|
Panama MISSIONS AND ORGANIZATION OF THE DEFENSE FORCES
Unavailable
Figure 10. Organization of the Panama Defense Forces, 1987
Unavailable
Figure 11. Operational Organization of the Panama Defense Forces,
1987
On September 29, 1983, a new law--Law 20--created the FDP as
the successor institution to the National Guard. The law
simultaneously repealed all previous legislation relating to the
organization, mission, and functions of the Panamanian armed
forces, including Law 44 of December 23, 1953 and Law 50 of
November 30, 1958. Opposition parties strongly criticized the new
law, claiming that it "implies the militarization of national life,
converts Panama into a police state, makes the members of the armed
forces privileged citizens, and gives the commander of the National
Guard authoritarian and totalitarian power." However, the Defense
Forces' commander in chief, General Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno,
claimed that the change in the law was necessary, in order to
confront the deteriorating security situation in Central America
and to prepare the military for its growing role in defending the
Panama Canal.
The functions of the FDP stated in the organic law were very
broad, giving it an increasing role and bringing other
organizations under its control. Major functions included
protecting the life and property of Panamanians and foreigners
living in Panama; cooperating with civilian authorities to
guarantee individual rights in the republic; preventing crime;
defending the Panama Canal in cooperation with the United States as
specified under terms of the treaties; regulating traffic; and
cooperating with civilian authorities in the areas of drug
trafficking, contraband, and illegal immigration.
The new organizational structure established by the 1983 law
created a "public force" that brought a broad array of institutions
under a single operational command. The FDP encompassed the General
Staff, Military Regions and Zones, Ground Forces, Panamanian Air
Force, National Navy, Police Forces, and National Guard. In
addition, the FDP would include any institution created in the
future that might perform functions similar to the institutions
listed above. One effect of these changes was to reduce the
National Guard to only one of a number of co-equal military
institutions, within the FDP structure that was bound together, as
the Guard had been, through a single command and commander in chief
(see
fig. 10).
Although the Constitution designates the president of the
republic as the supreme chief of the FDP, this role is largely
symbolic. The law specifies that he "will exercise his command by
means of orders, instructions, resolutions, and regulations which
will be transmitted through the commander in chief." The FDP
enjoyed administrative autonomy that in effect allowed it to
determine its own internal procedures in regard to personnel
policies, disciplinary sanctions against FDP members, organizations
created to further the social welfare of members, and
recommendations for the defense budget.
Since there was no role for civilian officials in determining
FDP policy and the organization was under a single military
command, the law itself provided the only parameters for the
commander in chief's role. The duties of the commander in chief
were very broad and sometimes simply restated duties assigned to
the FDP as a whole. The commander in chief was charged, for
example, with adopting "measures needed to guarantee the security
of inhabitants and their property and the preservation of the
public order and social peace." The commander in chief was also
required to keep the president abreast of any developments in the
area of national security and to participate in all modifications
of the law that would affect the FDP.
Within the FDP, the commander in chief was responsible for
promotions, transfers, and awarding military decorations. He
supervised disciplinary measures and was to improve "the moral and
material condition of the institution as well as the cultural and
intellectual condition of its members." The president of the
republic could replace the FDP's top officer in case of retirement,
death, disobedience of orders that were supported by constitutional
provisions, and personal incapacity.
Data as of December 1987
|
