Showing posts with label noriega. Show all posts
Showing posts with label noriega. Show all posts

Monday, August 20, 2012

VOXXI: Could (Should) US Eliminate El Chapo?


Could (Should) US Eliminate El Chapo?
W. Alex Sanchez
Research Fellow, Council on Hemispheric Affairs

VOXXI
August 20, 2012
Originally published in: http://bit.ly/NgtZuB 
According to the Mexican daily Proceso, the U.S. government aims to eliminate the renowned leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. Per the report, ”the Pentagon elaborated the plan several months ago but it’s now at a standstill because it would only be carried out by American troops,” a displeasing prospect for the Mexican military. According to the Mexican media, outgoing president, Felipe Calderon, may have already shown support for this plan.
While the sources of this report remain unclear, the idea of eliminating El Chapo is, unsurprisingly, already generating analyses and discussions as exemplified by a recent piece on Wired.com. The Wired article discusses the likelihood of the operation taking place as well as the pros and cons. In addition there are comparisons between a theoretical operation against El Chapo and the operation that eliminated Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.
The goal of this commentary is not to assess the validity of the claims by Proceso, but rather to discuss the provocative idea of whether or not only El Chapo can be captured or eliminated in an Osama bin Laden-style operation by the U.S. In addition, the ultimate question that needs to be asked remains: Has El Chapo become too big to be captured alive?
The Obvious Concern
An obvious initial concern relates to U.S. collaboration with the Mexican government should they find El Chapo and either (A) attempt to capture him or (B) eliminate him. Of course, a realistic possibility is that El Chapo could somehow be informed about the operation via his contacts in the government and escape.
There is some logic to this sentiment as there are several proven instances of corruption and incompetence in the Mexican government and military. In May 2012, four Mexican army generals were detained for ties with drug cartels. According to a report by the New York Times “the accusations against the third general […]include that he ignored a tip by American drug agents about an imminent airplane delivery of a drug cartel’s cocaine in 2007.” To compare the situation to the Bin Laden Operation, when President Barack Obama received enough credible intelligence information to send Seal Team Six (the military unit that was deployed to eliminate bin Laden), he did so. However he did not inform the Pakistani government of his decision, concerned that bin Laden would be tipped off by friendly Pakistani officials, like members of the ISI.
Should the U.S. military intervene into Mexican territory without informing Mexico D.F. about such an operation, this would be a grave insult that could put into jeopardy binational relations.
The Issue of Domestic Politics
Additionally, there are some peripheral distractions that may play a role in the decision, though they arguably shouldn’t. The U.S. is preparing for presidential elections on November 4, and this would, arguably, be a bad time for the administration to involve the country in another military operation, even a brief one like a raid. If the raid should fail and U.S. troops fall, this could potentially hurt the president’s re-election aspirations, as the Republican Party will use any failure as proof that the incumbent Democratic administration is weak regarding national security.
When it comes to Mexican politics, timing may also be an important factor. President Calderon will leave power in December and, if El Chapo is found, the outgoing head of state may want a military operation that he can take credit for in order to (to put it bluntly) “leave with a bang.” This is also important because it is believed that the incoming president, Enrique Pena Nieto, may have a more relaxed, laissez faire, attitude toward actively hunting the leadership of the Cartels. Such allegations, if they turn out to be true, would mean that the U.S could expect little help regarding trying to track down El Chapo during the incoming Pena presidency. It’s certainly an open question if members of the EPN administration will be more or less open to possible Cartel bribery than previous administrations.
Finally, it is difficult to predict how a successful operation (or a failure) would affect the way Mexican-America voters cast their ballots in the upcoming U.S. elections.
The Precedents
The stories of several prominent criminal figures and their pursuits by different governments provide precedents for the El Chapo case. The most obvious and relevant precedent would naturally be the raid on the bin Laden compound in Pakistan. Whether the Al Qaeda could have been taken alive during the raid is debatable as details remain classified, but one can muse that, if he had surrendered, the subsequent trial would have been a media circus, not to mention a security problem both during and after (inevitably) bin Laden was found guilty and imprisoned.
But besides bin Laden there are other precedents of high profile criminals that were “too big to be captured.” For example, Peru holds individuals like Abimael Guzman, the leader of the insurgent group Sendero Luminoso, in maximum security prisons. Guzman’s group, which has carried out a deadly war against the Peruvian government and society since the early 1980s, is consequently culpable for tens of thousands of deaths. He’s currently serving a life sentence. Sharing a cell next to the former guerrilla leader is former Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori, who is serving a 25-year old sentence for being the mastermind of a number of massacres by government-organized death squads.
Meanwhile, in Panama there has been great controversy over the fate of General Manuel Noriega, who ruled the country in the 1980s and is known for his ties to drug trafficking as well as the CIA. He spent 17 years in a Miami prison and then served additional jail time in France. There was great concern when he was eventually extradited back to Panama whether he would become a destabilizing force, though this hasn’t happened (yet). He is currently in a jail in his homeland and there has been discussion about whether he should be freed due to his failing health, as it is believed he may have a brain tumor.
The New Pablo Escobar?
But apart from the aforementioned examples, including bin Laden himself, there is a Latin American precedent that can be looked at regarding far-reaching drug barons: Pablo Escobar, the leader of the Medellin Cartel during the 1980s. This author was recently interviewed for a documentary entitled “Uncensored,” which “recounts the lives of journalists during the most violent years of Colombia’s history.” Part of the documentary will revolve around Escobar, who could be described as the El Chapo of the 1980s.
Escobar’s major fear was that he did not want to be extradited to the U.S. to face jail time. He fought the Colombian government, surrendered, and went as far as building his own detention center in which he spent just over a year before he escaped. On the run, the Colombian government (with heavy aid from U.S. intelligence agencies) hunted him ruthlessly. Occasionally, he tried to surrender, but the Cesar Gaviria administration refused to negotiate with Escobar again. In other words, it had become clear that he was too powerful, too violent and too unreliable to be captured, and if he was, he could not be locked up in Colombia. And since extradition wasn’t an option (a 1991 Colombian Constitution forbade extradition), the only option left was the elimination of Pablo Escobar.
Escobar was ultimately shot to death by a special unit of the Colombian police with, by even the loosest association, U.S. intelligence help. Will this be El Chapo’s ultimate fate? To be eliminated either by a combination of U.S.-backed Mexican forces like Escobar or by American commandos on their own like bin Laden? Either option presents its own set of controversial issues but the larger question remains, has El Chapo become too much of a powerful and dangerous drug baron, like Pablo Escobar in his own time, to be captured? The Colombian kingpin’s life and fate, more than bin Laden’s, presents an important precedent.

