VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHZP #0789/01 2801305
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 061305Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY PANAMA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2563
INFO RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 2706
RUEHGT/AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA 0755
RUEHMU/AMEMBASSY MANAGUA 0623
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 3754
RUEHSJ/AMEMBASSY SAN JOSE 1940
RUEHSN/AMEMBASSY SAN SALVADOR 1499
RUEHTG/AMEMBASSY TEGUCIGALPA 0414
RHEFHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RUCNFB/FBI WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RUEABND/DEA WASHDC
RHMFISS/US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PRO WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/DIRJIATF SOUTH
RHMFISS/CDR USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC

C O N F I D E N T I A L PANAMA 000789 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/30/2018 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PM
SUBJECT: PANAMA: SECURITY LAWS CONTINUE TO GENERATE INTENSE 
POLITICAL DEBATE 
 
REF: PANAMA 00725 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Barbara J. Stephenson for reasons 
1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (C)  Over a month after President Martin Torrijos issued 
five decrees that reformed the Panamanian security services 
(see reftel), the security sector reform debate continues to 
occupy newspaper headlines and op-eds. The stage is now set 
for the laws, and the U.S.-Panamanian security relationship, 
to become major campaign issues leading up to the May, 2009 
elections.  The two lines of argument that have now developed 
were on display at a recent debate at the American Chamber of 
Commerce. Ebrahim Asvat, president of Panama City broadsheet 
daily La Estrella, argued that the security laws were an 
attempt to impose a USG dictated militarized anti-drug 
policy, as part of what he called the failed war on drugs. He 
said the reforms aimed to improve Panama's ability to stop 
drug trafficking to the U.S., at the expense of inner-city 
policing needed to address Panama's own crime problem. Jaime 
Abad, a former head of the Judicial Investigative Police 
(PTJ) and a consultant on the reform laws, argued that Panama 
faced a dire security situation due to the threats posed by 
international drug traffickers, and potential international 
terrorists - particularly to "U.S. nuclear armed submarines." 
Separately, the leading group in the campaign against the new 
laws, the Democratic Citizen's Network (RDC), challenged all 
the presidential candidates to sign a pledge to repeal the 
laws, if elected. The three opposition presidential 
candidates - Guillermo Endara, Juan Carlos Varela and Ricardo 
Martinelli - promptly signed the pledge. Balbina Herrera, the 
Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) candidate, refused to 
sign, saying she would only reform one of the laws.   End 
Summary. 
 
---------------------------- 
Laws Continue to Spur Debate 
---------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (C)  Over a month after Panamanian President Martin 
Torrijos issued five executive decrees that reformed the 
Panamanian security forces (reftel), the debate over the laws 
continues to dominate Panamanian politics. Daily, Panama's 
leading newspapers' op-ed pages run pieces attacking the 
laws. These pieces are influential because many radio and 
television commentators share the print media's op-eds with 
their audiences, and then add their commentaries on the 
issues they discuss. Many of these articles focus on the 
perceived U.S. role in sponsoring the laws as part of a 
perceived USG interest in re-militarizing Panama as part of 
the Merida Initiative, while almost nothing is being written 
in favor of the laws. At the same time, supporters and 
opponents of the laws are debating them before influential 
civic groups in an attempt to gain the support of critical 
opinion makers. POLOFF attended one such debate on September 
26 at the American Chamber of Commerce in Panama. Ebrahim 
Asvat argued in favor of repealing the laws, while Jaime Abad 
defended them. Asvat, a lawyer and former Torrijos 
Administration Secretary of Presidential Goals, has taken a 
strong editorial line against the security reforms as 
president of the politically influential daily La Estrella. 
Abad, who was imprisoned and tortured under the Noriega 
regime, is also a lawyer and served as the head of the 
Judicial Investigative Police from 1990 to 1994. He worked 
for the GOP as a consultant on the security laws, and has 
spoken many times in their defense. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
If All You Have Is a Hammer, Then Every Problem is a Nail 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
¶3.  (C)  Asvat told the assembled U.S. business 
representatives that the security reform laws were passed as 
part of an initiative by the GOP to militarize the security 
structures in order to combat international drug trafficking, 
at the behest of the USG. He said the Pentagon had been 
helping regional militaries to improve their training and 
equipment to more effectively fight drug trafficking to the 
U.S., but noted that the Pentagon lacked a natural partner in 
Panama due to the civilian nature of its security structures. 
He said the GOP had passed the security laws to make it 
easier for the Pentagon to work with the new frontier forces 
(SENAFRONT) and the new aero-naval service (SENAN) on 
anti-drug trafficking missions. Asvat said the laws 
undermined civilian control of the security services, which 
were a hard won achievement after 21 years of dictatorship, 
to serve the needs of the U.S. and to confront a drug 
trafficking problem that, while a serious problem, was not 
Panama's biggest security problem. He said Panama's real 
crime problem, growing inner-city violent crime and gang 
activity, had nothing to do with Coast Guards and Frontier 
Forces, and that the creation of these forces would draw 
resources away from the Panamanian National Police (PNP), who 
are responsible for fighting crime in the cities. He insisted 
that the U.S. led war on drugs had been a total failure, and 
that Panama should not risk its democracy or its security 
following the U.S. into a dead end. He called for a law 
enforcement strategy based more on prevention and social work 
than on "repression." 
 
