CONTROVERSY RAGES OVER CANAL ANTIDRUG CENTRE

PANAMA CITY, (Jul. 17) IPS - Controversy raged over plans to establish a
US-Panamanian Multilateral Antidrugs Centre (MAC) in the Canal zone, as
interested parties fanned the flames of disagreement in talks already
suspended for two months.

Colombia's President Ernesto Samper speaking to Panamanian daily
"Panama-America" in Lisbon, said the creation of the MAC "would be the best
use" for the military bases the United States will cede to Panama on
December 31, 1999 under the 1977 canal treaties.

Colombia, Mexico and Brazil "are all pendant on developments in
negotiations between Panama and the United States," said Samper.

These three Latin American nations have held unilateral talks with Panama
with a view to joining the initiative when negotiations in Washington come
to an end, but on the condition the MAC be run by civilians, sharing the
information collected and respecting the sovereignty of each country.

Samper, who will be relieved of his leadership on August 17 by
president-elect Andres Pastrana, said the MAC will also be "useful for the
tasks of maritime and air interception" of narcotraffickers in the
Caribbean and the Pacific zone of Colombia.

However, Samper spoke out against "any other type of operations" not linked
to the war on drugs being handled from the MAC.

The United States, meanwhile, aims for troops stationed in the MAC will be
able to carry out operations unrelated to drug trafficking in other
countries of the region.

This and other points - like exactly how many US troops will be stationed
in the MAC and the special status Washington has requested for these - have
all contributed to the current stalemate.

The United States wants authorization to ballot 2,500 members of army
personnel in the MAC in order to launch "humanitarian and rescue
operations" from there. They want legal immunity for the troops, and for
the agreement to last 15 years, and not the three suggested by Panama.

Panama's President Ernesto Perez Balladares, who proposed establishing the
MAC two years ago, reiterated his country would not accept the creation of
any entity "appearing to be simply a disguised military base."

Conservative chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse
Helms, said last week Panama's refusal to accept the conditions requested
by the US was "an act of ill will."

"If the government of Panama is disposed to negotiate with goodwill, our
troops (in the MAC) must have a multipurpose capacity which would benefit
both nations," said Helms.

The 4,500 US troops currently based in the five US bases along the banks of
the Panama canal must withdraw from the nation on December 31, 1999, as
established in the canal treaties.

Contrary to what Helms claims, former US ambassador to Panama, Everett
Briggs said the military should not be taking a leading role in the war on
drugs.

During a conference offered to US entrepreneurs based in the Central
American nation Thursday, Briggs said he did not think military bases
should be maintained as "it is time Panama could feel proud to be a nation
totally in its own right."

"I fear the prolonging of US presence here, and I am a patriot, will
undermine something (US withdrawal from the canal) which is already in
process and is working very well. Panama deserves to be its own boss. The
(canal) treaty is definitive," he added.

Briggs, current chair of the non-governmental Council of the Americas,
descried the argument wielded by US officials, claiming US military
presence in Panama guarantees investments.

The former diplomat said on the contrary, "US military presence could be
interpreted as a signal there are some problems in Panama. We have no
troops in other countries of the region and there are massive investments
there," he noted.

Briggs asked the business community to "be sure the United States is doing
everything within its power to control consumption within its territory,"
an element he considered the heart of the problem.

"I am opposed to the certification system, which is denigrating for
ourselves," he added.

"Why isn't California decertified for its marihuana laws?" Asked Briggs,
after a plebiscite in the state allowed consumption of the drug for
medicinal purposes.

The former diplomat finally concluded he was not sure "the MAC will be the
best way to combat drugs."

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)