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/us-eliminate-sinaloa-el-chapo/#ixzz2491HzqSB

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Entrevista: FRANCIA EXTRADITARÁ AL EXDICTADOR PANAMEÑO A SU PAÍS SOLO CON EL PERMISO DE EE. UU.

Russia Today
Washington DC studios
May 3, 2011
http://bit.ly/iSsntm



Panamá ha obtenido la garantía de Francia “para una futura extradición del exdictador panameño Manuel Antonio Noriega”, así lo declaró el vicepresidente panameño Juan Carlos Varela, luego de la reunión sostenida en París, con el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores francés, Alain Juppé.

Sin embargo, París debe recibir el visto bueno de Estados Unidos para tal fin. Anteriormente, Francia advirtió de que las posibilidades de la salida de Noriega eran “limitadas” antes de que finalizara su condena en 2013.

El exmandatario se encuentra en territorio galo desde abril del 2010, procedente de Estados Unidos, donde cumplió una pena de 20 años de cárcel por tráfico de drogas. Además fue condenado en ausencia en Francia a siete años de prisión por lavado de dinero procedente del narcotráfico.

Panamá presentó en junio pasado su primera solicitud de extradición por una de las cuatro condenas que tiene pendientes en el país latinoamericano, donde Noriega está acusado de corrupción y ya ha sido condenado a entre 15 y 20 años de cárcel por su responsabilidad en varios asesinatos.

Por otro lado, el analista de seguridad internacional, Alex Sánchez, considera que “Estados Unidos no desea la extradición de Noriega a Panamá” porque podría revelar “secretos” de sus relaciones internacionales en el periodo de su gobierno.

“Hay dos razones, y las dos son parecidas. Por una parte EE. UU. quería que Noriega se mantenga en alguna cárcel y simplemente no pueda hablar con la prensa, o no pueda contar alguno de los secretos suyos cuando fue presidente. Todos sabemos en su gobierno mantenía relaciones muy estrechas con los Estados Unidos”, dice Sánchez.

