How do you get rid of a dictator? That is the question on George Bush's mind these days. Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama has proven to be most troublesome for two U. S. presidents now who have tried, so far in vain, to dispose of the military strong man. Congress agrees that Noriega must go and has joined together in the kind of "bipartisan foreign policy effort" that the White House loves to see.
But the question of the hour could be asked another way: How do you get rid of a dictator when you are through with him? That question could prove as embarrassing as the dictator himself has become.
Manuel Noriega rightly deserves all the bad press he is getting these days. What clearly is not deserved is the self-proclaimed U. S. role as the champion of democracy for Panama.
The story of Manuel Noriega's rise and fall (if indeed he does eventually fall) is not a unique saga. Remember the names Somoza, Duvalier, and Marcos? How about Pinochet and Stroessner? And those are just a few from the Dictators Hall of Fame subsidized by U. S. tax dollars. History presents us with a virtual rogues gallery of military dictators who were literally put into power by the United States and/or kept there by their influential benefactor to the north.
In some of the news reports concerning Noriega, a famous quotation by former President Franklin Roosevelt has been recalled. In referring to the first of the U.S.-backed Somoza dictators, Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Roosevelt reportedly remarked, "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch." Honestly stated. But eventually "our son-of-a-bitch" in Nicaragua became a problem for us and had to be cut loose.
That, indeed, seems to be the continual pattern. For the sake of vested U.S. economic, political, and military self-interest (at least as defined by U.S. policy makers), dictators are created and their dependency upon U.S. support firmly established. In some cases, such as Guatemala and Chile, the CIA has just gone in and engineered the overthrow of democratically elected governments and then replaced them with military dictatorships. In each case, the brutal suppression of human rights and a tremendous loss of life are the results. It takes years, if ever, for democracy to be re-established.
The problem for U.S. policy makers, however, comes by way of human nature. When you create and/or ensure the unchecked power of dictators, even against their own people, that power will eventually become both excessive and obsessive.
When there is no accountability, except to an American patron, dictators will eventually drown in their own self-aggrandizement. Absolute power becomes its own undoing. (Recall what Lord Acton said about how absolute power corrupts absolutely.) That eventual result is made even more certain by the kind of moral character needed to be a local ruler in an American client state.
In time, trusted U.S. allies become so extreme in amassing personal wealth and power that they prove to be a severe embarrassment (Does anyone remember exactly how many pairs of shoes Imelda Marcos had?) and finally a political liability. The talk in the Oval Office and congressional corridors then becomes how to effect "a stable transition to a new government." One U.S. senator told me of serious talk among his colleagues about assassinating Ferdinand Marcos during his final days in the Philippines.
U.S. GOVERNMENT policy does not change when an ally becomes a dictator. Rather, it changes when a dictatorial ally becomes an embarrassment and a problem that must be gotten out of the way.
Was Noriega a dictator before the U. S. government turned against him? Of course he was. Did the U. S. government know Noriega was a drug dealer all those years it supported him? Certainly. Did the CIA under the direction of George Bush look the other way from Noriega's drug trafficking while they worked with him? No doubt about it. Did they use Noriega's drug dealings in their own elaborate schemes? The evidence suggests they did. Has Noriega ever used violence against his political opponents before the famous attack in early May on the opposition candidates, after he stole the Panamanian election? Sure he did.
The simple truth is that the U.S. government does not have a foreign policy that stands against dictators and for democracy. With its long and sordid history in Latin America, the United States can make no credible claim to be the champion of democracy. In country after country, the United States has supported the enemies of democracy when it suited its purposes. Only when the dictator no longer serves U. S. purposes or becomes an albatross do American officials speak about democracy.
The real issue in Panama today is far deeper than Noriega's dictatorship. That reality has been evident for some time now. The deeper issue is American hypocrisy and the flagrant double standard that continues to be at the heart of U. S. foreign policy.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!