President Demetrio Lakas Subject: PANAMA AND THE U.S.

THE U.S. The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies) for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this material. Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additional reprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rights are reserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. Guest: President Demetrio Lakas Subject: PANAMA AND THE U.S. SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

SECA PRESENTS FI I G Ine Host: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR. Guest: President Demetrio Lakas Subject: PANAMA AND THE U.S. The FIRING LINE television series is a production of the Southern Educational Communications Association, 928 Woodrow St., P.O. Box 5966, Columbia, S.C., 29250 and is transmitted through the facilities of the Public Broadcasting Service. Production of these programs is made possible through a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FIRING LINE can be seen and heard each week through public television and radio stations throughout the country. Check your local newspapers for channel and time in your area. FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL This is a transcript of the FIRING LINE program taped in Panama on September 30, 1976 and originally telecast on PBS on October 15, 1976 SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

@1976 SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION MR. BUCKLEY: This is William F. Buckley, Jr. We are at the Panama Canal, at the Pacific entrance to it. You can see behind me a Greek bulk carrier. It is part of the traffic that runs through the canal, and has since it wa~ completed in 1914. As we know now, in the second of these programs, there is a cons fderab1e controversy havi ng to do with the future of the canal and the question of who will administer its future. The guest today will be the President of the Republic, Mr. Lakas, who will be on in just a few seconds. Thank you. * * * In 1968 General Omar Torrijos took power here in Panama, but he was satisfied to name himself Chief of Government, which he remains today. In 1969 he appointed as Chief of State, Demetrio Basilio Lakas. President Lakas, under the new constitution, was elected in 1972 to a six-year term, and he remains therefore President of the Republic of Panama until 1978. President Lakas is a Panamanian of Greek descent, who went to Texas to college. There at several universities, among them Texas TechnQlogical Institute, he became an engineer and an architect, returning in due course to "Panama to practice his profession. He vows that one day he will return to engineering and architecture; meanwhile, he is Chief of State of Panama during the most exciting period of its recent history when the renegotiation of the famous treaty of 1903, signed with the United States, is in prospect. His special skills and his knowledge of America are a considerable national resource. I should like to begin by asking President Lakas whether he would anticipate,in the event of American disengagement,some kind of a defense treaty with the United States. MR. LAKAS: First of all, thank you for all of those nice things you said, and I first of all want to thank the American people for being nice and letting me go into their living rooms through this television set and be able to expose part of my ideas, the way I see things, whether they are right or wrong. They'll be the judges, but at least the way I see them. I would appreciate it very much, Mr. Buckley, if you would repeat the question. MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, sir. I was wondering whether you anticipate, in the event that an abrogation of the 1903 treatment is completed, whether there would be a defense treaty of some sort between your country and mine. MR. LAKAS: Things are so hard today, and the way things are shaping, we look like we ought to have a treaty in a very brief time. The United States has named a good team of men, and we have done the best we can in choosing the people we have for participating in a million and a half citizens in order to get there and work out a treaty that would be equitable to both countries. And it wouldn't work if it's balanced one way or the other. I am sure that, as well as myself, everybody else would this moment avoid trying to predict what will happen after the treaty. But it stands to common sense that in the treaty there would be a subject talked about and conversed, before any kind of a treaty is signed. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, let me ask you this, Mr. President. It is, as you know, increasingly an American suspicion that explicit acts of friendship between Latin American countries and the United States are somehow unfashionable, that the public rhetoric in Latin America requires a certain anti-yankee flavor. Now, would it be considered by other Latin American countries as somehow undignified for Panama to restore a defense treaty, having got rid of it during the revisions of the 1930's? MR. LAKAS: That is a really long question, Mr. Buckley, but I'll try to see if I can remember everything and try to cover it all for you. Let's start first about Latin Americans disliking the United States. Couldn'ot this just be an attitude brought up by people who are not friends-~ MR. BUCKLEY: I think that's true, yes. MR. LAKAS: -~of the Latin Americans and of the United States, that have Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

