The Panama Deception

Politically and philosophically, not much has changed since the time of the building of the Panama Canal and Theodore Roosevelt who, when asked by an interviewer by what right he had claimed the region, replied “I took it.” The Panama Deception is an informative new film by the Empowerment Project (the same group who produced Coverup: Behind the Iran Contra Affair). It reveals some of the shameful truth behind the December 1989, U.S. invasion of Panama. It presents facts which the American media (constricted by their own blind patriotism and their having been herded into military-controlled press pools) did such a shabby job of reporting at the time of their occurrence. It strips the illusion that the invasion was a maneuver dedicated to the mere routing of Manuel Noriega (whose power George Bush, as CIA chief, was largely responsible for consolidating) from office. Neither was it an operation designed to protect American lives as averred by our government, nor a strategic pipeline interruptus ploy directed at the Panamanian drug flow. The real reason for the invasion, claims Panama Deception, was the restitution of U.S. control of the Canal Zone (and, thereby, Central America) which a 1977 treaty signed by President Carter had promised to return to Panamanian self-control by the year 2000. Before it was over, 26,000 American troops occupied tiny Panama, having used overwhelming deadly force to obtain their objectives. Massive numbers of civilian casualties are shown to have occurred and although the U.S. military lists the official number of civilian casualties at approximately 250, the U.N. estimate puts the figure at 2500 while various Panamanian human rights organizations estimate that number to be greater than 4000. Of course, in hindsight, the invasion can also be seen as a testing ground for the mobilization and weaponry used in the soon-to-come gulf war. Still, although essentially in agreement with the assertions made in Panama Deception, I, too often, found their manner of presentation lacking in irrefutable validity. Certainly, the film's mode of pitting eyewitness reports against official government accounts is one form of powerful refutation. But so many of the unknown “experts” who dispute the government dogma are presented with the identifying tag of “journalist/author” and there is no impartial reason we should allow their testimonies and conclusions more weight than that of the identified government spokespeople. Also, the music and editing are constructed so as to lead us toward very clear opinions of who the good guys and bad guys are. With its abundance of unsubstantiated assertions, The Panama Deception is unlikely to convince anyone who is not already inclined toward its way of thinking. Still, anything that peers into the shadowy political mire of what the United Nations condemned as a “flagrant violation of international law” is a welcome candle in the darkness.