March 8, 1978
Page 6024
Mr. MUSKIE. The status of the canal in the event of U.S. involvement in hostilities has been pretty well established in two World Wars, and, in a sense, in the Korean and Vietnam wars as well.
The whole purpose of this provision of the treaty is to insure that the canal, itself, shall not become the object of reprisal. If it comes to be regarded in time of war involving the United States against belligerents as a U.S. military instrument, it then becomes subject to the threat of attack. The same would be true in the event Panama should become involved in a war. It would be regarded as using the canal as her instrument in that war against her enemy.
Panama's neutrality and security is best assured if it is made clear in these treaties that neither Panama nor the United States will use the canal against their enemies in time of war. There is no better way to protect the security of the canal. The fact is, of course, that in World War I and World War II, the canal retained this open, neutral status and no hostile nation sought to use the privilege granted to them under the neutrality concept. Germany did not presume to seek to use the canal to transit her combat vessels or to transit her support vessels because she understood that, as her vessels neared the approaches to the canal, they would be then subject to interception on the high seas by U.S. naval powers or by the allied naval power.
So there is no need to protect the canal and its use by the means suggested by the Senator from Alabama because, as a practical matter, out of the experience of two World Wars, we know that enemies hostile to us in time of war would not seek to use the canal.
The importance of this language is to avoid giving potential hostile nations an excuse to attack the canal itself, a legitimate excuse to attack the canal itself, as an instrument of U.S. war policy against U.S. enemies. I think that concept is very clear and it is very plain. I think it is very simple. It has worked in two World Wars with such effect that hostile nations have not sought to use the canal, notwithstanding the fact that the neutrality status of the canal gave them that option; and, secondly, the canal itself has not been threatened in either World War because it was protected by the concept of neutrality.
With that record of experience to support this provision in the treaty, it makes absolutely no sense to me to amend it out. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Allen amendment.