“La segunda razón es que el gobierno de Martín Torrijos durante 2004 y 2009, tampoco quería que Noriega vuelva a Panamá, porque Torrijos pertenece al Partido Revolucionario Democrático (PRD), que tiene relaciones muy estrechas con Noriega desde que el PRD nació como una fuerza política a comienzos de los 80”, indicó el especialista.

Asimismo el analista de seguridad internacional explicó, que “aún hay seguidores de Noriega y otros que se beneficiaron por él cuando era presidente, y saben que si Noriega vuelve, en el tribunal puede abrir la boca y contar todos los secretos de la oligarquía política y militar de Panamá de los años 80”.

Articulo completo en: http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/internacional/issue_23783.html

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Tiny Panama Roars

by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
18 Mar 2008
Council on Hemispheric Affairs
http://www.coha.org/tiny-panama-roars/

• Is the Colombian conflict spilling into Panama? FARC threatens to abduct high visibility figures, such as Panamanian politicians and police
• The Noriega Legacy
• Bernal as Ombudsman
• Not even James Bond is safe in today’s Panama

In late February, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), Colombia’s largest insurgent movement, proclaimed that, unless six of their fighters would be released into their custody (after having been apprehended by Panamanian authorities), the rebels would strike back by kidnapping Panamanian politicians and police. Furthermore, later in the same month, a film crew shooting a new Bond film on location in Panama fled the set due to ongoing gang warfare in the area. In today’s mayhem-driven Panama, no one is really safe, not even James Bond.

The present domestic instability in the country apparently is too much for the administration of President Martin Torrijos to curb, and as of now is being temporarily overshadowed by the spillover of the Colombian civil conflict into Panama. Both the Colombian drug cartels and the leftist FARC rebels are using Panama as a corridor for transporting drugs and other illicit substances to finance Colombia’s protracted conflict. In view of these facts, a focused discussion needs to be encouraged regarding the debate over the restructuring of Panama’s ineffective security forces. Moreover, the legacy of Manuel Noriega continues to haunt any discussion in this Central American country. Nevertheless, internal instability and ongoing turmoil in adjacent Colombia are factors which now make it necessary for the Torrijos administration to divert more funds and concentration to national defense, in one form or another. Otherwise Panama could soon have a domino-effect that could further contribute to an ever-widening Colombian conflict.

The Military: No More
The Panamanian Defense Force met its demise in 1989, when the U.S. military invaded Panama, in an intervention dubbed “Operation: Just Cause,” and within hours managed to overthrow General Manuel Noriega. After the PDF was disbanded and Noriega was tried and jailed in the U.S., a substantial portion of the remaining PDF forces were incorporated into the country’s newly reconstructed police force.

The last of the U.S. troops detailed to the Panama Canal zone left the country in 1999 as part of the handover of control of the Panama Canal to local authorities. Along with Costa Rica, Panama today is one of the two hemispheric countries that does not have a standing army, yet relies upon a national police force for its domestic security.

With an area of 78,200 square kilometers and a population of slightly over three million, Panama features a 225-kilometer long boundary with Colombia. In order to effectively guard this territory, the government, after it disbanded the PDF, created the Fuerzas Públicas (Public Forces), comprised of the National Police, the National Air Service and the National Maritime Service. Today the Panamanian police force is around 11,000 strong, and as a result, struggles to maintain order within the country as well as halt the geopolitical pressure coming from Colombia.

Internal Violence
In recent years, as in other Central American isthmus countries, there has been a disturbing increase in the volume of gang warfare in Panama. Growing disillusion with Torrijos rule has promoted anti-government protests by different sectors of the population. In mid-February, construction workers clashed with police units, which resulted in the death of a laborer. According to a February 13 report by Deutsche Presse-Agentur, “the protest had originally been prompted by the construction union Suntracs, which accused the government of launching a ‘dirty campaign’ against trade-union leaders.” The government denies these allegations. Regarding the death of the worker, government officials maintained that the riot police, “used the level of force required to clear roads and restore order,” including the use of tear gas and pellets.

