Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, American Republics: Central and South America, Volume VII

171. Memorandum of a Conversation, Panama City, June 27, 1957¹

Panama City, June 27, 1957

PARTICIPANTS

• H.E. Lic. Aquilino E. Boyd, Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Panama
• The Honorable R.R. Rubottom, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs
• The Honorable Julian F. Harrington, Ambassador of the United States of America to Panama

I began the conversation by expressing my pleasure at being in Panama² again and by saying that the Department had been following with the greatest of interest the efforts of the Panamanian Government during the first months of the administration of President de la Guardia. I told the Foreign Minister that I personally had been giving much time and attention to the three pieces of legislation of interest to Panama: (1) the appropriation for the bridge, (2) the wage bill and (3) the bill providing for the return of certain lands. I went into some detail to describe the present posture of the bridge money bill, saying that I was moderately optimistic that it would be passed, although I could not hold out any certainty in view of the economy minded group of congressmen who were holding a tight rein on all expenditures.

I inquired of the Foreign Minister whether President de la Guardia had given attention to the recommendations of the Committee of Presidential Representatives (CPR), referring to the statement made by President Eisenhower that the U.S. intended to support the recommendations to the fullest extent possible. The Foreign Minister said that the President had already received the recommendations and was studying them.

I mentioned that the U.S. was preparing carefully for the Buenos Aires economic conference³ and hoped to send a delegation headed by a Cabinet member, but that this plan would not work unless the conference could be fitted into a period of ten days to two weeks at the most. The Minister agreed with the latter point and said that Panama was planning to send the Minister of Finance and Treasury, Mr. Ruben Carles. I stated that the Embassy here would soon receive instructions from the Department based on which it would be consulting with the Panamanian Government.

The Foreign Minister was quite interested in the status of the pending legislation before the U.S. Congress but didn’t dwell on this subject long, except to say that, while there were one or two details in the wage and lands bills which were not entirely to Panama’s liking, the Government had studiously refrained from criticizing these items in order not to damage their position in the Congress.

I pointed out that the United States was still concerned that the Communists might take the present moment, while the disarmament discussions were being held in London,⁴ to redouble their efforts to penetrate and subvert Latin America, stressing that we should redouble our vigilance. He agreed that the communist threat was as great as ever and alluded somewhat vaguely to one or two problems which had developed in Panama as a result of their efforts to provide all of the democratic freedoms to the people. He didn’t think that these problems were serious.

The Foreign Minister turned to the present discussions over nautical inspectors, complimented Ambassador Harrington for his efforts to find a solution to the problem, and then explained Panama’s position that, while accepting our note setting forth the terms under which inspectors could board vessels in the Canal,⁵ they would have to state that this modus operandi did not alter their previous position in respect to their interpretation of the treaty, etc. I replied to the Minister along this line: I have given this matter personal attention in the Department and felt that the United States would not be able to change its position that the Panamanian reply be limited to a simple acceptance of the terms and conditions in our note: the United States had acceded to Panama’s request and it hardly seemed practical for Panama now to insist on a matter of form which might impede their obtaining the substance wanted; the notes referred simply to a modus operandi and should not refer to the treaty. The Foreign Minister firmly supported Panama’s position, saying that they were defending a detail which for them was an absolute essential. I told the Foreign Minister that I wanted to be perfectly frank and that I could hold out no hope to him that their position would be accepted. The Minister seemed noticeably let down by this news.

The Minister next alluded to Panama’s candidacy for the Security Council vacancy for Latin America. He said that the Ambassador of Uruguay⁶ just yesterday had told him that Uruguay was now in a position to consider supporting Panama for the Security Council in return for Panama’s support of a Uruguayan seat on UNECOSOC because Uruguay believed that Argentina might withdraw from the Security Council race. The Foreign Minister was greatly encouraged by this news apparently. He said that Panama already had eight votes, Uruguay’s would make the ninth, and they felt sure of Peru’s and Colombia’s which would give them the eleven vote majority needed. He urged the United States to help hold Argentina in line so as to avoid that country’s getting outside of the caucus in the event it does not get a majority of the votes. I was non-committal and referred only to the traditional United States position not to reach a decision until the Latin American caucus had done so.

1. Source: Department of State, ARA Files: Lot 60 D 667, Panama 1957—Relations. Secret. Drafted by Rubottom.
2. Rubottom was in Panama June 26–28 as part of a tour of six Central American nations. Additional documentation on his trip is ibid., Central File 110.15–RU.
3. The Economic Conference of the Organization of American States met at Buenos Aires, August 15–September 4; see vol. vi, Documents 135 ff.
4. Reference is to meetings of the subcommittee of the U.N. Disarmament Commission in London beginning March 19.
5. The exchange of notes between the United States and Panama regarding Panamanian nautical inspectors being permitted to board ships of Panamanian registry while in Canal Zone waters were transmitted in despatch 63 from Panama City, August 6. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.19/8–657)
6. Julio A. Lacarte.