-------------------------------------- 
We Have Plenty of Nails, and No Hammer 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (C)  Abad challenged Asvat's argument that drug 
trafficking was not Panama's main crime problem. Using slides 
obtained from SouthCom/JIATF-S showing drug trafficking 
flows, Abad showed how Panama was at the center of many of 
the main drug trafficking routes. He said that major drug 
seizures in Panama showed that drug trafficking was 
increasing, and said that the drugs were increasingly 
penetrating Panamanian society as well, fueling the gang 
activity and violent crime. He then pointed to the danger of 
terrorist activity, specifically a potential attack against a 
"nuclear-armed U.S. submarine" transiting the Canal. Finally, 
Abad emphasized the huge amount of sea space Panama was 
responsible for patrolling. He implied several times that if 
Panama did not undertake to fulfill its international 
obligations to protect the Canal and its territorial waters, 
"others" (read: the U.S.) might do it. Abad argued that the 
Panamanian security services were not adequately trained or 
equipped to confront these challenges now, and that the 
reforms have long been necessary give the security apparatus 
the ability to meet their obligations. He noted there had 
been broad agreement on the need for similar reforms in 2000, 
under the government of Mireya Moscoso. Citing his own past 
as a victim of human rights abuses, Abad insisted that the 
reforms were not part of a "plot" to re-militarize Panama 
under the influence of former officers of the former 
Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF), many of whom are now in 
positions of power in the GOP, including most prominently 
these days Minister of Government and Justice Daniel Delgado 
Diamante. Abad said it was not right to continue to look at 
these people with suspicion because of their associations in 
the past. He added that while prevention was important, some 
people were bad, and society had to be protected from them. 
 
------------------------- 
RDC Challenges Candidates 
------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (C)  In the streets of Panama, opposition to the laws has 
been championed by the Democratic Citizen's Network (RDC). 
This new civic group has held weekly vigils in front of the 
Iglesia del Carmen church in central Panama City (site of 
similar "civil crusade" vigils during the Noriega regime), 
and also marched to the National Assembly (NA) several times 
to demand the NA repeal or modify the laws (Note: The NA has 
the right to modify or repeal the laws. As of now no action 
has been taken, though several opposition Deputies plan to 
push for action this week. No serious changes to the laws are 
expected. End Note). Last week, the RDC invited all the 
presidential candidates to sign a letter, which the 
organization had deposited in the office of the Ombudsman, 
promising to repeal the laws, if elected. All three 
opposition candidates for president - Guillermo Endara, 
Ricardo Martinelli, and Juan Carlos Varela - have now signed 
the letter, placing the future of the new institutions in 
doubt. PRD presidential candidate Balbina Herrera refused to 
sign the document, saying she would only revise the law which 
created the National Intelligence and Security Service 
(SENIS) to guarantee its activities were "transparent", so 
nobody believed it was persecuting politicians. Mauro Zuniga, 
the head of the RDC, was quoted in the papers on September 29 
saying that by refusing to sign the letter Balbina "admits 
her intention to re-militarize the country, revive the G-2 
(Note: Noriega era intelligence service responsible for many 
human rights violations. End Note), and return to the 'death 
squads.'" 
 
--------------- 
Campaign Issue? 
--------------- 
 
¶6.  (C)  Panamanista presidential candidate Juan Carlos 
Varela put the security laws at the center of his campaign at 
a political event on September 22, when he strongly condemned 
the government for attempting to impose a "civil 
dictatorship." His promise to repeal the security laws got 
the loudest ovation by far from a room packed with the 
leaders of all the factions of the Panamanista party, and the 
recently allied MOLERENA party. A recent poll by Unimer, 
published in Panama City's La Prensa daily newspaper, 
reported that 38.1% of respondents were worried about the new 
laws, and feared they would lead to a re-militarization of 
the country, while 40.3% thought they would lead to an 
improvement in security. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶7.  (C)  The dogged efforts of the major newspapers and the 
RDC are succeeding in giving the debate over the security 
laws a political character. The secret to their success is 
the genuine nervousness many Panamanians feel about the new 
laws, especially among members of civic organizations, the 
business community, and the political opposition who suffered 
under the Omar Torrijos and Manuel Noriega dictatorships. It 
now seems quite possible that these groups will succeed in 
making this a political issue in the elections, whether the 
candidates want it to be or not. Where many of the op-ed 
pieces up to now have been written by members of the 
Panamanista's small nationalist/leftist faction (the MAPA), 
we are now seeing alarmist articles from thoughtful and 
respected political leaders. Unfortunately, this debate tends 
to place our security relationship with Panama out in the 
open - from HVT transits of the Canal, to counter-drug 
cooperation - and potentially subject it to political attack 
as the campaign heats up. At this time opponents of the laws 
are looking for any evidence of U.S. "complicity" with the 
crafting of the laws. We are making some small headway in 
shifting this debate away from the U.S. by highlighting the 
Embassy's support for law enforcement solutions to law 
enforcement problems in general, and specific support for 
community policing. Merida funding for additional prevention 
and community action efforts should help us reframe our role 
in the eyes of the Panamanian public. 
 
STEPHENSON