THE PRESS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1989. U.S. action in Panama

Press, 22 December 1989, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1989. U.S. action in Panama

The action of the United States in sending troops into Panama is understandable, though the consequences are unpredictable and may prove costlier than the United States would like. The incursion was clearly designed as a short, sharp, action. Because one of its purposes was to take prisoner the President of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, and General Noriega is still at large, the hopedfor brevity of the action may not be achieved. The offer of a SUSI million reward for the capture of General Noriega seems to add an air of desperation and a slightly swashbuckling appearance to the whole operation. President Bush, who is a cautious man, would probably have liked to avoid creating such an appearance. Should the United States have sent troops into Panama? That depends mostly on the seriousness of the threat to United States citizens in Panama. What the United States has to justify its invasion is the killing of an American soldier last week and the capture and threats to the lives of others. Also, Panama had declared itself to be in a state of war with the United States. The United States says that it was holding information that General Noriega planned to attack American citizens in Panama. Viewed this way, the incursion could be regarded as a pre-emptive strike taken to protect American citizens. Just how reliable was the information was that General Noriega planned to attack Americans in Panama is hard to establish and may remain so.

Little doubt exists that General Noriega himself is a nasty piece of work. There is substantial evidence that he was involved in. some aspect of drug trafficking and he has been indicted on that charge in the United States. He created a militia that attacked political opponents. Last May, hours after a poll in which he seemed certain to be defeated, he annulled the election. The United States and other countries have had to deal with some unsavoury characters in the past and there would probably haye to be more at stake than questionable credentials for an invasion to be undertaken. Former United States President, Mr Jimmy Carter, led the international observers of the election. He denounced the poll as “totally fraudulent” and reported that Noriega obviously never considered that voters would go against him in such numbers as certified tally sheets had disclosed.

The Panama Canal is an obvious factor. The United States is due to hand the control of the canal to Panama by 1999. On January 1 next year the canal’s administrator, now a retired American general, should hand over to a Panamanian citizen. This Panamanian was to be nominated by the President of Panama, approved by the United States President, and confirmed by the United States Senate. Perhaps any of General Noriega’s nominations would have been. unacceptable to the United States; and the* man he did nominate, a close associate whg runs a pro-Govemment newspaper, certainly was unacceptable. At a time of passing the top canal job over to a Panamanian, the United States was already faced with an illegitimate Government in Panama that it could not recognise. Added to United States distaste for the Noriega Government, are the

attitudes to the Panama Canal treaties and the fact that the very existence of the Republic of Panama was encouraged by the United States to help to keep the control of the canal in United States hands.

The legitimacy of the Panama Government is likely to be a central issue after the incursion? The United States has helped in the swearing-in of the candidates who undoubtedly won the May election. Many people will regard the protection of American citizens as a reasonable action for the United States Government to take. But the swearing in of other people to head the Government seems much more open to question. In fact, the candidates were earlier deprived of their election victory by forces loyal to General Noriega, and it could be argued that the United States was merely restoring democracy by seeing that the 'rightful ; winners of the election came to power. f‘. '

That will be the view of the United States; but is not the view of a number of Central American and South American countries. They see only the use of force by the United States to overthrow a political leader and the installation of political leaders acceptable to the United States. Many countries do not like that, even if it is justified in the name of the restoration of democracy, and even if it is plain that Panama has to have a Government. A coup attempt in October failed. At the time, President Bush was accused by some of being too cautious to assist the coup leaders. The present action seems to have been initiated solely by the United States, not by someone in Panama. The test is now whether the population of Panama will rally behind the leaders for whom a great majority apparently voted in May. Fear of military action may inhibit a display of popular support.

The reaction of the Soviet Union has been generally muted. It obviously does not approve, but it has been restrained in saying so. The world outlook on relations between the super-Powers has not been so hopeful for years. It must be hoped that the United States incursion into Panama will do nothing to impede progress towards the improvement of relations and the reduction of arms. At a time in which the Soviet Union cannot help but be nervous as it sees forms of democracy being established in countries close to its borders, it will not want to see any United States crusade for the preservation or the installation of democracies backed by United States forces. It is just as well that President Bush and Mr Gorbachev have met in a summit meeting. They should have one another’s measure and should be able to understand one another’s views well enough to agree to disagree and not to lose sight of the progress that can be made on wider issues. If the incursion ■; ends quickly, if Panamanians respond clearly and favourably to the new leaders, and if Latin American countries generally accept the'w'new? Government with the same vigour with which they condemned the upset of the May elections, the domestic and international scenes should settle down quickly. A prolonged battle to suppress Noriega’s forces would be disastrous for all. ■ '