| Two U.S. blunders,
however, were poisoning Panama's future. The first had to do with the treaty
that governed U.S. presence on the isthmus.
Drafted without
a Panamanian's being consulted, then forced on the country, it gave the
U.S. sovereign rights in perpetuity over the heart of Panama's national
territory. It offended every Panamanian, and as an outmoded relic of times
past did the United States more harm than good, yet U.S. governments ignored
Panama's repeated requests that it be renegotiated until, in 1964, blood
was shed over it. After that the issue had no easy resolution.
The other blunder
was one of commission: The United States was creating a Panamanian army.
This was part of a general policy of strengthening Latin America's military
on two rationales. In one they would be our mercenaries: for cash and political
backing, they would halt the spread of Marxism by killing Marxists and
those who seemed prone to listen to them. In the other, using U.S. money,
they would go about promoting justice and democracy, thereby building Marx-proof
societies. The two views varied in modishness according to which party
held the White House but were equally futile. The first was stupidly criminal,
the second criminally stupid.
Panama had
no military--an important if not the main reason why life was better there
than in other parts of Latin America. In 1951, however, a U.S. Mutual Security
Act providing funds for the hemisphere's military induced Panama to reconstitute
its police as an army on paper. Converting it into a real one, with an
officer caste in its own eyes above the law, was the thoughtful gift of
its good neighbor to the north, done on the formula Toys plus Training
yield Esprit de Corps and Elitism.
The formula
worked. In October, 1968, the Panama's army showed itself the equal of
armed forces elsewhere in Latin America by overthrowing the elected president
ten days after he took office, suspending the Constitution, dissolving
the Legislature and Supreme Court, seizing control of the means of communication,
outlawing all political parties, closing the National University, and sending
anyone who objected to prison, exile, or the next world.
The coup was
innocent of ideology. The president wished to purge some officers he believed
less than serious about their oaths to uphold the constitution. Before
he could do so, they purged him. In consolidating power they hurt so many
Panamanians so badly that relinquishing it would expose them to great retribution.
Accordingly, they clung to it ruthlessly and reversed Panama's previous
priorities to increase their own ranks. By the end there were 20,000 soldiers
in a land of 2 million, the U.S. equivalent of an army of 20 million, a
well-armed well-trained soldier for every 100 civilians, men, women, and
children.
Panama suffered
invasion from within, occupation by an army whose soldiers were native-born
but whose purposes were foreign to the well-being of the people and the
health of the state.
The officers
who made the coup had begun their careers as policemen when Panama's police
ran prostitution and contraband. Military rule in Panama was animated by
the radical egotism common to criminals and corrupt cops. Under Omar Torrijos,
who was in charge by 1969, Panama's army went into trafficking in drugs
and weapons, even in human beings, and provided services to lawbreakers
worldwide. Manuel Noriega was the main bagman, as well as the main hitman
and spy. Torrijos called him "mi gangster."
Meanwhile,
without any help from people in uniform, Panamanians had been pressing
their case for sovereignty in their own country. In 1964, when riots along
the Canal Zone border left 21 Panamanians and four Americans dead, Panama's
civilian president broke diplomatic relations with the U.S. That December
his elected successor and Lyndon Johnson jointly agreed to negotiate a
new arrangement.
Johnson didn't
agree because the 1903 treaty was unfair but because a new one was the
best means to protect the U.S. national interest in Panama, which was and
is to keep the Canal open and the isthmus in friendly hands. In 1967 a
draft was produced. It represented about the best deal for Panama that
two thirds of the U.S. Senate would vote for, but it had to be withdrawn
at once. Panamanians weren't satisfied with it.
The problem
was one noted in some divorces. A party has been offended and wants the
other to suffer, so that a reasonable solution is by definition no good.
Thus, while the U.S. didn't impose military rule on Panama, U.S. administrations
found it handy in concluding a treaty the Senate could ratify. The U.S.
gave massive support to Torrijos and the Panamanian military and got political
return. The 1977 treaty package that Torrijos presented to Panama as having
been wrung from the gringos was the 1967 deal warmed over.
