This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PANAMA 000651 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
 
DEPT. FOR WHA/CEN/BRIGHAM AND USOAS/SNEFF 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR PM POLITICS FOREIGN POLICY
SUBJECT: MORE SECRETS, A DEBATE, AND ANOTHER POLL SHOWS 
TORRIJOS WITH A BIG LEAD. PANAMA ELECTION COUNTDOWN #7: 6 
WEEKS TO GO 
 
 
REF: A. PANAMA 0613 
     ¶B. PANAMA 0564 
     ¶C. PANAMA 0301 
 
 
SUMMARY/COMMENT: REMARKABLY UNREMARKABLE 
---------------------------------------- 
¶1. (SBU) Local press meticulously covered former President 
Ernesto Perez Balladares' unexpected disclosure of 
discretionary expenditures during his presidency (1994-99), 
tied to the ongoing battle between Electoral Prosecutor 
Gerardo Solis and President Moscoso. (Reftels A & B).  A 
March 16 presidential debate focused on the four candidates' 
plans to address unemployment, corruption, the administration 
of justice, and Panama's ailing Social Security Fund, but 
broke no new ground.  Diplomatic community representatives 
are skeptical about OAS election observation plans, citing 
Panamanians' ambivalence about the election and solid track 
record for peaceful balloting.   Finally, La Prensa published 
an opinion poll on March 15 showing Martin Torrijos (PRD) 
still far ahead with 47%, followed by Guillermo Endara 
(Solidarity) at 29.5%, Jose Miguel Aleman (PA) creeping up 
and staying out of single digits at 13%, and Ricardo 
Martinelli at 7.5%.  According to PolOffs' discussions with a 
wide range of Panamanians and diplomats, neither group 
believes that the candidates have addressed the country's 
most pressing problems in a serious way.  In a country where 
politics is a national sport, none of the candidates has 
touched a cord among the electorate. End Summary/Comment. 
 
 
ANOTHER INSTALLMENT OF THE NUMBERS GAME 
--------------------------------------- 
¶2. (SBU) Panamanians do not appear to be avidly following the 
ongoing electoral campaign.  On March 15, La Prensa published 
an opinion poll showing Martin Torrijos (PRD) at 47%, 
Guillermo Endara (Solidarity) at 29.5%, Jose Miguel Aleman 
(PA) at 13%, and Ricardo Martinelli at 7.5%.  Respondents are 
not aware either of the professional background or 
vice-presidential running mates of the presidential candidate 
for whom they plan to vote.  Endara's background was "best" 
known, but 59.2% of respondents who stated they intend to 
vote for him were unable to identify what he studied in the 
University.  The figures were grimmer for Aleman (77%), 
Martinelli (75.6%), and Torrijos (74.7%).  Corresponding 
figures for those unable to name the running mates of the 
candidate for whom they intend to vote were: Torrijos 
(56.9%), Endara (59.6), Aleman (71.8%) and Martinelli 
(83.3%).  In the unfavorable category, Aleman continues as 
the candidate for whom the most Panamanians say they would 
definitely not vote, with 39.5% of respondents dismissing his 
candidacy. 
 
 
I SHOWED YOU MY CARDS. WHAT ABOUT YOURS? 
---------------------------------------- 
¶3. (SBU) Former President Ernesto Perez Balladares (EPB) 
jumped into the press circus over President Moscoso's refusal 
to reveal discretionary expenditures to Electoral Prosecutor 
Gerardo Solis.  EPB's records of discretionary expenditures 
during his Presidency appeared on the front page of the El 
Panama America newspaper March 16.  The March 17 El Panama 
America detailed EPB's expenditures, including payments to 
former President and current Solidarity Party Candidate 
Guillermo Endara.  Embassy will research those payments and 
report any substantive findings septel.  Noting correctly 
that EPB had not provided complete records, an angry Moscoso 
sarcastically told a television reporter that she would 
gladly do the same, but only five years after leaving office. 
 Ironically, before EPB appointed him as Electoral 
Prosecutor, Gerardo Solis was involved in managing the 
Presidency's discretionary funds. 
 
 
SLOPPY DEBATE MANAGEMENT 
------------------------ 
¶4. (SBU) A consortium of print and television media 
collaborated with the Panamanian Foundation for Ethics and 
Civism to produce and broadcast the second of three debates 
between Panama's four presidential candidates.  A panel of 
four print and television journalists sitting at a small 
conference table queried the candidates on what they would do 
to address unemployment, corruption, the administration of 
justice, and Panama's ailing Social Security Fund. 
Unfortunately, debate moderator Father Manuel Santiago 
Blanquer failed to control the interaction, allowing 
candidates' outbursts to become mini-monologues.  Nor did 
Blanquer accurately monitor the 90-second time allotment for 
each candidate, erring most often in Martin Torrijos' favor 
and twice interrupting Jose Miguel Aleman when he was 
entitled to more time. 
 
