonstrate to two-thirds of the Senate that such a course had advanced the United States interest. He suggested that since sovereignty is the principal issue and we have recognized Panama as sovereign that we attempt within this framework to work out operation of the Canal along with mitigation of frictions.” The meeting summary notes that Chiari became “petulant and frustrated” with the conversation; his foreign minister, Galileo Solis, took over the presentation of Panama’s position. Solis “repeated that President Chiari cannot go back to Panama without agreement to discuss in a negotiation committee all the claims Panama may present; otherwise he will face a political crisis. President Kennedy replied that he was not in a position to give any commitment that the United States could at this time agree to, sign or ratify a new treaty.” Presciently, the former foreign minister, Octavio Fabrega reminded U.S. officials of “the intensity of the feeling of the present Panamanian generation with regard to the 1903 treaty.”