Omar Torrijos
was a fake nationalist, a fake populist, and a fake revolutionary. Wherever
the real thing showed its head in Panama, he had Noriega suppress or torture
or kill it. And he was Washington's faithful hound. For a bribe of a mere
$12 million he took a decomposing Shah off Jimmy Carter's hands, and when
Dr. Miguel Bernal, a law professor, protested in public, Noriega's goons
beat him into six months' aphasia--in the street where people could watch
and learn fear and obedience. A CBS TV crew filmed part of it; I have a
copy. Things like that beating are why I lose patience with the pose Noriega
strikes in his memoirs.
Noriega, too,
was Washington's hound, though in the end unfaithful. In 1963 the CIA made
him one of its "assets". The CIA helped him up through the ranks--e.g.,
passed him dirt on the U.S. senators who visited Panama prior to treaty
ratification with which to impress Torrijos. By 1983, with Torrijos dead
in a plane crash, Noriega was Commandant of the PDF and unquestioned boss
of Panama--proof positive, like Mobuto and too many others, that the only
thing worse than a failed CIA operation is a successful one.
In 1983 Noriega
began helping the U.S. government break a U.S. law forbidding provision
of "military equipment, military training or advice. . . for the purpose
of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua." (1) The money for what we
now call Iran-Contra moved through Panamanian banks and shell companies.
Contras received training at a base called Panajungla in western Panama.
And Noriega was a key figure in the CIA airlift of weapons to the Contras.
Israeli stocks of captured PLO weapons went from Texas to clandestine airstrips
Noriega had established in Honduras and Costa Rica during the 1970s when
the PDF was smuggling weapons to the Sandinistas, the same strips later
used for smuggling cocaine under $10 million per month general services
contract between the PDF and the Medallin cartel.
The U.S. had
two governments, a visible one headed by Ronald Reagan and an invisible
one Ollie North took blame for running. The link, Noriega suggests, was
Bush. "Bush was handling the Contras business directly," he says on page
78. He leaves out his own part in Iran-Contra, including this: since the
weapons planes were empty on flights north, he arranged for cocaine to
be loaded on them. The CIA was buying the gas and protecting the whole
affair from law enforcement--which put the U.S. in the drug war on both
sides. It also contributed to Noriega's undoing.
What caused
the falling-out between the U.S. and Noriega? The invisible government
loved him for the goon he was. The visibles insisted he buff up his image.
He went all out, did something Torrijos was too wise to fool with: he scheduled
elections. Then he flew to Washington and let Secretary of State George
Shultz pick Panama's puppet president. The choice was a young man named
Barletta who happened to be a former student of Shultz's at the University
of Chicago. A little electoral fraud, and Barletta was in. Then, in the
wake of a revolting murder, Noriega threw Barletta out.
Hugo Spadafora,
a physician, raised volunteers in Panama and led them against Somoza, becoming
a hero in the process. After the Sandinistas' victory he became disillusioned
with them and helped the Contras from Costa Rica. He learned of the cocaine
going north and denounced Noriega as being behind it. On September 13,
1985, he crossed into Panama and was arrested near the border by a member
of the PDF. His body, headless and bearing the marks of prolonged torture,
was found the next day on the Costa Rican side of the border.
In the furor
that followed, puppet president Barletta, in New York to speak at the U.N.,
answered a reporter's question by pledging to name a special investigating
commission. Noriega, summoned him home and dismissed him.
In his memoirs,
Noriega leaves out Barletta's New York statement and divorces firing him
from the murder. He acknowledges receiving calls from the U.S. ambassador
speaking for George Shultz and from Nestor Sánchez, CIA superspook,
then on the National Security Council, warning him not to fire Batletta.
He quotes Sánchez: "You are going to have problems, many, many problems
as a result." He quotes Barletta saying, "You will be sorry if you get
rid of me," and admits "time proved him right." What does Noriega give
as his reason for canning Barletta, thereby incurring Washington's disfavor?
A group of legislators were "fed up with him". (2)
Hogwash! If
there was one thing Manuel Noriega cared nothing about it was the feelings
of his civilian flunkies. He dumped a puppet president before Barletta
and two after. Besides, everyone knew that, as Shultz's ex-student, Barletta
was sacrosanct. That was clear in 1984 when Ernesto Perez Balladares, Panama's
current president, a much stronger candidate with his own Ph.D. in economics
(alas for him from Wharton not Chicago), sought the official party's nomination
then left at once on a lengthy visit to Spain. For his health, one assumed.
In April, 1994, he told me particulars in an interview: Noriega threatened
to murder his young daughters.
