Let’s Play by the Rules

If American diplomats in any part of the world were detained by foreign soldiers, the U.S. government would howl in protest--and rightly so. So why is the Bush Administration letting U.S. troops in Panama do just that to diplomats there?

Granted, most of the diplomats who have had run-ins with U.S. soldiers come from countries that are less than friendly, like Cuba, Libya and Nicaragua. But others represent parties we are on good terms with, like the Vatican, or countries that we should be trying to repair relations with in the aftermath of the Panama invasion, like Peru.

And while some incidents have stemmed from legitimate military concerns, such as searching for hidden weapons, others seem to represent little more than bullying. Why is Peru’s embassy in Panama City, for example, surrounded by heavily armed U.S. troops, sandbags and concertina wire? The official explanation is that the armed troops, the sandbags and the wire are aimed at intercepting pro-Noriega fugitives trying to get in or out. But it would be a lot better all around to assign a detachment of Panamanian police, similar to those stationed at Nicaragua’s embassy after flare-ups between U.S. troops and Sandinista diplomats. Why look for trouble?

The 1961 Vienna Convention guarantees immunity of all diplomatic personnel and property. U.S. soldiers in Panama, concerned with military rather than diplomatic problems, probably find such rules bothersome. But those rules helped U.S. diplomats in many a tense situation, and are likely to be used again. This nation has interests all over the world, so the last thing we should do is set precedents that could come back to haunt us. The heavy-handed tactics used by some American troops in Panama may be doing just that.