Download PDF of this full issue: v20n1.pdf (10.6 MB)

Same Old Yankee Imperialism: Panama Crisis

By Pete Zastrow

By Pete Zastrow

I was part of a group of 120 North Americans who participated in an international conference in Panama City at the end of November. The gathering took place just six weeks after the last coup against Manuel Noriega had failed and just three weeks before the U.S. invaded.

General Noriega spoke to our meeting. So did Panama's Provisional President Rodriguez and many other officials, journalists, businessmen and academics. Several put forth a common concern for the future: the economic hardship suffered by the people of Panama as a result of U.S. sanctions, they believed, would lead to trouble.

One scenario envisioned that some U.S. military person might be shot by an angry Panamanian citizen. In turn, this would serve as the necessary provocation for the U.S. government to do what it most wanted to do: invade Panama.

For me, the uncanny accuracy of this prediction put an accurate spotlight on what I would later experience as the misinforming role of the U.S. media. While misinformation has always been a crucial part of the U.S. economic war against Panama, the barrage of lies, omissions and wholesale pandering to U.S. government policy was particularly rampant throughout the coverage of the U.S. invasion. Here are some items that stood out:

On 'Fair' Elections. Last May, Panama held general elections. The U.S. admits to having spent $10 million of our tax dollars to influence the outcome. According to knowledgeable Panamanians, that means at least three times that amount was spent. U.S.-sponsored thugs were involved in massive fraud, including stealing ballot boxes.

The final tallies from the election never surfaced. Noriega declared the election void because of fraud. The U.S. declared that its candidate, Endara—now the U.S.-sponsored President of Panama—was the winner. The entire electoral commission, headed by a woman lawyer and including people from all woman lawyer and including people from all segments of Panamanian society, spoke o our conference in support of the canceling of the elections.

The Bloodied Opposition. The most famous picture from the election period in Panama—one which was published again and again to build support for the invasion—showed Vice Presidential candidate "Billy" Ford covered with blood at the hands of the "Dignity Battalions" (essentially, the people's militia). The blood came not from Ford but from one of his bodyguards who had drawn a gun on the local people.

The Danger to the Canal. Bush and others spoke of threats of terrorist activities. But the Canal is almost indefensible; one ship sunk and it could be closed for months. Panamanians say that the only defense for the canal is to surround it with Panamanian citizens for whom the Canal is both vital and politically untouchable.

The Canal was built by the fathers and grandfathers for the president Panamanian population. Even the suggestion of a Panamanian harming their Canal is unthinkable. In fact, the only time the Canal has been closed in the past 70 years was during the week fo the U.S. invasion, when the U.S. shut it down.

Noriega, the 'Narco-terrorist.' This is the biggest misinformation of all. Noriega became known as a drug dealer only after the U.S. government, in the person of "indicted" Irangate conspirator Admiral Poindexter, ordered Noriega to help in the U.s. war against Nicaragua. When Noriega said no, he was no longer the darling of the U.S. government (even though he had a sheaf of letters from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency testifying to his fervor in the war against drugs).

I'm sure Noriega is not a nice person—although it doesn't hurt any of us to remember he is only "indicted," not convicted of the drug-dealing charges. It is likely that he was at least hip-deep in CIA muck for years, especially at the time George Bush ran that Agency.

But Noriega is not the primary issue. The main point is, what business does the U.S. have in invading another country? We didn't invade Romania to get rid of Ceausescu; we didn't invade Chile to do in Pinochet; we didn't invade Cambodia to save it from Pol Pot.

The U.S. government has been fighting an economic war against Panama for years. Simply the country was being economically strangled. GNP was down 40% because of U.S. sanctions. U.S. corporations—of which there are thousands doing business in Panama—were forced by the U.S. government to withhold the U.S. social security and other taxes from the pay of their workers.

The Panamanian economy is tied to that the U.S. because of a close association for many years; even Panama's paper money is still U.S. money, for instance.

The people hurt most by the economic sanctions did not include Noriega. For instance, we visited a clinic an hour's drive from Panama City. The facility was part of a system which had built clinics in each province—110 in all; this clinic had five doctors and several nurses. When we arrived, the doctor we were looking for was out paying house calls on the elderly of this village, a luxury not enjoyed by most North Americans.

While the clinic was performing its duties, its pharmacy was bare. The medicines used to come from the U.S. but now were not allowed because of the sanctions. According to the head of the clinic, the people of the village were given prescriptions for medicine, but since they could not afford to buy it elsewhere, they just went without.

"Economic warfare," said one Panamanian official, "which kills children through malnutrition, is just as much war as if you killed them with a bullet."

Three weeks later the U.S. was killing children with bullets, too. Part of the reason, according to President Bush, was because the Panamanian parliament declared that "a state of war existed between the U.s. and Panama."

The U.S. military and government said they expected troops to stay in Panama as occupation troops for three to five days. Now the occupation is open-ended. As was the case in Vietnam, no one seems to have asked, what does it mean if we win? If we had "won" during the Vietnam War, would we still have troops there 15 years later? Probably. And now in Panama?

I cannot predict a guerrilla war in Panama. There is a strong middle class which might enjoy a period of economic stability and the return of U.S. investments.

But in the speeches I heard and in the expressions of the people I saw and met, there was a fierce devotion to Panama. That devotion went beyond any loyalty to Noriega and stood instead for national independence. I suspect that devotion will cause serious problems for the U.S. occupation forces and for the U.S.-installed government.

All in all, the performance of U.S. newspapers and TV during the invasion was shameful. Tough questions were never approached. While TV viewers in other parts of the world saw images of Panama City in flames, looking like the war zone it was, here in the U.S. we saw wounded American troops coming home. A truthful depiction of how the people of Panama were dying because of the invasion was neither spoken nor shown.

Even now, we are still asking just what was our reason or being there, anyway? No doubt a lot of it has to do with Bush wanting to discard his image of timidity—and for that, North American, and Central American young people have to die.

Much of the reason seems centered on the Canal. According to the treaty signed by President Carter, the Canal reverts to Panamanian control at the beginning of the year 2000. Since it is hard to disregard such treaties, Bush wants to make sure that the Panamanian government in charge at the time is friendly to the U.S. If we can't control the Canal directly, we'll do it indirectly.

I'm sure the Panamanian people will survive all of this. They are a remarkably peaceful people, perhaps because there has been little reason for war in many years. So far as I could tell, even their video games seem mostly nonviolent, and the shelves at a children's toy store did not overflow with toy weapons.

Here in the U.S., the fight against the intervention will grow. There were a few congressmen would not buy the media blitz. More will follow, as more of the North American people see how wrong their government is.