United States invasion of Panama
The United States invaded Panama in mid-December 1989 during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto ruler of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by U.S. authorities for racketeering and drug trafficking. The operation, codenamed Operation Just Cause, concluded in late January 1990 with the surrender of Noriega.[9] The Panama Defense Forces (PDF) were dissolved, and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
Noriega, who had longstanding ties to United States intelligence agencies, consolidated power to become Panama's de facto dictator in the early 1980s. In the mid-1980s, relations between Noriega and the U.S. began to deteriorate due to fallout of the murder of Hugo Spadafora and the removal of Nicolas Ardito Barletta. His criminal activities and association with other spy agencies came to light, and in 1988 he was indicted by federal grand juries on several drug-related charges. Negotiations seeking his resignation, which began under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, were ultimately unsuccessful. In 1989, Noriega annulled the results of the Panamanian general elections, which appeared to have been won by opposition candidate Guillermo Endara; President Bush responded by reinforcing the U.S. garrison in the Canal Zone. After a U.S. Marine officer was shot dead at a PDF roadblock, Bush authorized the execution of the Panama invasion plan.
On December 20, the U.S. invasion of Panama began. Panamanian forces were rapidly overwhelmed, although operations continued for several weeks. Endara was sworn in as president shortly after the start of the invasion. Noriega eluded capture for several days before seeking refuge in the Holy See diplomatic mission in Panama City. He surrendered on January 3, 1990, and was then flown to the U.S., where he was tried, convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
The Pentagon estimated that 516 Panamanians were killed during the invasion, including 314 soldiers and 202 civilians. A total of 23 U.S. soldiers and 3 U.S. civilians were killed. The United Nations General Assembly and the Organization of American States both condemned the invasion as a violation of international law.
The United States invasion of Panama can be seen as a rare example of democratization by foreign-imposed regime change, which was effective long-term.[10]
International mediation[edit]
Several neighboring governments secretly tried to negotiate a peaceful outcome and Noriega's willing resignation. Presidents Oscar Arias and Daniel Oduber of Costa Rica, Carlos Andrés Pérez of Venezuela, Alfonso López Michelsen of Colombia and Spanish Prime Minister Felipe González all on different occasions met Noriega in secret attempting to convince him to give up power and self-exile himself in Spain, to no avail.[29][30]
The official U.S. rationale for the invasion was articulated by President Bush on the morning of December 20, 1989, a few hours after the start of the operation. Bush cited Panama's declaration of a state of war with the United States and attacks on U.S. troops as justification for the invasion.[31]
Bush further identified four objectives of the invasion:
U.S. forces were instructed to begin maneuvers and activities within the restrictions of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, such as ignoring PDF roadblocks and conducting short-notice "Category Three" military exercises on security-sensitive targets, with the express goal of provoking PDF soldiers. U.S. SOUTHCOM kept a list of abuses against U.S. servicemen and civilians by the PDF while the orders to incite PDF soldiers were in place.[16]
As for the Panamanian legislature's war declaration, Noriega insisted in his memoirs[33] that this declaration referred to a state of war directed by the U.S. against Panama, in the form of what he claimed were harsh economic sanctions and provocative military maneuvers (Operations Purple Storm and Sand Flea) that were prohibited by the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.
Bush's four reasons for the invasion provided sufficient justification to establish bipartisan Congressional approval and support. However, the secrecy before the invasion's initiation, the speed and success of the invasion itself, and U.S. public support for it (80% public approval)[34] did not allow Democratic lawmakers to object to Bush's decision to use military force.[34] One contemporary study suggests that Bush decided to invade for domestic political reasons, citing scarce strategic reasoning for the U.S. to invade and immediately withdraw without establishing the structure to enforce the interests that Bush used to justify the invasion.[34]
Legality[edit]
The U.S. government invoked self-defense as a legal justification for the invasion.[31] Several scholars and observers have opined that the invasion was illegal under international law, arguing that the government's justifications were, according to these sources, factually groundless, and moreover, even if they had been true they would have provided inadequate support for the invasion under international law.[59] Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, a cornerstone of international law, prohibits the use of force by member states to settle disputes except in self-defense or when authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Articles 18 and 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, written in part in reaction to the history of U.S. military interventions in Central America, also explicitly prohibit the use of force by member states: "[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal affairs of any other state". The OAS charter further states that "the territory of a states is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another state, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever."[60] Other international law experts who have examined the legal justification of the invasion have concluded that it was a "gross violation" of international law.[61]
The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which determined that the U.S. invasion was a "flagrant violation of international law."[62] A similar resolution proposed by the United Nations Security Council was supported by the majority of its member nations but vetoed by the U.S., the United Kingdom and France.[63]
Independent experts and observers have also concluded that the invasion also exceeded the authority of the president under the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power to declare war solely to the Congress, not to the president.[64][65] The Bush administration argued that because the Panamanian national assembly declared a state of war with the United States, then military intervention was constitutional. This argument is supported by the Federal Convention, where James Madison moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks. According to observers, the invasion also violated the War Powers Resolution,[66] a federal law designed to limit presidential action without Congressional authorization, because the president failed to consult with Congress regarding the invasion prior to its execution.[67][63][68]
Local and international reactions[edit]
The invasion provoked international outrage. Some countries charged that the U.S. had committed an act of aggression by invading Panama and was trying to conceal a new manifestation of its interventionist policy of force in Central America. On December 29, the United Nations General Assembly voted 75–20, with 40 abstentions, to condemn the invasion as a flagrant violation of international law.[69]
On December 22, the Organization of American States (OAS) passed a resolution denouncing the invasion and calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops, as well as a resolution condemning the violation of the diplomatic status of the Nicaraguan embassy in Panama by U.S. Special Forces who had entered the building.[70] At the United Nations Security Council, seven nations initiated a draft resolution demanding the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Panama.[71] It was vetoed on December 23 by the U.S., the United Kingdom and France,[72] which cited its right of self-defense of 35,000 Americans present on the Panama Canal.[73]
Peru recalled its ambassador from the U.S. in protest of the invasion.
In Romania, President Nicolae Ceaușescu, who was being overthrown in a violent revolution, criticized the invasion as "brutal aggression".[74][75]
Some say that the Panamanian people overwhelmingly supported the invasion.[76] According to a CBS News poll, 92% of Panamanian adults supported the invasion, and 76% wished that U.S. forces had invaded in October during the second attempted coup.[76] The poll was conducted in 158 randomly selected areas of the country covering about 75 percent of Panama's adult population. CBS News said the margin of sampling error was plus or minus four percentage points.[77] Human Rights Watch described the reaction of the civilian population to the invasion as "generally sympathetic".[78] According to Robert Pastor, a former U.S. national security advisor, 74% of Americans polled approved of the action.[76]
Eighteen years after the invasion, Panama's National Assembly unanimously declared December 20, 2007, to be a day of national mourning. The resolution was vetoed by President Martin Torrijos.[79][80] On December 19, 2019, the Panamanian government declared December 20 to be a National Day of Mourning (Dia de duelo nacional), to be marked by lowering the national flag to half-staff.[81]
The Washington Post disclosed several rulings of the Office of Legal Counsel, issued shortly before the invasion, regarding the U.S. forces being charged with making an arrest abroad. One ruling interpreted an executive order which prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders as suggesting that accidental killings would be acceptable foreign policy. Another ruling concluded that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the armed forces from making arrests without Congressional authorization, is effective only within the boundaries of the U.S., such that the military could be used as a police force abroad—for example, in Panama, to enforce a federal court warrant against Noriega.[82]