Editing 76-01-A5 (section)

=== Transcript ===
It's been two-and-a-half years since Secretary of State Kissinger signed a memorandum with his Panamanian counterpart declaring our intention to negotiate a new treaty which would have the effect of turning over the Canal and the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama.

Very quietly (until it became a campaign issue last spring), representatives of the two nations negotiated terms of a new treaty to replace the one signed in 1903. Under the original treaty we acquired the rights of sovereignty in the Canal Zone. General Omar Torrijos, the Panamanian dictator, sets early 1977 as the deadline for resolving the matter to his satisfaction. If we don't, he hints that he will no longer be able to control the passions of nationalist "students" and that violence might break out. And, if it isn't students, it might be guerilla bands making sneak sabotage attacks on the Canal.

Since Torrijos governs not by elected mandate of the people but rather by the armed strength of the Panamanian National Guard, it is hard to imagine groups of so-called students rampaging without at least his tacit approval. And, as for guerillas, published intelligence reports indicate there are no such bands operating in Panama. They would have to be invented.

An overwhelming number of Americans (some 75%) in a mid-summer public opinion poll said they didn't want to give up the Panama Canal. Historically, we paid Panama for those rights of sovereignty; then we bought every inch of land in what is now the Canal Zone from private owners in fee simple. Then, we built the Canal at our own expense.

Now comes an ironic twist. Our State Department is helping finance the Panamanian propaganda campaign. This summer two Panamanian journalists were invited to visit the United States, subsidized by the State Department, to "explain" the Panamanian position on U. S. college campuses and to civic groups. Naturally enough, the two journalists, active participants in the propaganda barrage (Camilo Perez, a columnist, and Luis Noli, a newspaper editor) used the free forums to beat the drums for Torrijos' demands.

Noli, in a speech at the Center for Inter-American Relations in New York, said there would be a --QUOTE-- "violent reaction" --UNQUOTE-- in Panama if present negotiations don't succeed and a new treaty isn't ratified by the U. S. Senate. Odd as it may seem, a newsman from a country of fewer than two million people is paid by our government to come to our country to threaten us if we don't roll over.

As if by magic, Senator Dick Clark of Iowa, a few days later, made public an estimate from the Pentagon (which he had requested) indicating that 100,000 U. S. troops would be needed to defend the Canal against an all-out attack.

As if to underscore this scare talk, Torrijos in Panama and even some U. S. officials talk sweepingly about all Latin America standing behind the Torrijos demands. Curiously, though, there has been no public support expressed by the major countries of Latin America for a Torrijos takeover of the Canal. And, privately, visitors to these countries and even to some critical of us find widespread support for continued U. S. control and operation of the Canal.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening. 

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">