American Foreign Policy — Panama

"Most governments understand that nation-to-nation relations must be based on reciprocity. The United States Government seems not to be convinced, in view of the numerous instances of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, with no thought of granting reciprocal rights." ("Commentary on American Foreign Policy," We the People, Vol. 3 No. 3 October 1988.)

Panama is the current example of the U.S. interference in the internal affairs of another nation. That interference is all the more reprehensible because the United States Government, the complicity of the CIA, interfered earlier in Panama to install Noriega, the man we are now trying to force out!

As reported by the media at the time this article was prepared, discussion of U.S. policy toward Panama focused on either the "bungling" of the attempt to oust Noriega or the "right" of the U.S. to use military force to assure his overthrow. Another element of the debate was the "need" to loosen controls over the CIA so as to avoid bungling assassination attempts.

Nowhere apparent in the discussion was treatment of the real issue: Does the United States Government have the right, within the norms of nation-to-nation relations, to attempt to overthrow Noriega? In other words, does the United States Government have the right, let alone the need, to interfere in Panama's internal affairs?

"A nation's place in the world is obtained (and retained) by...behavior (understanding of and respect for national, cultural and social differences as well as sovereign rights). (We the People, October 1988)

U.S. policy toward Panama—or any other nation—should be confined to the letter of the mutually accepted commitments, i.e. to reciprocity. Such a policy would be understood and accepted everywhere in the world and would strengthen the place of the United States in the world. On the other hand, assumption of a U.S. right to interfere in Panama or any other nation would not be understood or accepted. Such an assumption violates the norms of international relationships, and it weakens the U.S. place in the world. Will we never learn!

If the people of Panama don't want to get rid of Noriega or can't at the present time, that is their problem not ours. (Similarly Castro in Cuba, Ceausescu in Romania and Kim Il-song in North Korea.) Noriega's time will come. When it does, the people of Panama should be the ones to take the credit for getting rid of him, if that's what they want to do. We demean them if we act for them. They do not want to give or even share the credit for ousting Noriega.

Reassessing, refining, and maturing American foreign policy was suggested in the October 1988 Commentary. Critical to the process is redefining our nation's self-interest, "focusing it on what is necessary to preserve the U.S. place in the world." The overthrow of Noriega is not critical to U.S. security. Nor should the ousting of Noriega be allowed to become, in our minds, the litmus-test of successful American foreign policy. Surely the United States represents values in the world that transcend the Noriegas of the world.

. . . Robert Sturgill . . .
November 2, 1989

The Right to Privacy

President Bush in a recent press conference said that the American voter will not be swayed by single issue campaigns like abortion. Shortly thereafter he vetoed the Appropriations Act for the District of Columbia because it contained language allowing the District of Columbia to use its own—not Federal money—to pay for abortions for poor women; a single issue. In the November 1989 off year elections, the most successful candidates were pro-choice candidates. Virginia has its first elected black governor who won because of votes he received from white suburban women.

A Harmless Whipping Boy

Privacy could be bandied about in politics with impunity—a harm less whipping boy—while women had the protection of Roe V Wade. Once the Reagan majority on the Supreme Court eroded the right with the possibility of repealing it altogether the matter changed. For many women and many men abortion rights—the unalienable right to privacy—became the only issue and properly so since it is the right most in jeopardy.

The Reagan Majority

The question remains as to whether the Reagan majority on the Supreme Court will persist in overturning the unalienable right to privacy. If it does will we see yet a further polarization of the electorate along a single issue and if so will we see a much weakened Supreme Court as a result? A Court weakened because it will have lost the respect of mainstream Americans who value their unalienable rights and perhaps also weakened by some Congress of the future which re-writes the Courts jurisdiction constraining their activist behavior. The Court may act independently with its members appointed for life, but it is subordinate to the Congress as is the President. The Congress, however, is subordinate to the citizen/sovereign who seems to be placing a great deal of importance on a single issue — the unalienable right to privacy.

. . . Ted Sudia . . .

© Copyright 1989
Institute for domestic Tranquility