191


level Suez Canal. Furthermore, Panama is a very small country -with a population about the size of Atlanta, Ga., that is 1.7 million. She is led by a military dictator with Marxist leanings," Admiral Moorer says. In fact he goes on to say, "political opponents have been exiled. Until recently all political activity has been outlawed. The press is controlled. The country is heavily in debt, and spending 40 percent of its income carrying its debt. Panama has no heavy industry worth the name and is woefully lacking in management skills as evidenced by the fact that several large-scale construction projects attempted recently have f ailed. It is very doubtful whether Panama will acquire the capability to maintain and efficiently operate an industrial complex the size of the Panama Canal, even long after the year 2000."
 On Panama's ability to defend the canal, the Admiral stated: "One must consider the contribution of the Panamanian Armed Forces in the defense of the canal. What will happen when the United States leaves in the year 2000 under the terms of these proposed treaties? How long before the canal falls in unfriendly hands? 'With the second smallest population in Latin America, Panama's army consists of nothing more than 1,500 light infantry with no modern equipment. In addition, there are about 6,000 of the Guardia Nacional who are assigned police duties, including making certain that Torrijos remains in power through removal of political opponents. It is apparent that some of the Guardia Nacional, such as Colonel Noriega, the Director of Intelligence. are hostile to the United States **~ In any event, Panama's capability to defend the canal is practically nil."
 William P. Clements, Jr., former Deputy Secretary of Defense, testified in opposition to the treaties. He stated the treaties "Were far too complex," deploring the "multiplicity of instruments" and the "ambigulous") clauses. He favored a "complete overhaul" of the treaties and focused his opposition on three points-defense, economic considerations, and U.S. rights to build a new sea-level canal.
 With regards to defense aspets, Secretary Clements found the security clause of the treaties "totally unacceptable." He revealed that in 1975 at the request of President Ford he went to Panama with Joint Chief s' Chairman George Brown and negotiated with General Torrij os a security clause which was later agreed to by all U.S. parties, inluding the State Department and the National Security Council. Secretary Clements testified that Torrijos also approved this clause and it "was included in the then existing draft of the treaty" and remained intact "in the treaty as proposed until sometime after January 20, 1977." The agreement, as reported by Secretary Clements and printed in the coinlmittee record, -was as follows:
 In the event of any threat to the neutrality or security of the canal the Parties shall consult concerning joint and individual efforts, to secure respect for the canal's neutrality and security through the diplomacy, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or other peaceful means. If such efforts would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, each party shall take such other diplomatic, economic or military measures as it deems necessary in accordance with its constitutional process.
 In other words, what Secretary Clements was saying is that they had worked out a neutrality agreement that better protected American secuirity, that was agreed to by the Panamanians in 1975, and written into the body of the earlier treaty. This original language is far superior