Noriega made
no attempt to find Spadafora's murderers. That surprised no one in Panama.
If he'd wanted the crime solved he could have kept Barletta and let him
name a commission and spared himself much grief with Washington. Few in
Panama doubted he'd ordered it, despite his being in Paris when it occurred.
Noriega ran Panama and the PDF. People who did things against his orders
invariably ended up wishing they hadn't, and Noriega rewarded those known
to be involved. The sergeant who arrested Spadafora, a karate enthusiast
with the nickname "Bruce Lee", received six months' paid vacation in Taiwan.
Murder will
out. In April, 1986, the Western Hemisphere subcommittee of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee held closed-door hearings on Panama. During
them a National Security Agency (NSA) intercept was read aloud: part of
a phone call made by Noriega on the day Spadafora died to Major Luis Cordoba,
commander of the military district in which Spadafora was arrested.
Córdoba:
"We have the rabid dog."
Noriega: "And
what does one do with a dog that has rabies?"
Untreated rabies
is fatal, but the reaction to the vaccine can be almost as bad. A dog suspected
of rabies who has bitten someone is decapitated so that a pathologist may
examine brain tissue for definitive diagnosis.
In July, 1986,
Panamanian journalist Guillermo Sanchez Bourbon, then on his second tour
of exile at the hands of Panama's dictatorship, learned of the NSA intercept
through a person who had been at the closed hearing. He published its content
in a column in the Panama City daily La Prensa. In June, 1988, he and I
published an article in Harper's about the Spadafora murder quoting the
NSA intercept.
In America's
Prisoner Peter Eisner accuses Guillermo and me of making up the NSA intercept.
We didn't. Eisner credits us with being the key figures in linking Noriega
to Spadafora's murder, which Eisner calls "the most significant item cited
in rallying opposition to him both in Panama and in the United States."
We did our bit but weren't first. Before us came Noriega for firing Barletta
lest he name an investigating commission and for refusing to find and punish
the culprits. After Noriega and still before us came Seymour M. Hersh.
In June 12,
1986, Hersh published an article in the New York Times quoting U.S. government
sources on Noriega's crimes. Of Spadafora he said, "The D.I.A. is known
to have intelligence demonstrating that General Noriega ordered the killing."
(3) I spoke with Seymour Hersh by telephone on May 7, 1997. He told me
the intelligence referred to in the sentence I have just quoted was the
text of the intercept. He quoted that text to me without my prompting.
His mention of the Defense Intelligence Agency suggests that his source
was with the Defense Department. The source of Guillermo's column was employed
elsewhere.
John Dinges
mentions the closed session of the senate subcommittee in his book Our
Man in Panama, published in 1990, saying he could only learn "one detail":
At the time
of Spadafora's death, the U.S. National Security Agency was intercepting
Noriega's calls to Panama from France. One of the calls, between Noriega
and Chiriqui commander Major Luis Cordoba, was thought to refer to Spadafora.
It took place on the afternoon of September 13, 1985, the day Spadafora
was killed.
"We have the
rabid dog," Cordoba said according to the intercept.
"What do you
do with a rabid dog?" Noriega was said to have replied. (3)
As proof of
Noriega's innocence of the Spadafora murder, Eisner cites "Dewey" Clarridge
and other CIA sources. I wonder if Eisner believes tobacco company executives
when they say their products are innocent of being addictive and carcinogenic.
Barletta was
the fig leaf that made Noriega respectable to the visible government of
the U.S. His removal provoked an escalating series of reciprocal insults
and injuries. Then a disgruntled PDF officer went public with inside dope
on the PDF's crimes, and forests were milled into newsprint to spread the
details. The people of Panama went into the streets and were repressed
brutally in front of the world's TV cameras. A Miami grand jury indicted
Noriega for drug-dealing. By then. early 1988, the United States' problem
with its former protJgJ was doomed to end in military intervention.
By creating
an army in Panama where none existed the U.S. wrecked the political ecology
of a healthy community and disturbed the military ecology of a region where
it had vital interests. By providing massive military aid to Torrijos and
his successors the U.S. made the PDF superior to its garrison on the isthmus.
Since the PDF fit most of the RICO statute's definition of "a continuing
criminal enterprise", and since its commander was as confirmed an enemy
of the U.S. as the planet provided, the U.S., by its own action--criminal,
stupid, you call it--had compromised its national security interest in
Panama. The isthmus was in unfriendly hands and the Canal liable to closure
at the PDF's whim.
