§ 14. Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government's representative abstained on the recent vote at the Security Council on the question on United States sovereignty over the Panama Canal.
§ Mr. AmeryHer Majesty's Government take the view that this is essentially a bilateral issue between Panama and the USA. We considered that it would not help towards the success of further bilateral negotiations for the Security Council to pass a resolution which was unacceptable to one of the parties concerned.
I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the statement by the United Kingdom representative on 22nd of March explaining his vote.
§ Mr. ReedBearing in mind that the canal is an important international seaway, I do not understand how the Government can make sovereignty a bilateral issue. If the American Government were to relinquish their sovereignty over the canal, would the Government favour the canal zone being brought under international rather than national control?
§ Mr. AmeryThat is a hypothetical question. We attach great importance to the canal. There are about 14,000 transits of the canal in a year, and British shipping constitutes a significant proportion. We are, therefore, interested that the canal should function efficiently and economically without interference to international shipping. We would be glad to accept any régime for the canal which was agreed by the two parties concerned.
§ Mr. LeonardBearing in mind Britain's unhappy experience of trying to prolong sovereignty over the Suez Canal long after it was unacceptable to international opinion, does the Minister realise that it is not an act of friendship to the United States to encourage it to maintain sovereignty over this area when that can no longer be justified in the modern world?
§ Mr. AmeryI think that the present situation in the Suez Canal might cast doubt on the historical analogy which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
§ Following is the information:
§ TEXT OF SIR COLIN CROWE'S EXPLANATION OF HIS VOTE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE PANAMA CANAL IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT PANAMA CITY ON 22ND MARCH 1973.
§ "As I said in my statement yesterday and as several other representatives have also said in their statements, my delegation regards this question as essentially a bilateral issue between the parties concerned. If it had been possible to arrive at a formulation which took account of the concerns of both parties I believe that the adoption of a resolution by the Security Council at the end of its meeting in Panama might have been helpful in improving the atmosphere for further negotiations. It is a matter of profound regret that efforts to find such a formulation have been unsuccessful. In this sort of situation, for any resolution to be useful it must be at least generally acceptable to both parties to whom it is addressed. If, as in the present case, it is unacceptable to one of the two parties, a resolution does not serve any useful purpose. My delegation accordingly abstained."