The Legislative Assembly's Committee on Population, Environment and Development is embroiled in a heated and high-stakes debate about the possible consequences of the passage of boats with radioactive cargoes passing through the Panama Canal.

The people and organizations who oppose such transits, as well as those who argue that Panama is legally obligated to guarantee passage to ships laden with radioactive cargoes, faced off in the assembly's Salon Azul to debate proposed Law 58, which was introduced by deputy Teresita de Arias (Partido Popular - Panama City) and which would prohibit the transit of highly radioactive materials through the canal or in Panama's territorial waters or maritime exclusive economic zone.

At the hearings Panama Canal Administrator Alberto Alemán Zubieta said that the proposed law "would do great damage to Panama." He admitted that the topic of ships with hazardous cargoes is very emotional, but argued that "we have been sold a lot of fear in this country. There are groups that say that the country's going to explode, that there's going to be great ecological damage. We're the bad guys in the picture. They even say that the country will go up in smoke, but the canal will continue to operate."

Alemán Zubieta said that Greenpeace is asking for a "fence law," because it would be like putting a fence around Panama if the country said that no radioactive cargoes could come through the canal, despite all the international regulariongs about the transportation of hazardous cargoes.

"As the Canal Authority, our recommendation has been to say that the forum to discuss these measures is not the Legislative Assembly. We would be the only country with a law like this. We'd be going against something that's essential, the right of free passage."

For its part Greenpeace, an environmentalist group that's against nuclear power in general, said in its public declaration that over the past two decades the waters of Panama and of Caribbean countries have been secretly used for the transport of extremely dangerous radioactive materials, in violation of international standards, and thus Panama must take a stand against unjustifiable and unacceptable risks created by such cargoes. According to Greenpeace, modern norms of international law give Panama a legitimate right to defend its people and its environment. To support this argument, the group pointed to other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that have prohibited radioactive shipments through their waters.

Greenpeace added that the approval of Law 58 "will be an effective protection of Panama's health, safety and enviroment."

The Panamanian spokeswoman for Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited (PNTL), Jacqueline Clarke, told The Panama News that the debate is healthy, and that all sides should be heard. "If you ask me about the legality of Law 58," she argued, "I would say that it conflicts with international conventions like the Law of the Sea Treaty. The proposal attempts to bar passage fo radioactive and radiotoxic cargoes. That's obviously against this treaty, which concedes free passage within territorial waters (the 12-mile limit) and the exclusive economic zone (which extends 200 miles from the coast).

"This free passage is respected by all countries in the world, including Argentina and Chile, where the Pacific Swan navigated through their exclusive economic zones with a cargo of vitirified residues on their way to Japan in January of 2001," Clarke said.

She said that the transit of ships with radioactive material is extremely safe. "OF the three routes we use --- Cape Horn, the Cape of Good Hope and the Panama Canal, the Panama Canal is the safest."

Speaking for Panama's labor movement, José Pedroza of the National Council of Organized Workers (CONATO) opposed the transit of highly radioactive materials through Panama. He called on government authorities to fulfill their constitutional duty to protect the life, honor and property of every inhabitant, and argued that since they haven't done this in other situations they can't be trusted to do so with regard to nuclear wastes. Thus, Pedroza concluded, the hazard must be eliminated by prohibiting the transit of radioactive materials through the canal.

The attorney for the National Maritime Authority, Fernando Solórzano, warned that Law 58 would be unconstitutional. He argued that since international law does not prohibit the transit of the controversial materials, Panama must concentrate its efforts on preventing accidents and mitigating their consequences if they happen.

As part of the debate, the PNTL nuclear waste carrier Pacific Sandpiper docked at Balboa for two days, so that the press and public officials could be shown the casks in which the company argues that highly dangerous materials can be safely transported through Panamanian waters. The ship was empty, but visitors got to see the containers and the bridge and hear the company's explanations of its safety measures.