Editing 78-04-A2 (section)

= Treaties =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Lawrence Beilenson, a distinguished California lawyer and scholar, authored
a book a few years ago that is unique. Called The Treaty Trap, it is, so far as
I know, the only history of treaties and the observance and lack of observance of
some--dating all the way back through biblical times. One thing stands out
sharply: no nation which puts its faith in treaties but let its military hardware
deteriorate stayed around very long.

The very nature of treaties is such that, more often than not, they must
be written in two languages. The result is that, regardless of the good will of
the signatories, the different meaning of words when translated from one language
to another can make for misunderstandings.

Let's take an agreement which while not a formal treaty was still a joint
communique that climaxed the visit of an American President to the People's
Republic of China a few years ago. In looking at the Shanghai Communique, one
is apt to be more confused than enlightened.

The Chinese made a statement with regard to our long time ally the
Republic of China on Taiwan. They said their government--QUOTE "opposes the
creation of two Chinas, an independent Taiwan or a separate solution"--UNQUOTE--.
The United States in turn said --QUOTE--" that it does not challenge this view".
--UNQUOTE--. To Americans this was plain English that meant we neither agreed
nor disagreed--we simply avoided the issue.

Unfortunately it is not that easy and simple. The Chinese translation of the
phrase, "does not challenge" is taken to mean that because we make no objection
we agree with China's position. Then there is a sentence to the effect that
there should be a peaceful solution to the problem of Taiwan. We would interpret
that to mean that Peking won't launch an attack or try to conquer Taiwan by force.
Again, Peking denies that this language binds them to seek a peaceful solution.

We have an example in the Panama Canal treaties that came to light early
in the Seante debate. Senators were proposing amendments to the treaties which
apparently didn't disturb the Panamanian-,--until the Panamanians realized what
we meant by the word "amendment". To us an amendment is a clause as binding as
the original treaty--as witness the amendments to our constitution.

To them the word used to translate "amendment" into Spanish is "enmienda"
and means just a minor change. In Torrijos's view an "enmienda" would be alright
as an addition to an existing clause, but difinitely a no~no if added as an
additional paragraph. That would make it a "reforma"--major change in the manner
of our meaning of the word "amendment" and that would be serious business in
Panama--it would require another plebiscite, which Torrijos fears losing.

As we approach the SALT II talks with the Soviets we should keep in mind
that Russian is an even more complex language than Spanish. Besides, the Soviets
don't keep their word even when they understand the meaning. 

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>03/13/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-54]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>