The Canal Treaty Is Haunting Us : Liberals Feared Intervention, Now They Clamor For It

Who says bipartisan foreign policy is a thing of the past? Almost everyone in Washington is in favor of U.S. intervention to overthrow the de facto government of Panamanian strongman Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega.

Dovish Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry, Rep. Edward Boland and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have for years denounced the Administration’s Nicaragua policy as interventionist. Now these same people support the efforts of President Reagan to topple the Noriega dictatorship. Indeed, many of our nation’s leading non-interventionists now criticize the Administration for not acting quickly enough, or going far enough, to remove Noriega from power.

The left’s flip-flop on the issue of interventionism stems in part from Noriega’s indictment in February by two federal grand juries on charges of drug trafficking and money laundering. It is very important these days for politicians to look tough on drugs; demanding Noriega’s ouster is an easy way to do it.

Interestingly, a variety of evidence also points to the involvement of top-ranking Sandinista officials in the illegal trafficking of narcotics into the United States. Nonetheless, Kerry, Boland or Jackson have never called for the ouster of the Ortega brothers. Evidently, many of our congressional leaders continue to be guided by one of history’s best-refuted political maxims: “No enemies to the left.”

Noriega, who has been cozy with both Fidel Castro of Cuba and the Sandinistas, is not a bona fide fascist. Genuine fascist rulers have been scarce in the world for a long time. But Noriega is a corrupt military dictator and, unlike his dictatorial predecessor, Gen. Omar Torrijos, Noriega has failed to cloak his rule in the mantle of ideological leftism or anti-gringoism. Many of those in Congress who now seek to oust Noriega did not call for the removal of Torrijos and were among the chief backers of the 1978 treaty that promised to turn over complete control of the Panama Canal to Torrijos or his successors by Jan. 1,2000.

Of course, I, too, want to see Noriega out as soon as possible. His dictatorship has become hateful to the vast majority of Panamanians, making for a highly unstable situation that imperils the security of the entire region. All the evidence suggests that his involvement in drug trafficking has made him beholden to both Castro and to the Medellin Cartel, the multi-billion-dollar international drug syndicate responsible for murdering 22 high-ranking officials and hundreds of lesser officeholders in neighboring Colombia during the past three years.

From the standpoint of American and, indeed, Western security, it is intolerable that a man such as Noriega should one day take charge of the Panama Canal.

Yet the supreme irony in the whole situation is that the Panama Canal treaty was negotiated precisely so that the United States would not be open to the charge of interventionism in Panamanian affairs. Now Washington is obliged to intervene on behalf of Panama’s democratic opposition precisely because the treaty threatens to transfer ownership of the canal to a regime in league with the criminal underworld and indebted to a strategic adversary of the United States.

Fortunately for the United States, there is responsible democratic opposition in Panama. Opposition parties and groups are united behind the U.S.-recognized government of national reconciliation headed by President Eric Arturo Delvalle. They not only welcome the economic and diplomatic pressures now being exerted by the Reagan Administration to remove Noriega from power; many of them, including Mariella Delvalle, the president’s wife, and Juan Sosa, Panama’s ambassador to Washington, urge that the United States prepare itself to intervene militarily should Noriega refuse to step down.

Washington, however, has no wish to use military force in Panama, although this option should never be ruled out. Our quarrel is with Noriega, not with the 16,000-man Panama Defense Force and still less with the Panamanian people. What is more, the Reagan Administration’s policy of economic and diplomatic pressure appears to be working.

What the Administration and Congress must ponder now is what should be done when Noriega finally goes.

A few suggestions:

--After having helped precipitate a paralyzing financial crisis in Panama, the United States must provide large amounts of economic assistance to reactivate the country’s banking industry, restore investor confidence and provide immediate welfare benefits to Panama’s poorer citizens, many of whom are now entirely dependent for their survival on the food furnished by relief organizations. Panama’s democratic opposition leaders are requesting $400 million in post-Noriega relief. This is not an unreasonable amount.

--Offer to resume military assistance to the Panama Defense Force on condition that it take positive steps to remove itself from politics and adopt the professionalism required of a force entrusted with the future defense of the Panama Canal.

--Work with the government of national reconciliation to revise Panama’s bank secrecy laws that encourage the use of Panamanian banks and corporations for illegal drug money laundering schemes.

--Make the provision of some economic assistance conditional on Panama’s adoption of market-oriented economic reforms. Such conditionality is needed to undo years of deficit-financed state enterprises that have given Panama one of the highest per-capita national debts in the world.

Above all, we in Congress should be patient and firm and continue to give President Reagan the support he needs to see the Panama crisis through to a peaceful and democratic resolution.