Movie Review
The Panama Deception (1992)
Reviews/Film; Invasion of Panama: Rooting Out the Reason
By VINCENT CANBY
Published: October 23, 1992
"The Panama Deception," opening today at the Village East Cinema, is a tough, provocative, highly opinionated and slickly produced documentary, an answer to the official United States Government line about the 1989 invasion of Panama.
Barbara Trent, the film's director; David Kasper, the writer and editor, and their colleagues say the principal purpose of the invasion was not to liberate Panama from the control of a ruthless dictator and to bring Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega to trial on drug charges. Rather, they say, it was to destabilize the country and destroy Panama's Defense Forces, creating a situation that would allow the United States to renegotiate the treaties, signed by President Jimmy Carter, under which the canal is to be turned over to the Panamanians by the year 2000.
The film is full of witnesses: policy makers, official spokesmen, politicians, informed observers, flunkies, historians and ordinary folk, many of them Panamanian victims of the war that, the film points out, was covered by the American news organizations almost entirely in terms that served official United States interests. This is hardly a scoop, but it's something that needs repeating for Americans who judge the importance of everything that happens in the rest of the world, whether it's a war or the Olympics, from the hometown point of view.
"The Panama Deception" puts the 1989 invasion in a historical context, presenting it as a continuation of the policies by which the United States first acquired rights over what would become the Panama Canal Zone under President Theodore Roosevelt. The film sees the actions of President Bush and his Administration as no less high-handed but possibly even more sorrowful in the light of what is supposed to be a better informed, more liberal age.
Included are interviews with Gen. Maxwell R. Thurman, the commander of the invasion, and President Guillermo Endara of Panama, and with outspoken critics of the invasion, including Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, and Ramsey Clark, the former United States Attorney General. In addition to the material shot specifically for the film, "The Panama Deception" also presents much material shot during and after the invasion but not widely seen before. Ms. Trent makes much use of irony, for example, by juxtaposing a Panamanian politician's statements about peace and democracy with shots dramatizing the fearful toll war takes on civilians, most of them poor. It's easily done but still effective.
"The Panama Deception" is very canny film making. Its images are moving in themselves and beautifully edited. It really doesn't need a lot of Elizabeth Montgomery's instructive narration, which constantly tells the audience what it's supposed to think. The pictures and the testimony do quite well on their own. The Panama Deception Directed by Barbara Trent; written and edited by David Kasper; music by Chuck Wild; produced by Ms. Trent, Mr. Kasper, Nico Panigutti and Joanne Doroshow; released by Empowerment Project. Village East Cinema, Second Avenue at 12th Street, Manhattan. Running time: 94 minutes. This film is not rated. Narrated by Elizabeth Montgomery; English voice-overs by Abraham Alvarez, Carlos Cantu, Diviana Ingravallo, Alma Martinez, Lou Diamond Phillips, Tony Plana, Rose Portillo, Lucy Rodriguez and Carmen Zapata.
‘The Panama Deception’ (NR)
By Hal Hinson
Washington Post Staff Writer
October 17, 1992
Watching "The Panama Deception," Barbara Trent's disturbing new documentary about the U.S. government's 1989 invasion of Panama, one wonders why damaging questions about the Bush and Reagan administrations' involvement have not come up in this year's presidential campaign.
The best explanation is that the film's allegations of misconduct, mismanagement and illegal actions by the government are without substantiation -- that is, without conclusive legal substantiation -- for a convincing case to be made. Still, the issues raised in this meticulously researched investigation, which explores the long political relationship between the United States and Panama, both before and after the war, are plausible enough to lead us to the conclusion that the complete story of what happened in Panama has not yet come to light.
The allegations that Trent (who also directed "Cover Up: Behind the Iran-Contra Affair") and her collaborators make here are certainly inflammatory. Some, like the authorization of payments to then-Col. Manuel Noriega, who was the main CIA contact in Panama during the '70s and '80s, are not new. That George Bush, as the CIA director for President Ford, established a relationship with Noriega, placing him on the CIA payroll, has been well established. It's also a matter of historical fact that the Reagan administration reinstated Noriega after Stansfield Turner, President Carter's director of the CIA, had ordered an end to payments, and, in addition, raised Noriega's salary to $100,000.
Trent's main point is that if, in the current language of the campaign, a tyrant like Saddam Hussein was coddled right up to the eve of Desert Shield, then the government was guilty of a similarly disastrous relationship with Noriega, who until he became an obstacle to U.S. interests in Central America -- particularly in the supply of arms to contra bases in Costa Rica -- was considered a major ally.
