Portrait Of Panama
Is Noriega a crook? Plenty of Panamanians think so. Just because our government may denounce the General with ulterior motives of dominating Panama does not mean that the accusations are not true. On the other hand, Noriega may be getting an undeserved rap from people with a proven track record of lies about events in the region. Many Panamanians take this latter view.
As one who was bom of American parents in Panama, who spent most of my childhood in the oíd Canal Zone, and who still has relatives on the isthmus, I worry about the recent deterioration of relations between the United States and Panama. After the treaties of a decade ago, things got better, but what was gained may rapidly be lost.
A feature of Panamanian political culture, shared with much of Latin America, is the notion that the army is the guardián of the nation and that it is the duty of the military to step in when civilian politicians fail. The Panama Defense Forces (formerly known as the Guardia Nacional and still commonly referred to as the guardia) openly declares its duty to be such.
But unlike the army of El Salvador, for example, the guardia is led by men from peasant backgrounds. And historically, Panamanian military regimes have tended to restrict the power of the old landowning oligarchy. Panama's military regimes have also been unique because of the amount of influence that both the left and the commercial and technical middle classes that have grown up around the canal have exerted on them in the past.
While Panama has a civilian president and an elected National Assembly, real power lies in the hands of General Manuel Noriega. Noriega rose to his position as military strongman in the year and a half after General Omar Torrijos died in a helicopter crash in 1981. By 1983 Noriega was head of Panama's Defense Forces and in May 1984, the Noriega-backed Democratie Revolutionary Party candidate Nicolás Barletta, a former World Bank vice-president, was declared the winner in a widely discredited presidential vote count.
Torrijos was genuinely beloved by Panamanians, both for his social welfare and development reforms and for the treaties by which Panama gained sovereignty over the Panama Canal. But Torrijos and Ronald Reagan never got along, particularly because Reagan led the opposition to the Panama Canal treaties. Many Panamanians believe that the hand of the CIA was behind the crash that took Torrijos's life. Many also believe that Reagan intends to abrógate the canal treaties.
The Panamanian government, under both Torrijos and Noriega, has been in the forefront of Latin American opposition to the contra war, hosting the international peace talks on Contadora Island in the Gulf of Panama. The White House has not been pleased with situation, but most Panamians approve of the policy.
Noriega, however, is not so popular a character among Panamanians as Torrijos was. The student leftists derisively cali him "el sapo" (the toad) and accuse him of repression, while rightist business leaders with U.S. ties criticize him for his withholding of Panama's support from the Contra war against Nicaragua and consequent deterioration of political and economic ties with the U.S.
Although the Labor Party and Panama's tiny Moscow-line Communist Party have backed Noriega in the current crisis and workers have largely ignored opposition calis for a general strike, labor has been dissatisfied with Noriega's proposed changes to the labor code enacted under Torrijos.
As recently as June 7, a falling out within the army command brought out old and commonly believed charges of murder and corruption against Noriega from a fellow officer, and a new charge that Noriega killed Torrijos. On June 8, led by the Chamber of Commerce, crowds took to the streets to oppose Noriega. While the crowds have been relatively small on both sides, clashes between pro and anti-Noriega demonstrators have escalated into a major political crisis.
The Reagan Administration has insisted that General Noriega resign, alleging political murder, rigged elections and drug profiteering on the army commander's part. The Democratic-controlled Senate and the House Foreign Affairs Committee have also passed resolutions to that effect.
The facts of these matters are disputed, but the most prevalent view among both Panamanians and American residents of Panama holds Noriega responsible for the assassination of former Torrijos government minister Hugo Spadafora, the theft of the most recent election from the old Panamenista candidate Dr. Amulfo Arias, and some sort of illicit income which allows him to live much better than his military pay would ordinarily allow.
Nevertheless, many Panamanians support the General and his Democratie Revolutionary Party, whether or not the accusations are true. Consider, for example, the murder of Dr. Hugo Spadafora.
Spadafora quit his position as minister of public health with the Torrijos government to particípate in the final stages of the Nicaraguan revolution. Later, he threw in his lot with Eden Pastora. Trying to slip back into Panama on a bus from Costa Rica in Sept., 1985, Spadafora was hustled away by several men. His decapitated, mutilated corpse was found stuffed in a U.S. mail bag on the Costa Rican side of the border. Costa Rican police response say that Spadafora was last seen alive in the custody of the guardia on the Panamanian side of the border.
Some believe that Spadafora was on a contra gun running mission, but the Spadafora family insists that he was returning to Panama to oppose Noriega and his policies. Many blame Noriega because he fired former president Nicolás Barletta when the titular head of state promised an investigation into the Spadafora affair.
Some Panamanians believe that Spadafora was killed by contra rivals or their U.S. backers (such as those who allegedly tried to blow up Pastora at a press conference). Others believe that Noriega justifiably had Spadafora killed, because Spadafora was an instrument of American policy who would have negated Panama's independence and dragged the country into the contra war. To such Panamanians, the United States - not Noriega- is seen as the villain in the Spadafora affair.
Then there is the matter of fraud in the 1984 presidential election. When the army denied Arnulfo Arias the presidency, it was not the first time that he had been so deprived. Several times Arias has been elected only to be overthrown by the army. The first such incident was during the Second World War, when a young president Arias tried to steer Panama on an independent course, going so far, his adversaries allege, that he covertly supplied food to the Germán U-boats which attacked ships at the entrances to the canal. The U.S. was behind the coup back then, and the Reagan administration had no major complaints when the nationalistic Arias was again kept out in 1984.
While the State Department condemned Noriega for election fraud when it became expedient to do so, it did not back the man who was defrauded. Amulfo Arias may be many things, but an American puppet is not one of them. So when the U.S. ambassador met with opposition leaders to influence Panama's crisis, he met with leaders of the distant third-place Christian Democrats, who presumably can be counted upon to do the Reagan Administration's bidding. A further insult was that Elliot Abrams, who is discredited in this country, had the temerity to cali Noriega (or any other person) corrupt.
Thus, the Panamanian National Assembly unanimously denounced U.S. interference (the opposition mostly abstained). Supporters of the government took to the streets and threw stones at the U.S. embassy, destroyed a famous statue of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and trashed the businesses of opposition leaders.
Is Noriega a crook? Plenty of Panamanians think so. Just because our government may denounce the General with ulterior motives of dominating Panama does not mean that the accusations are not true. On the other hand, Noriega may be getting an undeserved rap from people with a proven track record of lies about events in the region. Many Panamanians take this latter view.
In the end, Noriega must be judged by Panamanians, according to Panamanian standards. His future is Panama's problem, just as the future of the Reagan policy must be decided by Americans, according to American standards.
By comparison, the White House gang's crimes are far worse than Noriega's. Nicaraguan and Salvadoran terrorists under U.S. control have killed a lot more people than Noriega may have. Our government's victims include nuns, civil engineers, children and others with far better claims to innocence than Hugo Spadafora's. Moreover, our government stands convicted by the International Court of Justice, while Noriega is only accused.
If our government continues to interfere in Panama's affairs, relations between our countries will be poisoned. If Reagan manages to install a regime which leads Panama into the unpopular Contra war, Americans will be violently attacked. It is best that we Americans concentrate on cleaning up corruption in our own government, and leave the analogous Panamanian problem to the Panamanians.