From: Andrew Lang <lang@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Panama deception - movie
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:22:53 GMT

/* Written  9:19 am  Nov 10, 1992 by codehuca@igc.apc.org in igc:carnet.alerts */
/* ---------- "Panama deception - movie" ---------- */
"THE PANAMA DECEPTION" - a video about the U.S. invasion of Panama

Recently CODEHUCA (the Commission for the Defense of Human Rights
in Central America) has done work on the on-going impact of the
U.S. 'Just Cause' invasion (December 20, 1989) and the
implementation of structural adjustment economic development plans
on the economic, social and cultural rights of the Panamanian
people, particularly the 'bottom' 50 % of the population. This work
has referred to the Just Cause Invasion as a fundamental turning
point in understanding what is occuring in Panama today.

Now, almost three years later, we look again at the Invasion
itself. The "Empowerment Project" of California (address below) has
recently released a 90 minute film that studies the Just Cause
Invasion and how the U.S. manipulated the press and lied to the
international community as to why it 'was necessary' to invade.

Neither CODEHUCA nor the Empowerment Project team is rehashing an
old and dead theme here - that of the invasion. Most Panamanian
people today are living its aftermath: the destruction and loss of
life caused by the invasion have not been addressed or compensated
in any real way; the government of Endara (installed by the
occupying U.S. forces) has been, since December 20, 1989,
implementing structural adjustment development plans that are
violating basic human rights.

The past, present and future of Panama depends on the historical
and on-going role of the U.S. 

"The Panama Deception"
This movie has recently received very positive reviews in numerous
U.S. newspapers. We write this article based almost solely on what
the North American newspapers have to say about the film and its
contents. 

What is the film about?
     "Shot on video and transferred to film, there is nothing
     glossy or high tech about the 'Panama Deception'. ... After
     sketching the history of US involvment in the region, in which
     a system of racial apartheid similar to the American Deep
     South was instituted, the film works its way up to Noriega -
     who was on the CIA's payroll before ... his power became
     inexpedient to the Pentagon". (Los Angeles Times, July 31,
     1992)

     "The film's central thesis is that Noriega was demonized in
     the American media in order to rally public support for what
     was, in effect, a deliberately provocative US military
     entrance into Panamanian territory". (Los Angeles Times)

     "The Panama Deception is advocacy at its most effective. ...
     But this advocacy does not translate into unfairness: US
     officials, lame thought they may sound, give the official
     explanations for the atrocities of the invasion". (Chicago
     Sun-Times, August 28, 1992)

     "Interviews with Ramsey Clark, Panamanian boxer Roberto Duran,
     a retired admiral, a former CIA analyst and NY Rep. Charles
     Rangel add weight to its argument ...". (Boston Herald,
     September 25, 1992)

Why put out a film now, three years after the fact? 
     "Panama has faded from consciousness so quickly that soon it
     will join the Dominican Republic in the catalogue of obscure
     American military adventures about which few care, except for
     the thousands of poor Panamanians made homeless by the US
     bombardment and the families of those uncounted civilians
     killed in the attack". (Chicago Sun-Times) 

     "The makers of the ... documentary want to keep the debate
     alive about the issue, questioning not only the results of the
     invasion but also the motivation behind it, its execution and
     the U.S. media's role in uncritically transmitting the
     administration's version of the action to the American
     public". (The Boston Globe, September 25, 1992)

What were the US's justifications for the invasion?
     "The official explanations for the military intervention -
     that American citizens were in danger, that Noriega's drug
     trafficking had to be smashed, that democracy had to be
     restored to the area - are dealt with singly, devastatingly.
     Certainly these purported explanations have not been bourne
     out: drug trafficking has doubled since the invasion and the
     US-approved oligarchy headed by new President Endara is not
     exactly a model of democracy". (Los Angeles Times)

What was the purpose of the invasion?
     "Many of the commentators in the film state that the purpose
     of the invasion was not to altruistically free Panama from
     dictator Manuel Noriega's control, but in the short run to
     counter George Bush's wimp factor and in the long run to
     renegotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty which mandates the
     handover of the Panama Canal to Panama and the closing of US
     military bases there in the year 2000". (Boston Globe)

