135. Letter From the Ambassador in Panama (Harrington) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Holland)1
Dear Henry : I strongly suspect that our Panamanian friends are preparing a bill of complaints against the United States for discussion at the forthcoming gathering in Panama either with you or, if possible, with the President. Their unhappiness over the present status of our relations is no greater than mine but until there is a change of attitude on their part I see no prospect of improvement.
As you well know we are confronted with constant efforts to break down our jurisdictional position in the Canal Zone with the eventual objective of Panamanian participation in the management of the Canal and ultimate ownership. One cannot help but have understanding of Panama’s aspirations and sensitivities over a foreign-dominated corridor bisecting their country. Nevertheless, their concerted attempts at encroachment can lead only to deteriorating relations and even bitterness. Succeeding treaties have given Panama greater benefits and under normal circumstances it would be reasonable to assume that each treaty would ensure at least a limited period of happy relations. The honeymoon following the 1955 treaty, as we well know, was painfully short notwithstanding its generous provisions.
[Page 273]Some positive action on our part is needed to reverse the current trend of relations. The meeting here later this month perhaps offers a convenient starting point. Apart from the fundamental premise that we are in the Zone to stay and that the Panamanians would do well to accept that fact, it might be helpful to impress on them that with a different attitude on their part they could without a doubt reap more advantages. I am quite sure that many local arrangements could be made in an atmosphere of good will and cooperation, if we were not constantly reminded of the evident aspirations of the Panamanian Government and the sharp disagreement with respect to our jurisdictional rights. For example, with a different attitude on their part perhaps we could risk reaching an informal understanding whereby their nautical inspectors could board transiting vessels as observers. It is obvious that there would be a greater disposition to cooperate with them if their own attitude were more reasonable and free from the constant threat of their long term objectives. Perhaps it would be well to hint that we can always operate the Canal entirely independently from Panamanian manpower and other resources and that to operate it independently would have many advantages to us. We would all deplore the necessity for indulging in any such extreme action but it is a possibility that could have disastrous effects on Panama’s economy and as such should not be overlooked by the Panamanians.
Cooperation runs in two directions and the Panamanians should not rely too heavily on our traditional generosity and tendency to be soft.
Sincerely yours,
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.19/6–856. Secret; Official–Informal.↩