'20 7


ployment to the Panamanians. We established separate wage scales for Americans and non-U.S. citizens, reserving -the best-paying jobs for our countr-ymen.
 In the 1936 treaty, we pledged to work toward greater employment equality for Panamanians, yet legislation was passed reserving all high-paying canal jobs for U.S. citizens.
 Following World War 1I, the War Department's two-tier hiring practice became official U.S. policy. Thus, we established and mainitained a system which was both separate and unequal.
 In the 1955 treaty, we agreed to increase the number of Panamanians permitted to help operate the canal and to raise our annual paymnent to Panama to $1.9 million. If that sounds like generosity on our part, in real dollars, the new payment amounted to no more than the $250,000 payment adjusted for inflation. This "largesse," incidentally, occurred only a year before the United States prevented England f rom intervening to protect what it felt were its rights to the Suez Canal.
 Over the past 75 years, Mr. President, we have paid Panama about $70 million or, on the average, less than $1 million per year for the use of these resources. During this time, our relations with Panama have been a festering sore. Never have we treated this nation as a sovereigni entity, as an equal partner in a cooperative enterprise.
 We often intervened in internal Panamanian affairs, shaping policies and even fomenting changes in government.
 In short, Mr. President, we acted as if we owned the place.
 That attitude is what has most rankled the Panamanians.
 The record shows that the people of Panama remain second-class citizens in their own country-a country where virtually every important political and economic development for most of this century has been influenced by someone else, usually the United States.
 Clearly, in fairness to the people of Panama, a new arrangement is long overdue.
 But Mr. President, what about fairness to ourselves?
 I have always believed that Americans are fundamentally fair minded. We want our foreign policy to reflect our beliefs and our ideals as well as our interests.
 But, the current arrangements not only pose a direct challenge to our ideals, they are inconsistent with our long-range political, economic, and military needs.
 The Republic of Panama is engaged in a struggle to respond to the legitimate needs and concerns of its people. The question the Panamanians are asking us is, will we continue to stand in their way?
 They and other nations of the Third World are waiting to see if we will be responsive to their aspirations-or if our promises are good only when we need their help.
 Perceptions of acceptable behavior by and among nations have changed dramatically since the beginning of the century.
 In 1903, the industralized world was very much caught up in a colonialist fever. If such attitudes did not entirely justify our cavalier treatment of Panama, they certainly made it more acceptable in the eyes of the major powers.
 Anticolonialism is now the order of the day. Over the past 30 years,
-we have encouraged many major allies to respond to the growing