The Panama Deception

The United States’ invasion of Panama in 1989 was an event, like many of its kind, which was surrounded by a great deal of controversy and tragedy.  Barbara Trent, the director of The Panama Deception presents it as such in her documentary, and works to convince the viewer to agree with her views on the issue.  Trent uses testimonies of victims, political figures, and public officials as well as film footage of political events, rallies, and tragic events in order to give the viewer a realistic image of what took place.  She also adds in scenes of Panama and other striking images such as those of newspaper headlines, weapons, casualties, and destruction which also serve to evoke an emotional response from the viewer in order to further her purpose.

The historical style of the film lends credibility to the story which it presents because it takes on a didactic and informational tone.  The stern, no-nonsense voice of the female narrator serves to create a sense of dependability, and present the necessary information.  The film begins with a description of the invasion and an account of a victim of the event who expresses the great fear she felt at the sight of the helicopters dropping bombs on the city.  The fact that an upbeat Panamanian Christmas song accompanies the early scenes of the country also help bring to mind the emotion and human aspect of what exactly is being described.  This mode of description for the attack serves to grab the viewers attention and immediately involve them with the Panamanian victims.  After the description serves this purpose, the film backs up to give the back-story and sequence of events leading up to the invasion, then continues to describe the invasion and the events following it.

General Manuel Noriega was a member of the Panamanian Armed Forces who was paid by the United States government, primarily for his work allowing the U.S. to remain in the Panama Canal Zone.  In exchange, President George Bush increased his pay for more services, and defended the fact that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking by making it unnecessary for information on narcotics trades to be included in Noriega’s reports on the country.  When Noriega was unwilling to help the U.S. expand their military presence in Panama, he was indicted for his involvement with the drug trade by his former employer.  The United States, seeking a new puppet, turned to Guillermo Endara for support, backing he and his running mates Calderon and Ford with financial support in Panama’s presidential election.  To the dismay of the U.S., this attempt was unsuccessful and Noriega was appointed Head of State.  After a failed attempt at a coup, the U.S. sent a great number of troops into Panama, along with a special task force, which was assigned the task of provoking Panamanians into beginning an incident in order that the U.S. might have an excuse to attack.  The task force succeeded and the U.S. implemented “Operation Just Cause,” launching the controversial attack on Panama with the alleged goal of capturing Noriega because of his indictment.  The United States claimed this as their reason, when, according to the film, Endara and his running mates were known to be involved in drug trafficking as well.  In addition, the U.S. claimed that with Noriega’s capture would come a restoration of democracy—in a country that had never been democratic.

The film describes the sequence of events in Panama as is done above, and aims to vilify the United States.  As if defending the itself, there is a mention in the middle of the film of the great restrictions placed on media in Panama by U.S. forces.  Media from many different countries was prohibited, and most reporters were imprisoned or fired.  Very little evidence exists on film except for that shot by the United States Army’s own film crews, because they destroyed everything else.  The United States was clearly very conscious of its image in Panama.  According to the information presented in the film, though, it seems almost as if many U.S. officials have very little idea of the “truth” of what happened in Panama, especially as presented by this film.

The film presents an unfavorable image of many U.S. power figures in this regard, further serving to vilify the country.  Pete Williams, a Pentagon Spokesperson at the time the film was made, is shown several times making apparently incorrect statements about the invasion of Panama.  For instance, he says that he has no knowledge of any accounts of U.S. forces burning cities, house by house, and at the same time, the image on the screen is one of devastation and the very fact of what Williams has just denied.  The viewer sees a great number of charred houses in Panama City, which have allegedly been destroyed by the U.S. invasion.  Williams also mentions that there have been no reports of murders of civilians, and that alleged reports of mass graves are “imprecise,” yet the film reveals that many accounts of both the murders and graves exist.  The film also criticizes President George Bush when he is talking about the value of human life.  At one point, Bush speaks about the death of a marine and says, “that’s real bad,” revealing a positive value for American life as well as an apparent disregard for the grammatical conventions of his language, making him appear sympathetic, but unintelligent.  At another point, the film shows Bush giving a speech and addressing the same subject, this time saying, “Every human life is precious, and yes…it was worth it”.  In this case, Bush is again recognizing the value of American lives, but seems to belittle the value of the Panamanian lives lost in the invasion.  The film also shows an interview with a military officer who says, “We were trying to minimize collateral damage…and it worked”.  This interview is juxtaposed with images of destruction in Panama, refuting the statement which is being made.  Finally, the United States estimated that about 250 lives were lost, while estimates from other organizations around the world ranged from 2500 to 4000, giving the viewer the impression that the United States was not only uninformed about the costs of its own invasion, but also irresponsibly careless in its understanding of the event.

                As stated by the New York Times review, The Panama Deception utilizes many helpful methods to lend credibility to its argument.  While many people with different viewpoints, both American and Panamanian, for and against the invasion are interviewed, Trent makes it clear that there is one correct opinion concerning what happened.  Her choice of photos, found film footage, and of course the interviews and excerpts which she chooses to include in the film help to clearly demonstrate her point of view concerning the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989.  While the film is certainly convincing and does present some viewpoints from United States officials in favor of the invasion, its message is very one-sided.  Trent believes that the invasion was a mistake, unfairly causing thousands of civilian casualties with very little justification, and results that were both catastrophic for many and unproductive for the goals of the U.S.