Meanwhile, gang warfare continues to proliferate throughout the country. In February, the production unit in Panama filming the new Bond thriller began to be affected by the gang clashes. This pressured its producers to hire armed bodyguards for some of the movie’s stars, including Daniel Craig, Gemma Arterton and Olga Kurylenko. According to a set source, “the [Panamanian] police warned the city’s gangs to stay away from the area while the crew were making the movie. They’ve been given permission to shoot on sight anyone thought to be trying to harm the crew.”

Gang Warfare
There have been a series of reports circulating about “network” gangs like the Mara 18 and Mara Salvatrucha in nearby countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. But Panama also suffers from home-grown groups of thugs. In March 2007, a gang battle killed three children and destroyed numerous hovels in the slums surrounding Panama City.

The question is: do the Panamanian police today have the resources, including the necessary training, to deal with both a normal level of criminal activity and gang warfare and public protests, in addition to the wave of drug cartel warfare coming up from the southern border? Professor Orlando Perez, of Central Michigan University, explained to the author that “levels of violence in Panama have not reached the same levels as in other Central American countries” and that “there certainly is a worrying increase in petty crime, the rich-poor gap and property robberies, but it is not as bad as in other countries in the region.”

The Colombian Conflict spills over – Drug Trafficking and Violence
It may appear somewhat obscure what the precise correlation is between Panama’s gangs and the conflict in Colombia. The latter’s drug cartels have entered into de facto alliances with Panamanian criminal groups and are now engaged in drug trafficking operations across the country. If anything, Panama’s border with Colombia needs enhanced protection, which requires more than routine policing, and the border guards who normally are considered necessary. For example, in late February of this year, Panamanian maritime police exchanged fire with a boat carrying FARC fighters. Although the police unit was outgunned, they managed to overcome the rebels and capture six of them, along with four AK-47 assault rifles, seven kilograms of explosives, and communication gear. It is believed that the rebels belonged to the Farc’s 57th Front. According to an article in the Panamanian daily La Prensa, there are different versions regarding the intent of the FARC mission. One report claims that “the guerrillas came to Panama to kill a group of Panamanians and Colombians who, according to the FARC members themselves, had betrayed the organization. Another report indicates that they wanted to kidnap a high-ranking executive of a hotel located in the town of Pina, but that they were stranded for lack of gasoline.” Panamanian authorities claim that the border is “under control,” however few outsiders actually believe this.

Bernal’s Candidacy
Someone who should have a say in the future of Panama’s security arrangement, especially if any decision occurs under the Torrijos presidency—is Miguel Antonio Bernal (who would be a compelling candidate to be the country’s “ombudsman”). Bernal is a professor in the law school in University of Panama, and was harassed by the Panama Defense Forces in 1977 for demonstrating against the Panama Canal Treaty (also known as the Carter-Torrijos Treaty). Later, he was badgered for objecting to the fraudulent sale of university credentials by senior officials of the University of Panama. Currently, Bernal is running a campaign to be the mayor of Panama City. An interview was carried out with Bernal in elguayacan.com.pa and which was published in Bernal’s campaign website

(Click Here) quotes him as being worried about the possibility of a police state emerging in Panama. It will be interesting to see, as Bernal’s electoral position is being refined, and what policies he advocates in order to increase daily domestic security in Panama City, as well as how his combative relationship both towards the government and towards Panama’s police forces manifests itself. The asset that he brings into what is ordinarily a heavily contested area is Bernal’s unassailable reputation of being one of the few ethical and honorable figures in Panama’s public life today.

Ongoing Security Problems
In another February incident, as reported by Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a Colombian police patrol was attacked by FARC rebels—which wounded three FARC members. The firefight took place near the Panamanian border region of Uraba, a banana-growing region in the northwestern Colombian state of Antioquia. According to a Global Insight account, the Torrijos government has deployed as many as 200 elite police forces to the area between the frontier provinces of Bahia Pina and Jaque, close to the Colombian border. However, it is hard to believe that even 200 officers over such a relatively large landscape could make much of a difference. The Panamanian-Colombian border in this area features the Darien Gap, which is known for its thick vegetation, sparse population, and essentially lawless society, featuring only a minimal, governmental presence.