 
MORE SLAMS THAN PROPOSALS 
------------------------- 
¶5. (SBU) Candidates failed to offer concrete proposals about 
what they would do if elected, offering only vague promises 
about how they would reduce unemployment, the most common 
concern among Panamanians.  All four candidates agreed that 
developing the tourism sector would help combat unemployment. 
 While Martinelli recommended reforming the Labor Code, thus 
spurring micro-entrepreneurs to hire new employees, Aleman 
said the key was education, Torrijos focused on training, and 
Endara insisted on reducing corruption to attract 
job-creating foreign investment.  All four candidates waffled 
in response to a follow-up question on whom they would fire 
when they took office, stating only that they would get rid 
of inefficient or unnecessary staff. 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) When the topic switched to means for ensuring the 
judicial branch's integrity and a fair administration of 
justice, Aleman attacked Endara for not reforming the 
constitution during his presidency (1989-94).  Endara 
rejected the claim, pointing out he only respected popular 
will when Panama's voters rejected his constitutional reform 
proposal in a 1992 referendum.   The four candidates all said 
that no one should be above the law and Martinelli brashly 
stated that justice can be bought in Panama.  Torrijos' 
response to both the initial and follow-up questions was to 
criticize the manner in which President Moscoso selected 
Supreme Court Magistrates loyal to her, implying that they 
were obedient to her thereafter.  On previous occasions, all 
four candidates have advocated reforms to de-politicize the 
selection process for Supreme Court Justices.  (NOTE: A 
subsequent poll claimed that Torrijos had "won" the debate, 
although the statistics suggested that opinions broke down 
according to party preferences.  END NOTE.) 
 
 
LOOK AT ME! I'M THE MOST TRANSPARENT 
------------------------------------ 
¶7. (SBU) Having announced his plans during the March 16 
debate, Aleman presented a sworn declaration of his assets to 
the Ombudsman's office on March 18.  Jose Miguel Aleman's 
challenge to his opponents to do the same serves three 
purposes.  First, Aleman's move helps him question the wealth 
of campaign front-runner Martin Torrijos of the Revolutionary 
Democratic Party (PRD).  Second, due to the PRD's alliance 
with the Partido Popular (PP), the declaration is a jab at 
Ombudsman Juan A. Tejada and several of his chief 
lieutenants, all former PP activists, in retaliation for 
their persistent complaints about President Moscoso's lack of 
transparency.  Finally, being more transparent than Moscoso 
is part of Aleman's thus far unsuccessful effort to distance 
himself from her, so Torrijos can no longer accuse him of 
"hiding behind her skirt" as he did during the debate. 
(NOTE: Presidents and cabinet-level Panamanian officials must 
submit such a statement to the Comptroller General upon entry 
and departure from office, but the requirement does not 
extend to candidates. END NOTE.) 
 
 
¶8. (SBU) CD candidate Ricardo Martinelli lists his campaign 
contributors on his website, a pledge he made when he began 
campaigning.  While trying to prove his credibility as 
someone who would fight corruption from the Presidency, 
Martinelli stated during the March 16 debate that corruption 
starts with campaign donors expecting something in exchange 
for their contribution.  Although both other opposition 
candidates have approached the Embassy regarding questionable 
campaign donors, only Martinelli has published a list on the 
internet.  Critics would say that Martinelli has nothing to 
lose by publishing his list of donors as he has little chance 
of winning Panama's May 2 election.  Nonetheless, while not 
enough to put him over the top, Panamanians welcome 
Martinelli's transparency when it comes to campaign 
donations.  Martinelli was also the first candidate to 
formally present an anti-corruption plan to Panama's chapter 
of Transparency International, which Aleman did this week. 
 
 
WHY WOULD OAS OBSERVE PANAMA'S ELECTION? 
---------------------------------------- 
¶9. (SBU) Several diplomatic missions to Panama share this 
Embassy's skepticism about the need for external OAS election 
observers, expecting a free and clean vote.  OAS' Panama 
office contacted foreign diplomatic missions in Panama, as 
well as local IDB and UNDP  offices during the week of March 
8 on behalf of the OAS Unit for the Promotion of Democracy 
(UPD) to request funds (reftel A) and convoke a March 17 
coordination meeting.  UPD proposed a $130K budget for a 
short-term observation mission consisting of 8 OAS experts 
(elections, IT, training, etc.) and 12 foreign observers. 
UPD representatives at the meeting explained that their 
proposed mission would fit a new model, that of extracting 
helpful lessons from Panama's electoral process to apply 
elsewhere.  The breadth and scope of the mission will depend 
on the sum of contributions.  So far, Brazil has contributed 
the only funds in the pot, $10,000. 
 
 
¶10. (SBU) Representatives of several diplomatic missions, 
including Mexico, Japan, and Argentina, all noted that they 
would prefer to observe Panama's elections at the invitation 
of the Electoral Tribunal rather than as part of an official 
OAS delegation.  Diplomatic representatives present at the 
March 17 meeting were not concerned about any 
election-related problems arising in Panama.  For instance, 
though not present at the meeting, the British First 
Secretary for Political Affairs will be on vacation during 
 
SIPDIS 
the elections.  Officials from the Japanese Embassy contacted 
our Pol Counselor after the meeting to inquire about the 
USG's position on the election, including funding external 
observers.  Pol Counselor responded that Embassy is confident 
that the electoral process will continue without major 
hiccups and it is unlikely that the USG would fund an OAS 
observer mission. 
 
 
¶11. (SBU) Embassy will not join the OAS official observer 
delegation, but plans to send some 26 mission members to 
observe the elections.  We plan to coordinate geographic 
coverage with OAS and other diplomatic missions via an e-mail 
usergroup, checking in with the OAS control center 
periodically on election day for any breaking news.  This 
approach appears to mesh with the plans of other diplomatic 
missions with smaller presences in Panama, whose work as 
observers will be primarily a vote of confidence in the 
Panamanian system.  Furthermore, none of the diplomatic 
representatives at the March 17 meeting welcomed the OAS 
suggestion that Embassies should encourage their citizens 
residing in Panama to observe the May 2 elections.  Between 
the Ombudsman's Office (300) and the Catholic Church's Peace 
and Justice Commission (1200), approximately 1,500 
Panamanians will also volunteer to observe Panama's 
elections, which we believe is adequate coverage. 
 
 
WATT