Time Out on Panama : If We Must ‘Do Something,’ Let It Be Rational and Democratic

The election in Panama is over, and the result, unfortunately, is no surprise to anyone: Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega’s man is the winner. The question, in both Panama and Washington, is: Now what?

To some, the United States’ response should be as simple as it is swift: Break the Panama Canal Treaty. This has already been suggested by Florida’s new Republican senator, Connie Mack, and others returning Monday after watching the so-called election. That approach also may have some appeal to President Bush’s political advisers as they seek an issue on which they can demonstrate the Administration’s decisiveness in foreign policy.

There is no question that the election was a fraud. And there is no question that Noriega is crafty and dangerous. He has no intention of relinquishing his power, and his handling of the election demonstrates his skill at political survival. Once again, Noriega has transformed a threat to his power into a grant of false legitimacy.

Noriega’s strength comes from two sources. First, he has built the Panamanian Defense Force into a Mafia-like institution with tentacles into all aspects of Panamanian economic life. And he has been adept at using the power of nationalism to thwart pressure from the United States.

Breaking the treaty would prove that Noriega has been right all along--that he is the embodiment of Panama’s sovereignty and national identity. That has been his “secret weapon” against the United States. And it is high time we stopped playing into his script.

The U.S. government has used Noriega, and has been used by him, for years. Our officials have known of his drug deals and power plays. Those who are now outraged by the weekend’s events in Panama remind us of the scene from “Casablanca,” where the corrupt police chief says, “I am shocked there is gambling going on here,” while pocketing his share of the winnings. Gen. Noriega has long been treated as a staunch ally of the United States--so close that our various agencies have actually fought over which could claim to be his best friend. As a retired Latin American military officer visiting Washington observed with a shrug, “What is the surprise? You Americans created Noriega.”

Sunday’s election should also remind us of Panama’s last presidential election, in 1984, when Noriega talked like a democrat. Then, too, there was a strong showing by the opposition. Then, as now, the outcome was fraudulent. Then, however, Noriega’s candidate, Nicolas Ardito Barletta, was also Washington’s candidate. When it became clear that Barletta was going to lose, Noriega stopped the ballot-counting and declared his and our candidate the winner. Despite some lonely voices of protest, the U.S. ambassador and the State Department sanctioned the sham.

In 1985 and ‘86, the United States continued to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Panama because Noriega was proving helpful in support of the Nicaraguan Contras.

Let us be clear about what has been happening in Panama since then: Noriega was becoming more obviously the dictator and less compliant with U.S. wishes around the time that drug-trafficking became a U.S. domestic priority. Washington seized on an approach to deal with him that was ill-conceived and poorly thought-out. It backfired. The U.S. sanctions against Panama struck the opposition harder than Noriega.

Now, some of the U.S. officials who observed the weekend election are seeking another quick fix to a long-standing problem. Breaking the treaty might make them feel good, but it would do little to weaken Noriega or encourage democratic institutions. It is a classic example of what Harvard Prof. Howard Wiarda has described as a failure to understand that the levers of power in foreign policy are not easily manipulated.

It is time to build a new policy toward Panama. No quick fixes, no overnight solutions. And no abrupt moves that will only stoke the fires of Panamanian nationalism and rally people to Noriega’s cause.

It may be quite some time before the damage done in the 1980s can be overcome. But the Panamanian people need to know that the United States has a clear policy, guided by principles.

We need to say clearly and boldly that we will respect the canal treaty; that the days of the United States’ controlling Panama are over; that the days of tolerating military dictatorship in Panama are numbered, and that we want the people of Panama to be able to choose their leaders in fair, free elections, after which those elected will take office and exercise their responsibilities.

Secretary of State James A. Baker III needs to be clear on the ends and the means of U.S. policy toward Panama. He must resist political pressures to break the treaty. Instead, he should call for a meeting of the democrats of Latin America to develop a coordinated package of carrots and sticks that will include specific steps that would reduce Noriega’s strength without allowing him to fan the flames of anti-Americanism. In short, U.S. policy should take the long view, having as its goal a Panama that is a true, reliably democratic ally.