First of all, warfare in the region over the past four decades has displaced thousands of people, forcing many of the local indigenous population to become refugees in surrounding countries. In recent months, much attention has been directed toward Colombian refugees fleeing into Ecuador; however, many have moved to Panama as well. An example of this was seen in 2006, when the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) reported that nearly 50 Wounaan (a Colombian indigenous community) had fled into Panama to escape local violence. Seven of the fleeing Wounaan were leaders who had been targeted by unknown gunmen. This event followed the release of up to 500 previously detained Colombian refugees who had fled the country’s civil war in August of that year, seeking refuge in Unguia, Panama. Another example of the dangers to be encountered along the Panama-Colombia border was exhibited in 2006 when dozens of loggers were kidnapped by FARC rebels in Colombia’s Choco region which borders Panama. At the time, an Associated Press report explained that as many as 13 loggers had been decapitated by the FARC, who they suspected of working with the country’s paramilitaries.

Drug trafficking, unsurprisingly, continues to be an immense local problem. In March 2007, a joint operation involving Panama, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard resulted in the seizure of a suspect vessel off the Panamanian coastline. It turned out to be carrying 20 tons of cocaine, with an estimated street value of $300 million. In July 2007, FARC leader Anayibe Rojas Valderrama (aka “Sonia”) was sentenced on drug charges by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. According to an article by PR Newswire, drug dealer Jose Antonio Celis “arranged for the purchase of large quantities of cocaine from Rojas Valderrama and the [FARC’s] 14th Front, and coordinated the transshipment of the cocaine from Colombia to Panama, and from Panama into the United States.”

Panama is also ritualistically used as a stopover for smugglers working with the FARC. For example, in 2006, Hector Orlando Martinez Quinto, a FARC member and drug smuggler, was detained in Costa Rica by local authorities. According to Interpol, Martinez arrived in Costa Rica in 1997 by land from Panama, and obtained legal residency when he married a Costa Rican woman.

Panama’s Security Forces – A Conventional Military, or Is a More Professionalized Police Force, Needed? And what about Manuel Noriega?
Should the re-organization of a Panamanian military force be seriously discussed by Panamanian authorities? And how much a factor is the ghost of Manuel Noriega, who still is serving a jail sentence in a prison in Florida (for a crime as political as it was based on drug-trafficking factors). He remains under threat of his possible deportation to France, whose relative mistreatment still haunts the upper echelons of the Panamanian government. Understandably, concerns exist that, should the military be re-organized, some kind of nostalgic allegiance to Noriega may emerge if he returns to the country and becomes a daily presence. Any discussion focused on a new Panamanian military would have to go into how such a force would be submitted to civilian control, and avoid falling under the influence of a new Noriega, or even a return of the old one himself. Some analysts argue that if Panama rebuilds its military, especially if supported by the U.S., a new Noriega could likely emerge. For Professor Orlando Perez, it would be particularly difficult for President Torrijos and his Popular Democratic Party (PRD – Panama) administration to support the remilitarization of the country, particularly because of a number of former Noriega’s associates who already serve in his administration.

The recent FARC threat to kidnap Panamanian politicians and/or police officers if their leftist comrades are not expeditiously returned should not be taken lightly. As Adam Isacson, a Colombia specialist at the Center for International Policy explains, “the FARC have the capacity to carry out kidnappings in the isolated areas in the border with Panama, like the Darien Gap; it is highly unlikely that they could accomplish this in populated areas like Panama City.” This analysis is countered by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, which insists that if the FARC makes a decision to scoop up a given kidnapping target, there is no denying them success.

It can be argued that the FARC’s threat towards Panama is a sample of how little respect or fear that the Colombian rebels rightfully have for the tactical abilities of the Panamanian police. In theory, if the Central American country had a military with a counter-insurgency and anti-narcotics capacity, the FARC would not be making these types of demands and threats. Then again, recent explosive developments between Ecuador and Colombia over in the death of FARC insurgents on Ecuadorian territory, demonstrate that even the Ecuadorian military, which is now largely deployed along the country’s border with Colombia, could not readily interfere with the free movement of the FARC. A former SOUTHCOM official interviewed by the author and who requested anonymity explains that the Panamanians would need around four-five battalions (translated into four-five thousand troops) placed along the Darien Gap to effectively monitor it. The official explains that the issue here is vegetation. “Due to the vegetation, the only valid way to move troops effectively is by having available a vast number of helicopters ready to deploy troops where and when needed. But helicopters are costly to maintain, especially in tropical conditions and I do not see the Panamanian government having those kind of resources,” the official said.

