The Panama Deception

What's surprising about Panama Deception is not the facts that it delivers, but that a film that reveals so much about US policy was allowed to win the Academy Award. The film's analysis of media bias is dead on, and its seamless corroboration of the true events of the Panama invasion are irrefutable. In addition to the in-depth analysis of the history of US intervention, the film accurately predicts the current US quagmire in Colombia. This film is a classic treatise on US foreign policy, and a great example of the necessity of true independent media.

I watched this tape because of a term paper I was doing on the Panama invasion in 1989. I thought I had a good idea of the invasion, but this documentary showed what the biased news did not and was not allowed to show. After seeing the tape, I was enraged by the dirty back-room Realpolitik courtesy of Bush I and his henchmen. The comments by the Pentagon spokesman and military general were ironic when excellently juxtaposed with images that refuted their half-truths and deception. The documentary is not the kind you would ever see on the History Channel, but (perhaps for that reason) it is well worth watching. I am no history buff, but this 1 1/2 hour exposé was quick and done. You might understand why people in yet another corner of the world hate U.S. Americans after being enlightened and angered by _The Panama Deception._

First it must be stated that it is quite apparent that those involved in the production of this documentary have an agenda and that makes the documentary somewhat obviously biased. It also must be noted that, no matter what the reasons were for the invasion, the people of Panama are certainly no better (or worse) for the change in government and worse off because of the invasion. Whether Noriega was involved in drug-trafficking or not (I would tend to think most governments with large-scale drug production areas within their borders probably are, and Noriega is no exception), getting rid of Noriega was like shhoting a flea with a Howitzer: noisy, messy, expensive and ultimately futile overkill. A good piece of work so long as you understand that there is an agenda here. I suspect that if you put the governmental story on one side and this on the other, the truth would be somewhere between them, but closer to the documentary than the government.

Aesthetically I do not value "The Panama Deception" very highly. Most of the time it looks poorly made; even the image quality of the footage Barbara Trent shot in Panamá looks poor. The reason that it works for me as a Panamanian, and that it may have considerable value for a foreign viewer, is that it is quite honest when it analyses the so-called "Operation Just Cause" to destroy Panamanian armed forces, under the guise of an international raid on Manuel Antonio Noriega, in the name of democracy. Nobody believes this today and it is not hard to do so in retrospective, when one thinks of El Salvador or Nicaragua, just to name a couple of Latin American countries where self-determination was violated by American troops. I could be biased because it deals with one of the lowest points in the Panamá-USA relations, from a point of view that leaves little space for doubting what it denounces: on one hand, it offers motives for the Panamanian invasion, that sound more credible than the rhetoric arguments of American or Panamanian officials, and on the other it shows how irresponsibly the US media treated the fact. Besides, in the final analysis, what Trent seems to be more concerned for, is the empowerment (as the name of her organization) of the American people, through the acknowledgement of what their governments have done in the last two centuries, taking the invasion of Panamá as a case in point. Panamanians all have different opinions about what happened, about the data and inferences the film offers, as many Americans also do; and I believe this is what makes this documentary work. In the case of my fellow countrymen, it is also a starting point to research the effects of a hyper-violent moment of our national history, when suddenly the notion (and our perception) of a "state" vanished, and we lived moments of total social, economic and political chaos with protagonists of all social classes, as the film graphically shows.

It seems people are letting their politics decide their ratings. As a documentary, it's good but not outstanding. It's a fairly straight forward PBS or Frontline type documentary. It won an academy award because it was against not very strong competition. One was downright bland, about using music in films.

The first third of the doc is completely uncontroversial. It's a straight forward history of Panama, the canal, and how Noriega got into power.

The ones hating this doc, calling it paranoid, were themselves paranoid and downright hysterical, and bashing the film on flimsy pretexts. The film actually gives plenty of voices from the Bush administration. This includes a Pentagon spokesman and several generals.

And sometimes their outrage leads them to spout falsehoods. They claim the film says "The US Army used lasers to kill people." No, it says some weapons were laser guided, being tested in the field for the new time.

Claiming "There were mass graves" and "thousands dead." That's not even controversial. Every estimate is several thousand killed.

Claiming some of the experts should be better labeled. That might be the only criticism with any validity. Perhaps for a few, who are shown as authors or journalists. I went to the trouble of looking them up. Two were in academia, one a TV reporter, another a national radio reporter.