104


that both parties recognize the canal's neutrality. Nowhere is the United States granted permission to determine that the neutrality of the canal is endangered or has been violated, and nowhere is the United States granted the right to intervene in Panama to insure that the canal is not made available to an enemy nation while being denied to our Navy and merchant ships. The leadership amendments have done nothing to improve the situation nor have any of these meaningless and useless reservations.
 The so-called right of expeditious transit given to U.S. warships is totally meaningless even with the leadership amendment.
 The f ailure of our negotiators to insist on clear rights of privileg-ed passage for U.S. war vessels in all circumstances could permit Panama to delay the movement of U.S. warships at any time by simply requiring those vessels to transit the isthmus on the same "expeditious" basis as merchant ships of all nations. Since Panama will decide -what constitutes an emergency the right to go to the head of the line means nothing.
 As Dr. IRomulo Escobar Bethancourt, chief negotiator for Panama, put the matter:
 If the gringos with their warships say, "I want to go through first," then that is their problem with the other ships there.
 Regrettably, Mr. President, Dr. Escobar's analysis of the practical meaning of our right to expeditious passage, although stated undiplomatically, is nevertheless precisely correct. 1-is idea of an emergency is going to be different from ours. His complete rejection of any claim~ that the United States is given the right to send troops to preserve canal neutrality is also going to accord accurately -with the language in the text. In fact, the truth is, Mr. President, that Dr. Escobars construction of the neutrality treaty, unlike the construction placed on it by our own executive department, is a construction based on the language of the treaty itself rather than on wishful thinking or on the misleading assertions of the mass media. Again, the leadership amendments are not enough and have done nothing of value.
 Although much has been said in the media about correcting by these leadership amendments the problems of priority transit and the right of intervention and even though I myself was a cosponsor of these amendments, let us be honest, with the people-no amount of band-aid amendments are going to correct the basic faults embodied in 'any plan which gives control of the canal to Panama at any time. No amount of words in no amount of amendments, no matter how carefully drafted, could ever provide to us the same needed guaranties as are provided by actual possession. Regardless -of what these treaties might eventually say on keeping the canl open or on maintaininga regime of neutrality-whatever that might mean-if we give up physical control, this country will still, sooner or l ater, find itself at the mercy of some petty dictator who decides, probably with the backing of the Soviet Union, to cause difficulties for the United States in using' this vital strategic waterway.
 Our actions in Panama are sadly reminiscent of the mistaken British policies in surrendering the'Suez Canal. Ironically, only 4 months ago, a British nuclear submarine was diverted f rom the Suez Canal on some pretense or other regarding safety regulations and was di-.