Professor Perez explains that some Panamanians argue that the best way for Panama to safeguard its sovereignty is to at least aspire to remain neutral vis-à-vis Colombia; this would recognize that the risk of re-militarizing the border over a protracted period of time would outweigh the cost and anxiety of tolerating sporadic FARC incursions. Perez explains that “the dirty little secret is that the FARC has operated in the Panamanian-Colombian border area for years with relative impunity, particularly in the Colon free trade zone.” Colombian insurgents, as well as paramilitaries and non-rebel connected drug traffickers are attracted to Panama so it can carry out arms trade purchases and benefit from the country’s booming economy and its relaxed banking rules. Additionally, the FARC probably has had an understandable concern that launching some kind of major offensive involving Panama would most likely push Torrijos to call on SOUTHCOM for aid, which the FARC leadership presumably would be anxious to avoid.

According to Isacson, Panama does not need a military capacity as much as it needs a more effective police force, with more anti-narcotics units and the necessary training, equipment, and intelligence services to detect FARC infiltrations, as well as the flow of illicit drugs. The former SOUTHCOM official notes that the apparent modus vivendi of recent Panamanian administrations when it comes to the FARC, Colombian criminals and other paramilitaries, is to “live and let live,” as long as they remain in the Darien. The official said that “the Darien is far from Panama’s populated areas, it has only a relatively few inhabitants who are mostly indigenous and who historically have constantly been marginalized, I’m not saying it’s fair but it’s true. Therefore, there is no real incentive for the Panamanian officials to go to the Darien in the first place.”

Furthermore, the question of whether Panama needs a military goes back to the question of if armed forces are needed. Central American militaries have a disastrous reputation for human rights violations, particularly during the wars that broke out in the late 1960s-1980s. In addition, besides the non-traditional security threat coming from the FARC, Panama is on good terms with the governments of its two neighbors: Costa Rica (which also does not have a standing military) and Colombia (contemplating an attack by its military on its Panamanian cousins would be ludicrous).

Finally, logistics and budgetary issues can also be expected to play an important role over any decision to reconstruct the Panamanian military. The country is by no means wealthy and any budgetary surplus would be probably diverted in the near term to the enlargement of the Panama Canal. A connected question would be, where would the country get the necessary resources from which to organize a new military? A starting point might be to recall Noriega-era officers for command leadership positions. The other logical option would be to organize a draft or push for strong economic incentives to young Panamanians to join the military. As for equipment, training and resources, the obvious source for this would be SOUTHCOM. For a long time, the U.S. Southern Command has promoted the idea of the revival of a new Panamanian military as a way to stop the infiltration of the Colombian conflict into its northern neighbor. Another factor that would motivate SOUTHCOM to exercise this option is that Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa is on record as being strongly against renewing the lease on the U.S. base in Manta. The lease on the base is set to expire in 2009 and, since it is unlikely that a breakthrough may occur regarding the status quo, Panama could be the obvious choice for an alternate American Forward Operation Location (FOL) in the area. SOUTHCOM officials would probably happily push for funding for such a new military facility near a major theatre of drug and guerrilla activity, should its senior command believe it would be an effective blocking force against the FARC, ELN and AUC, as well as a host of drug-trafficking organizations now operating in Colombia.

Predictions for the Future
The powerful legacy of Manuel Noriega may be why discussing the country’s security forces—specifically a renewed military cadre—has become an almost taboo subject in the Central American country. Dr. Perez, as well as CIP’s Isacson, argue that Panama does not need to re-militarize, but rather simply make the established police force work, meaning tackle corruption, improve training and upgrade equipment. SOUTHCOM, for its part, would argue that the Darien Gap is already more than lawless and has attracted too much of an insurgency and a criminal presence at this date. Meanwhile, it remains a matter of speculation to see if the FARC will carry out their threat of kidnapping Panamanian police and politicians as a tactic to gain the release of their comrades. Ironically, as the aforementioned former SOUTHCOM official explains, the Darien Gap both prevents the Panamanian police from effectively controlling the border with Colombia, while at the same time helps protect Panama from the FARC and other threats to its security. According to the official, the Darien Gap has such thick vegetation that makes it virtually impassable, hence, as he says, “the best barrier for [the problems south of the Darien gap] is the Darien itself.”