friendship with Castro, admiration, and so on. MR. LAKAS; Have you seen them? MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I've seen reports of them. I didn't observe them personally. MR. LAKAS: Did you see Omar? Did you get to talk to the General? MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. MR. LAKAS: Did you ask him? What did he say? MR. BUCKLEY: Well, what he said was a lot of things. I think some of them were Aesopian, communicating at several levels. But somewhere along the line he said that "the enemy of my enemy is necessarily my friend." MR. LAKAS: That's what he said? MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. MR. LAKAS: He went real deep, didn't he? (laughter) t1r. BUCKLEY: Well, I think what he meant, what he, as I understood him-- He spoke very rapidly, and I'm not sure that I got it all, but he said in effect that the Panamanian government wanted to have relations with all peoples of different governments, and to the extent that it was necessary in order toarouse the attention of the United States to remind the United States of alternative policies, that demonstration should be made. MR. LAKAS: What do you say? MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I say that these things tend to work as power politics, but often people who engage in those activities get gobbled up. Is that a concern of yours? MR. LAKAS: I'm asking you. (laughter) MR. BUCKLEY: I don't want to express myself on matters of internal Panamanian policy. You've had enough interference with that. MR. LAKAS: I want you to know clearly that I direct the state, I mean really, even though we all vote in there. The direction is like the administrator admi~istering the state, how our government is run. It's just like taking the sklpper on board. I'm the guy on the wheel; the skipper puts the azimuth and I follow it. And we vote there and then it's just very simple; we head it and we go. We all have our little piece to say when we're there. After that we don't have anymore to say. We all debate, and there really are debates going on there. It's all kinds of thoughts there. Then we take a vote, and that's all there is. MR. BUCKLEY: Do you feel when you take a vote that your political authority extends infinitely? That is to say, do you feel that you have authority, to go back to the analogy we were talking about a moment ago, to take away, let's say, the house that somebody built? MR. LAKAS: Oh, gosh. We're in a civilized country, Mr. Buckley, please. We have our laws we have to abide by. I can hardly deprive anybody of his freedom--before 24 hours after I have to answer his lawyer's "Why?" MR. BUCKLEY: So you would agree, therefore, that Castro's Cuba is not a civilized country? MR. LAKAS: I didn't say that, sir, at all. Don't put that in my mouth. MR. BUCKLEY: But they do believe that the state has the absolute right over anybody's property. MR. LAKAS: They've got the right to think like they want to, sir. All I'm trying to-- MR. BUCKLEY: Well, you said you were a civilized country. MR. LAKAS: You're trying to involve me in another country's problems. Now, please remember I cannot even give my opinion about another country, because I believe in no intervention. MR. BUCKLEY: You believe in what? MR. LAKAS: In not intervening in each other's business. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, that's because you're chief of state, but if you were back 12 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. as an engineer, as an architect, then you would feel free to comment on the policies of Castro. MR. LAKAS: On anything, sure. Because I am then liable for what I say, and not my country. MR. BUCKLEY: Right. Well, I certainly don't want to embarrass you. MR. LAKAS: Please, help me on that respect. MR. BUCKLEY: I understand that. Let me, since we only have five minutes left, attempt a summary. You believe that the relations between the United States and the Panamanians are extremely good, notwithstanding an irritant, namely the question of the canal. You believe that the question of the canal can be resolved for the benefit, as you put it, "for the good of the people of both countries," but YOI,J're not yet willing to specify what the legitimate concerns of the Americans are in respect of that reconciliation. MR. LAKAS: How would I know? Do you mean the Panamanians? How would I know what is the concern of the Americans? They have to put it on the table. Or am I misunderstanding your question? MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I don't think you have to be an American to define what you consider to be a legitimate American aspiration. For instance, you can certainly begin negatively and say it would be an illegitimate American am~ bition to attempt to, let's say.. dominate the economy of Panama. That would be illegitimate, right? On the other hand it would be legitimate for the United States to concern itself with, let's say, equal access to the canal at freight rates that aren't discriminatory. That would be legitimate, wouldn't it? MR. LAKAS: Well, I'll tell you what. We're right now at the negotiating table. I couldn't at all sit here right now and say what and what not they're going to be negotiating at the table. Everybody starts out asking for a thousand, probably ends up getting five hundred. MR. BUCKLEY: Ah-hah. So we can cut your demands in half? MR. LAKAS: I beg your pardon. MR. BUCKLEY: We can cut your demands in half? MR. LAKAS: Or them all, if you wish. It's your priority. MR. BUCKLEY: In other words, you feel that even to enunciate, however broadly, the legitimate concerns of the United States might be giving away something that would embarrass the negotiators? MR. LAKAS: Sir, the main point is this: We want our country united again. Can we have that? It's our land. We never gave it away. You saw that thing I showed you where it says, "1904--" An American lawyer saia it. I don't want to repeat his words, but we're neighbors. Please don't drive me into saying anything. We're just trying to be, we know we're going to be, treated fair. We've got to be treated fair, but the American people won't know enough about this and that's why I appreciate your asking me over, so maybe they can hear and judge from what I'm saying. I don't want to switch things over to my side or the other side. I want to be objective on what's here and the problem we've got. But I can't think for an instant that we're not intelligent people to sit down at a negotiating table, which is a problem that concerns our two countries. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, but intelligent people sitting down at a table can both want the other person's part of the pie, right? The fact that they are intelligent does not mean that they will resolve their differences. There are a lot of intelligent Communists, but the fact of the matter is that they are building, at the rate of $150 billion a year, a war machine for purposes that are probably unpleasant. MR. LAKAS: You said they're intelligent? MR. BUCKLEY: Sure, they're intelligent. A lot of them are intelligent. They may be immoral, but they're certainly intelligent. I mean Trotski was a lot brighter than Carter or Ford. On the other hand Carter and Ford are much better human beings than Trotski, so I think it's wrong to assume that 1:;