     "The film's final credits note that in March 1991 President
     Endara proposed a constitutional amendment forever abolishing
     Panama's right to have an army and that later that year the US
     Congress passed a law to renegotiate the Panama Canal Treaties
     to ensure continued US military presence". (Los Angeles Times)

What was the role of the media and the real suffering caused?
     "The film is particularly vehement in its indictment of the
     mainstream media for providing coverage of the Panama story in
     black and white terms, and ignoring the tragedies suffered by
     the Panamanian civilians, particularly the poor whose
     neighborhoods were devastated". (Boston Globe)
     
     "According to the film, left out of Bush's skillfully
     manipulated "clean image" presented through the media is the
     Panama war's tragic human toll - an estimated 20,000
     Panamanians were left homeless by American bombing and
     shelling, 7000 were detained by military authorities for vague
     reasons and as many as 4000 remain unaccounted for, most of
     them murdered and buried in mass graves under US supervision".
     (San Francisco Chronicle, September 10, 1992)

     "Some of the gruesome footage shows civilians fleeing in
     automobiles being crushed by tanks that drove down streets
     destroying everything in their paths. Whole blocks of urban
     areas were devastated". (San Francisco Chronicle)

     "And then there's the whole public-relations campaign aspect
     of the invasion which the filmmakers say was a dry run for
     Desert Storm as far as controlling information and press
     mobility were concerned". (Boston Herald)

How many were killed and where are bodies of the dead?
     "While the US military lists Panamanian casualties in the
     hundreds other sources including the United Nations list
     casualties in the thousands". (Boston Globe)

     "We have in this film the familiar jargon of surgical strikes
     and "collateral damage". Gen. Maxwell Thurman repeats the
     official estimates of 500 Panamanian casualties while the
     Panamanian Human Rights Commission puts the figure closer to
     4,000. Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams says "I have seen no
     reports of US troops executing anyone in Panama" and then we
     see evidence (officially denied) of mass graves". (Los Angeles
     Times)

     "There's a Department of Defense spokesman denying the
     existence of US-built mass graves where high civilian
     casualties were "hidden", only to have his words matched to
     images of Panamanians unearthing one of those hideous sites".
     (Boston Herald) 

     "The bodies of many civilians who died were dumped into huge
     pits and buried with bulldozers without being counted or
     identified. The number of people who died this way - hundreds?
     thousands? tens of thousands? - is the subject of debate and
     speculation". (Chicago Sun-Times)


The demonization of Noriega, to justify the invasion?
     "The film details the relationship between Noriega and the
     CIA, especially his longtime connections with Bush as CIA
     director, vice-president and president. As Noriega became
     increasingly vocal in his criticism of US policy he was
     systematically turned into a comic book villain whose ouster
     was effected by Operation Just Cause, the military's name for
     the invasion". (The Boston Globe)

     "There's George Bush - who, as mid-1970s CIA head and later
     top dog in the 'War on Drugs", kept Manuel Noriega on the
     payroll - suddenly calling him an evil madman (which of course
     would similarily happen with Saddam Hussein". (Boston Herald)

Does the cover-up continue today?
     "There are no plans for the video to be broadcast on
     television, where it belongs. This is the sort of production
     that almost never gets a mass audience, not because no wants
     to see it, but rather because no one will show it". (Chicago
     Sun-Times)

     "... (T)here is nothing zealous or sensational about the
     presentation and one can at least argue that its manipulations
     are not pressured by any government or corporate support
     (meaning it would take a miracle to get this broadcast on
     public television)". (The Seattle Times, August 20, 1992)

Conclusion
The past, present and future of the human rights situation in
Panama depends in large part on the historical and on-going role of
the U.S. CODEHUCA encourages the reader to obtain this documentary
and use it for purposes of public education in the US and
elsewhere; in schools, universities, and with the press, local
interest groups and politicians. In CODEHUCA's opinion the human
rights situation in a country like Panama cannot been understood
without analysing and criticizing as well the role of the US.

Empowerment Project: 1653 18th St., Ste 3, Santa Monica, CA, U.S.,
90404, Tel-310-828-8807, Fax-310-453-4347.

Contact - Marjoleine Motz and Grahame Russell, AP 189-1002, San
Jose, Costa Rica, Tel - 506-245970, Fax - 506-342935.

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive