94


the Ministers of Defense and the high level military people" of the 17 Latin American member countries-other than Panama and the United States- of the Inter-American Defense Board, these leaders "gall expressed a grave concern about the treaties." He stated further that allI these countries ''expressed reservations about the fact that the United States will no longer be in Panama..."
 To me that is highly significant. Highly significant. I do not know of any individual who is in a better position to judge the attitude and the thinking of the leaders of the 17 Latin American countries who are members of the Inter-American Defense Board than the chairman of that board, Lt. Gen. Gordon Sumner.
 I wanted to emphasize again to the Senate that the chairman of the Inter-American Defense Board told the Armed Services Committee that in his discussions with the Presidents, the Minister-, of Defense and the high-level military people of 17 Latin American countries they all expressed a grave co ncern about the treaties.
 Also, former Ambassador Robert Hill, who has had extensive diplomatic experience in Latin America and who has recently completed an extensive trip to much of Latin America, sent -word to the Armed Services Committee he experienced similar sentiments concerning the treaties among the leaders of Latin America.
 It is significant, Mr. President, that Mr. Hill has served as Ambassador to Mexico, Ambassador to Argentina, Ambassador to Costa Rica, Ambassador to El Salvador, and Ambassador to Spain.
 Obviously, he is a man who knows Latin America intimately.
 Let e sy agin:I am not opposed to any and all chagsilh
existing treaty rltonship between Panama and the United States.
 In fact, I believe some changes are desirable and -would welcome a renegotiation of the proposed new treaties.
 I recall that during his campaign for the Presidency, candidate Carter declared that he would "never give up complete control or practical control of the Panama Canal Zone."
 I -want to say for the Record that I agree with candidate Carter:, but now, of course, candidate Carter, who is President Carter, is at the center of the Washington atmosphere.
 From the very beginning of the discussion of the Panama Canal issue, the atmosphere in Washin~on-largely created by the State Department-has been one favoring surrender of operational control of the Canal.
 That is a Washington way of thinking. It permeates our relationship with other Countries. The dominant idea in this Washington way of thinking is this: If any nation is unhappy, and its leaders makea lot of noise, give them something.
 This kind of thinking has resulted in the giveaway of billions of dollars in foreign aid since World War Il-and has left us with fewer frimids ,lbrcnd than we had 30 years ago.
 Now the Washington thinkers propose the giveaway of the Panama Canal. And the President-who had another view when he was out campaigning, close to the people-is urging that the Senate approve tho treaties effecting this new giveaway.
 I think it is important to note that Panama has. received more U.S. aid per capita than any other nation in the world. Still the Panamanian Dictator is not satisfied.