But beyond that, "The Panama Deception" claims that the stated purpose of the invasion -- that is, to restore democracy to this troubled area -- is patently absurd, and that, in essence, the American people were lied to so that the government might remove a pesky impediment to its policies in the area.
Also, the movie suggests, the action itself, which was played up by the media as a smashing success, was not nearly as tidy and efficient as we were led to believe, with perhaps thousands of Panamanian civilians killed, many of them murdered by American troops and shoveled into mass graves. (The official U.S. estimates of Panamanian deaths -- 220 civilians, 314 soldiers -- are blatantly false, the film charges.) Trent and writer David Kasper support these claims with the findings of several independent humanitarian groups and the eyewitness testimony of countless Panamanian citizens, who claim that not only were atrocities committed by American soldiers operating outside their legal jurisdiction, but also, according to medical reports, many sustained wounds that could not have been made by conventional weapons, suggesting that chemical weapons and even lasers were used in the invasion.
Because the American press was largely shut out of the conflict, what actually happened during the three-day conflict remains shrouded in mystery. As a result, following the course of the events laid out by the filmmakers is a bit like eating an artichoke: Peeling back one layer only lays bare another. According to the film, capturing Noriega was never one of the major goals of the invasion; the primary American motive was the elimination of Noriega's militant goon squad. Nor was the action merely an act of retribution for the death of an American soldier, who, the Los Angeles Times reported, was a member of a group known as the "Hard Chargers," whose mission was to provoke attacks against Americans, thereby opening the door for retaliation.
According to Trent's findings, the invasion was an elaborately engineered setup, designed to provoke an international incident and give the United States a chance to get out of the Carter-Torrijos treaty returning control of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians by the year 2000, flex its military muscle and conduct a test run for new technologies. In other words, it was belligerent, completely unnecessary, and, as the United Nations concluded, in complete violation of international law. And, the filmmakers charge, because the United States has reneged on its commitment to make financial compensation to civilian victims, thousands are still homeless, and human rights violations continue.
Depending on a single source such as this one is always dangerous; there's the possibility that both sides are engaging in a propaganda war. But "The Panama Deception" does a superb job of documenting its case -- which if only partially true has the distinct smell of a rat.
Copyright The Washington Post
Cineaste v20, n1 (Wntr, 1993): 43 (2 pages).
Produced by Barbara Trent, Joanne Doroshow, Nico Panigutti and David Kasper; directed by Barbara Trent; written and edited by David Kasper; cinematography by Michael Dobo and Masnuel Becker; narration by Elizabeth Montgomery; music by Chuck Wild.
On December 19, 1989, most Americans were glued to their televisions in disbelief as thousands of U.S. troops prepared to attack Panama with the stated purpose of ousting the man the media loved to hate, General Manuel Noriega. By early morning, they were reassured that Operation "Just Cause" had achieved its goal of hitting twenty-seven targets, thus making Panama safe for Americans living in that country as well as those safely at home in front of their televisions. But the media failed to investigate many crucial issues, including the fate of Panamanian citizens and a detailed explanation of the just cause' for which American troops were fighting. These are the questions “The Panama Deception” sets out to answer, and, in so doing, it provides a provocative, well-documented analysis of U.S. relations with Panama and a devastating critique of the mainstream media and its complicity with the official government line.
For those familiar with the findings of the report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry see The U.S. Invasion of Panama: The Truth Behind Operation Just Cause, South End Press, 1991), the film's exploration of the contradictions between the official reasons for the invasion and the real motivations will come as no surprise, but for many “The Panama Deception” will serve as a shocking illustration of the brutal face of American foreign policy.
During the attack, the U.S. unleashed a force of 24,000 troops equipped with highly sophisticated weaponry and aircraft against a country with an army smaller than the New York City Police Department. With uncanny echoes of Grenada less than a decade earlier, this illegal invasion against a sovereign nation was made in the name of "the protection of American lives" as well as the defense of the Panama Canal, the restoration of democracy, and the removal of Noriega and his drug trafficking operation - reasons which might have sounded good at the White House but failed to convince anyone with a knowledge of the history of U.S.-Panamanian relations.