There was still
time, however, for one last blunder. In February, 1988, the U.S. froze
Panama's assets and imposed economic sanctions. This cowardly action, taken
at the urging of erstwhile Noriega cronies who profited from it, damaged
Panama and its people more severely than the invasion and may well have
caused greater loss of life. It confirmed the PDF in enmity toward the
U.S. and gave its commander his first semblance of being a patriot. In
April, 1988 U.S. troops began holding night firefights with PDF intruders
near the tank farm on Howard Air Force Base in the former Canal Zone. (5)
The problem
wasn't Noriega. In August, 1988, he warned those who clamored for him to
leave power, "Put up with Noriega, those who come after are worse!" As
an example he named Luis Cordoba. The problem was the PDF. The U.S. couldn't
make up with it or pretend it wasn't there. Nearly two years of dawdling,
of trying this or that cut-rate remedy, of hoping the Panama mess would
just go away, prolonged Panama's agony and made the final bill higher.
At length the U.S. faced reality: it could write off its national interest
in Panama or it could destroy the PDF, its creation.
Why did Bush
lie? Telling the truth would have involved admitting that U.S. administrations,
including two he'd held high office in, and the CIA, of which he'd been
director, had botched things utterly in Panama. Noriega, meanwhile, was
an unfaithful hound whose acned scowl had been on everyone's TV screen.
The call wasn't close.
Bush may also
have had private reasons for the invasion. During it U.S. forces confiscated
15,000 boxes of documents that may have contained evidence of impeachable
Iran-Contra offenses. The documents are still in Panama, on a U.S. base,
but a source I believe told me that no inventory was taken for four months
and that the evidence chain has been broken.
What about
long-term interests? On page 56 of America's Prisoner Noriega ascribes
the invasion to "U.S. rejection of any scenario in which future control
of the Panama Canal might be in the hands of an independent, sovereign
Panama--supported by Japan."
This sounds
very like the reason for a repeat U.S. invasion of Panama in John le Carre's
recent novel The Tailor of Panama. I asked le Carre about it and can't
improve on his answer:
I researched
the [Japan] matter deeply and came to the conclusion that the U.S. phobia
toward Japan (then at its height) played a big part, rightly or wrongly,
in the rationale behind the invasion. The scenario of preventing Japanese
control of the Canal played well on the Hill.
There are three
phrases that touch on Noriega I wish I'd coined. Two are anonymous. "You
can't buy him, but you can rent him," sounds CIA. "We took Ali Baba but
left the 40 thieves," sounds U.S. Army and is a perfect description of
Just Cause's effect on Panamanian politics. The third is by Mike Harari,
the Mossad operative whom Noriega called his "mentor" in his 1983 speech
taking command of the PDF. Victor Ostrovsky, the Mossad defector, tells
of meeting with Harari in the Panamanian embassy in Tel Aviv, where Harari
had an office as honorary ambassador.
"Panama
is a funny country," Harari said. "It's not really a country. It's
more like a business. I know the . . . storekeeper." (6)
There's Noriega
the patriot for you.
Let's go back,
though, to when he was 15 at the Instituto, the illegitimate son of a seamstress
who gave him away and died without his ever knowing her. Someone, an agent
of the United States of America, attached to a unit I later served with,
seduced him into the world's second oldest profession, corrupted him and
set him on a lifelong path of being corrupt and corrupting others. I wish
whoever it was had left him alone.
(1) The first
of the so-called Bolland Amendments was passed in December, 1982.
(2) Quotes
in this paragraph are from America's Prisoner, pp. 122-123.
(3) Seymour
M. Hersh, "Panama Strongman Said to Trade in Drugs, Arms, and Illicit Money,"
The New York Times, June 12, 1986, p. A18.
(4) John Dinges,
Our Man in Panama (New York, 1990) p. 239.
(5) I first
heard of these skirmishes from students of mine who lived at Howard. Information
about them is available in Nicholas E. Reynolds, Just Cause: Marine Operations
in Panama 1988-1989, History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps (Washington, 1996) p. 6 ff.
(6) Victor
Ostrovsky, By Way of Deception, (New York, 1991) pp. 106-107.
To contact
R.M. Koster Click Here |