morality-- MR. LAKAS: I I d better be qui et. I'd better be qui et. MR. BUCKLEY: --and intelligence are coextensive. You have to have good will. MR. LAKAS; You see, you're an intelligent man. Y04 have your own opinions. MR. BUCKLEY; Well, you've got to have good will, don't you? MR. LAKAS: Yes, si r. I've got good wi 11. I'm 1i stening to you. (1 aughter) MR. BUCKLEY: I hope it's not straining your good will. MR. LAKAS: No, no. I'm just listening. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, the instructions that you would give to your negotiators are what, to get as much as they can? MR. LAKAS: Look, in negotiation everything is discussed, like I said, intelligently. And there are some things that can be negotiated, and there are other things that cannot be negotiated. We are not willing to negotiate our pride, our families, our kids, our land. We're not g01ng to negotiate this. Please, I can't say anything else. People are not expected~- I mean it's the great country, it's the big boy who usually gives the little one a break. _ Does the big man always go about bashing the little kid's head in and taking candy away from him? They don't do that, I don't think. It's just exactly those big countries that realize. Especially in the United States there have. been freedom fighting people that really don't believe in colonies. They've fought for other latitudes to be free and to give the people their land. Why would they want in the United States to have the land of Panama, and disjoin the country who's a friendly country, who's in the same hemisphere, who's their friend, right? I mean it doesn't sound right, does it? MR. BUCKLEY: Well, every two or three years the United States gives Panama more money than the real estate value of the land, so it's obviously not the 1and they want. MR. LAKAS: See, this is what's wrong. MR. BUCKLEY: Is it? MR. LAKAS: We don't seem to commune. You see, there you go again. The United States gives money, money, money. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, it's helped. Money has helped. MR. LAKAS: I'm talking about dignity, about the right of my kid to be free, about the right for me to take my car and take my kids without being pushed around, is that right? Is that understood? You can't understand that. You can't because you don't have to do it, but if you had to drive from morning to afternoon through a different country in your own country, then you would realize what it is. I'm glad you don't have to do this. Honest to goodness, Mr. Buckley, I'm glad you don't have to do it. MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. President. You've stated your position very well, and certainly your feelings very eloquently. MR. LAKAS: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. r 1R. BUCKLEY: Thanks very much. Thank you, 1adi es and gentl emen. MR. LAKAS: Thank you. 14 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.