As a result of the controversial 1977 Carter-Torrijos treaties, the Canal was scheduled to be turned over to Panama by the year 2000. The treaty provided for the closure of all fourteen Southern Command bases in Panama by 1999 which would make more difficult U.S. military access to the rest of Latin America. Seen in these terms, the invasion provided a convenient justification for continued U.S. military presence in the area as well as the rationale for the renegotiation of the treaties. From an international vantage point, the overpowering show of force demonstrated that the U.S. retained control over its own backyard.'
“The Panama Deception” explores these contradictions as well as the many other lies generated to deflect criticism of the attack which violated both the U.N. and O.A.S. charters. Using archival footage and interviews with a wide range of both Panamanian and American authorities, the film puts the invasion in context by showing the troubled history of the Canal's construction at the beginning of the century, the resulting confrontations over the years between the U.S. military and Panamanians, and the problematic relationship during the Seventies with Panama's popular leader, General Omar Torrijos. The montage of archival images reprising the historical relationship includes several which foreshadow the events of 1989. Of particular note is the televised segment of a soon- to-be-elected Ronald Reagan recreating the role of Teddy Roosevelt as he compares the Canal Zone to the acquisition of Alaska in saying, "We bought it, we paid for it, and General Torrijos should be told we're going to keep it."
The film also chronicles the rise and fall of Noriega as he was courted, then rejected, by the American government after he became a political liability. The sequence on the U.S. media's demonization of Noriega, including Bush's inarticulate rambling about "Mr. Noriega, the drug-related, drug-indicted dictator of Panama" would be comical if we didn't know that this was just the prelude to a bloody confrontation. As an interview with an ex-CIA analyst reveals, the invasion was intended to "reverse Bush's image as a wimp," a rather large price for the Panamanian people to pay for the sake of his political viability.
In addition to analyzing the invasion and filling in many specific details about the excessive force used, the film also presents the Panamanian perspective, the side we never saw on the nightly news. Eyewitness accounts of the bombing and the fear felt by the people as they saw their families killed, their homes destroyed, and their city devastated, powerfully convey the human suffering caused by this act of aggression. In contrast to the images of Panamanians welcoming the Americans as a liberating force which the mainstream broadcast media presented, the angry voices of Panamanians describe the horror, pain, and continued disruption of their lives. While some might call it heavy- handed, the ironic juxtaposition of official commentary by government spokesmen with actual footage of the invasion and its aftermath succeeds in revealing that lies were created on every level - the sites of the bombings in civilian neighborhoods, the search and destroy methods of the U.S. military in the days following the attack, the number of Panamanians killed, and the continued impact on the people in the form of homelessness, unemployment, and political instability.
Various regional and international human rights commissions estimate that between 2,500 and 4,000 Panamanians were killed in the invasion, a far cry from official U.S. reports of only several hundred. Many of those interviewed in the film - like Isabel Corro, a Panamanian human rights worker - continue to raise money for the exhumation of bodies from mass graves which Pentagon spokesmen deny exist.
As the film makes clear, the U.S. government was not solely responsible for the deception. The mainstream media was shamefully complicit in passing on government press releases as news. Interviews with media analysts Michael Parenti and Mark Hertsgard discuss the total collaboration of the media in this dress rehearsal of restrictions on the press later repeated during the Gulf War. Several cleverly edited sequences mesh the images and voices of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and other arbiters of information as they use virtually the same language to describe the invasion and what it means' to the American public.
In this respect, “The Panama Deception” is not only a visual analysis of the events of December 1989, it is also an indictment of the news apparatus in a society where alternative interpretations of events rarely reach the public at large. In Panama, the suppression of information included the destruction of photographs and videotape documenting the high number of civilian casualties.
Through the efforts of The Empowerment Project, “The Panama Deception” had opened theatrically in over sixty cities across the U.S. even before it won an Academy Award this year. Utilizing their past experience in community organizing, the filmmakers created a unique distribution strategy in which post-screening discussion sessions were held in theaters, not only to answer questions but also to redirect the audience's rage over the invasion into positive political action, such as appearing on local radio talk shows or writing letters to the editors of their local newspapers in order to challenge their own sources of information.
Stylistically, the film has several drawbacks. The continuous use of voice-over narration to explain most of the imagery assumes that the audience is not able to make connections on its own. The animated maps and some of the video graphics seem better suited to a didactic instructional film than an investigative documentary. Still, these objections are minor in comparison with the overall significance of “The Panama Deception” as an impressive source of information on an event our government would sooner have us forget.
(C) Cineaste Publishers Inc., 1993. Reprinted for Fair Use Only