76-19-A2

- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1977

<< Previous Broadcast

Next Broadcast >>

Panama Canal I

Transcript While we are told the Joint Chiefs of Staff support the giving up of the Panama Canal, not enough attention is paid to those men who have led our military in the past who take a contrary view. The Chiefs are bound by the military code to support the policy of the Commander-in-Chief, the President. Those who have retired from the service are not so bound and we should hear their views on what giving up the Canal would mean to our national security. Four great names in modern naval history, all former Chiefs of Navy Operations, Admirals Carney, Anderson, Burke and Moorer wrote the President expressing their opposition to the proposed treaty. They wrote, "As former chiefs of Naval Operations, fleet commanders and Naval advisers to previous presidents, we believe we have an obligation to you and the nation to offer our combined judgement on the strategic value of the Panama Canal to the United States. "Contrary to what we've read about the declining strategic and economic value of the Canal, the truth is that this interoceanic waterway is as important, if not more so, to the U.S. than ever." Citing their own experiences through four wars and the part played by the Canal in those wars, they said, "As Commander in Chief, you will find the ownership and sovereign control of the Canal indispensable during periods of tension and conflict." They added a line every American should think about; "Loss of the Panama Canal which would be a serious setback in war, would contribute to the encirclement of the U.S. by hostile naval forces, and threaten our ability to survive." In closing their letter, they reemphasized the importance of the Canal to our security and then said, "It is our considered individual and combined judgement that you should instruct our negotiators to retain full sovereign control for the U. S. over both the Panama Canal and its protective frame, the U.S. Canal Zone as provided in the existing treaty." Of course, such instructions were not given and the negotiated settlement calls for giving up our rights of sovereignty. This letter was written on June 6th. On July 22nd, Admiral Moorer testified before the subcommittee on the Separation of Powers of the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee. As testament to his qualification, he went from commander of the 7th fleet in the western Pacific during the Vietnam war to Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific, then to Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is easy to believe him, thinking back on the 12 years between 1962 and 1974 when he said, "I saw this strategic waterway from many vantage points and under stressful circumstances." Admiral Moorer told the Senators that, as Commander of the Atlantic in 1965-67, when the war in Vietnam was still expanding, he looked to the Canal not only as a means of sending support to the Pacific command but in the perspective of t he possible need to reverse the flow. There was a possibility of the Middle East situation deteriorating, as well as potential trouble closer to home in the Caribbean. He said, "The Canal made it possible to pre-position certain types and tonnages, but always with the knowledge that the balance could be shifted to meet unforseen situations". And, he credited the Canal with providing the flexibility to do that. Believing you should have the benefit of testimony by the admiral and other military experts, I'm going to carry on with this in the next broadcast. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.		Details Batch Number 76-19-A2 Production Date 09/06/1977 Book/Page RihoH-201 Audio Youtube? No
		Added Notes