138. Editorial Note

In telegram 12 from Panama City, July 6, Ambassador Harrington reported that he had received a letter from Foreign Minister Boyd on July 5 in reply to his letter of June 19. In the letter, Boyd stated that he could find nothing in the record of negotiation relating to the 1936 Treaty to support the United States view that Article II was intended to provide for the use of additional land for defense on the basis of new technical developments in warfare. Accordingly, he explained that Panama believed that if a new agreement was to be negotiated it must be independent of the 1936 Treaty. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.1913/7–656) The text of Boyd’s letter was transmitted to the Department in despatch 13 from Panama City, July 9. (Ibid., 611.1913/7–956) In telegram 15 from Panama City, July 9, Harrington pointed out that he and Lieutenant General Harrison agreed that the United States should make a public announcement that Panama had turned down its request for radar sites based on the 1936 Treaty and that it would therefore be necessary to plan for the use of inferior sites within the Canal Zone. “I believe,” he stated further, “implementation 1955 treaty should be held up.” (Ibid., 611.1913/7–956)

In airgram 5 to Panama City, July 13, the Department instructed the Embassy to deliver a note to the Panamanian Foreign Office [Page 277] at its earliest possible convenience which would reiterate the United States position regarding the proposed radar sites. “Despite the Foreign Minister’s allegations to the contrary,” the telegram read “there can be no doubt that the record of the negotiations of the 1936 Treaty fully supports the United States viewpoint with respect to Article II. … The Department, with Department of the Army concurrence, does not consider it desirable to publicize at this time our differences with Panama arising from the request for sites through a press release or a statement by a member of Congress. This position is taken with a view to the forthcoming Meeting of Presidents in Panama and to allow Panama the fullest opportunity to retract from an untenable position without loss of face. If our compromise offer is rejected, appropriate measures of this or other kind can then be considered.” (Ibid.) On July 16, Harrington handed a note to Boyd which incorporated the views contained in airgram 5 to Panama City. The text of this note was transmitted to the Department in despatch 23 from Panama City. (Ibid., 611.1913/7–2756)