Are There Rules Just for Us? : Panama: Does any nation have the right to decide unilaterally to dispatch its forces to remove a foreign leader, however odious?

Under what circumstances, if any, does one nation have the right to decide who should govern in another--and to use its military force to strip power from an undesirable foreign leader?

This is the heart of the matter in Panama, because the four reasons initially advanced by the White House to justify U.S. military intervention really boil down to one--the determination to remove Gen. Manuel A. Noriega from office.

It is specious to suggest that American armed forces can bring democracy to Panama (Administration reason No. 1). It will take much more than the removal of a strongman and his cronies to build the institutions and habits that make democracy possible. In any case, there is simply no provision in international law that allows one nation to dispatch troops to another with the mission of imposing democracy.

It is equally spurious to argue that the threat to American lives in Panama (Administration reason No. 2) was great enough to warrant the use of 24,000 troops, the deaths and injuries of hundreds of people and the breakup of the structure of the local armed forces and police. At least until last weekend, American citizens lived and worked in Panama without intolerable risk. The isolated incidents that occurred then, and that are now being used to justify U.S. military action, were more a result than a cause of Washington’s determination to oust Noriega from power. In any case, there were obviously many other ways, short of armed force, to reduce or remove the risks to those U.S. citizens.

It is ludicrous to contend that the integrity of the Panama Canal treaties can be preserved (Administration reason No. 3) by grossly violating its central provisions concerning the use of force. The United States cannot credibly argue that there was a threat to the canal’s functioning requiring the destruction of the Panama Defense Forces. Indeed, when the dust settles, Washington will no doubt understand that its action will greatly complicate U.S. relations not only with Panama, but also with all countries in which the United States wishes to maintain military and naval bases.

These three reasons, then, are fundamentally pretexts, offered to bolster the political and legal case of the United States for undertaking an action motivated by one goal--to remove Noriega from power. Undeniably, the general is an unsavory character. His regime in Panama was guilty of substantial human-rights violations; he cynically disrupted last May’s electoral process when it appeared his chosen candidate might lose.

There is also little question that he has been involved in thoroughly reprehensible activities, probably including drug trafficking. In a checkered career marked, above all, by rank opportunism, Noriega almost certainly added the narcotics network to his long line of funders, which also included, at various times, the CIA and the Cuban government. Understandably, Noriega has few admirers in the world.

But the question remains: Does any nation have the right to decide unilaterally--without invitation from a lawful and internationally recognized government and without approval in advance by any constituted international organization--to send in its forces to remove a foreign leader, however loathsome?

The Bush Administration can label its military action in Panama “Operation Just Cause.” But we must ask ourselves whether any cause, however just, is sufficient to warrant the use of massive military force, unless it is in response to a direct and immediate threat to the nation’s vital security interests, or to protect the lives and safety of its citizens who cannot otherwise be shielded. A century ago, nations used military force for a wide variety of purposes--to collect debts, secure tribute, punish those who mistreated its citizens. But the world has evolved a great deal since the era when the Panama Canal itself was constructed, and nations today have established international norms that severely curtail the use of violence.

Where do we stand? What rules of international conduct do we espouse? Do we think there is one set of rules for other nations and another for the United States--or one set of rules for other regions and another that applies to the Western Hemisphere? These are the questions Latin Americans are asking and that history will pose. They are the issues we ourselves must confront.