“They gave their lives for democracy, for liberty, for freedom and I don’t mind paying any price under the sun to be free”

The quote text in the title of this entry is from Guillermo Ford, former Vice President of Panama.

 The Panama Deception (1992)

Director by Barbara Trent

Written by David Kasper

Both Trent and Kasper have worked together on other Central American films concerning the Iran-Contra Affair and other topics in Central America.

Information courtesy of IMDb

On October 1 of this year, General Manuel Noriega was extradited from France to Panama to serve three consecutive 20-year sentences for human rights abuses carried out during his 6-year rule over Panama.  This after having served 7 years in France for money laundering, on top of a 20-year stint in Florida for drug trafficking, racketeering, and more money laundering following his capture by U.S. forces during the Panamanian invasion that occurred in the wee hours of December 19, 1989.

This oft overlooked U.S. military intervention in Central America, while it has its distinguishing events and unique complexities, is an incontrovertible link in the rusty chain that not only brought an end to Pablo Escobar and the Medellin cartel in Colombia, but also to the internationally recognized fairly-elected Sandinistas in Nicaragua, as well as the leftist government of the FMLN in El Salvador.  Noriega played a significant role in transporting Escobar’s drugs out of Colombia and allowed the U.S. to use Panama as a training ground and strategic base of operations in the months prior to and during the Contra War in Nicaragua, not to mention his involvement with Israel which ultimately funded the covert operations that brought down Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas.

I watched The Panama Deception about a week ago and while it has been mentioned in passing during my studies, I have never personally investigated the U.S. invasion of Panama, nor Manuel Noriega.  As I am watching, taking notes, trusty Google by my side, trying to make sense of this incredibly abhorrent abuse of power by all nations involved, I began to realize that, at least during the ‘80s, Panama and Noriega were, to some degree, involved in all of the United States’ military interventions that occurred in Central America.  So I spent my spare time between finishing the film and now, researching this Noriega character and isn’t he just that.

While the film obviously went to stunning lengths to bring we the viewers the best video production money could buy in 1992, the ardent passion of the film’s writers, director, and producer overwhelms the “star wipes” and “fade to blacks”.  Though I’m not sure that it is possible to spin what happened in Panama to the avail of the United States given what came to light in the years following the invasion, this film is edited in such a way that makes a mockery of certain U.S. spokespersons, or perhaps it really is the proclamation of such blatant fallacies with feverous audacity and nerve that makes the segments seem farcical. 

The Panama Deception, to its acclaim, focuses more on the U.S. intervention and the complex linkages amongst high-ranking state officials than on Noriega himself.  While undoubtedly the Panamanian dictator shares very little in common with the great leaders of the world, the atrocities, for which he is being punished, committed during his tenure pale in comparison to the heinous slayings of Panamanian civilians, impudent violations of not only treaties signed between the U.S. and Panama, but international law as well, and the suppression and manipulation of media outlets committed on behalf of the United States.

A wise man once said, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train”, and seeing as how I have just quoted one of the great social activists and thinkers of our time, I won’t even try to be (it’s my blog and I’ll do what I want).  This documentary has a lot of information and credible sources from which it takes its stance, including eyewitness accounts of the bombings and subsequent millings from Panamanian civilians and U.S. State Department representatives, as well as high-ranking members of the U.S. and Panamanian militaries and intelligence agencies.  The cheesy effects and somewhat choppy editing offer the viewer a chuckle midst a story of deceit and tragedy culminating in typical Latin American fashion, the people are left to bury their dead and rebuild their lives while the Americans walk away fade into darkness with a sense of pride and accomplishment, of course leaving behind a few thousand soldiers should the sheep stray from the flock. 

In my eyes, aside from the Spanish and Portuguese conquests, the most repressive and violent period in Latin America was the late 1970s through the early ‘90s; Pinochet in Chile, Fujimori in Peru, Castro in Cuba, Rios Montt in Guatemala, Romero in El Salvador and the U.S.-led backlash, Somoza in Nicaragua and the U.S.-led backlash, and Noriega and the ever-ubiquitous U.S. led backlash.  I was born mid-year 1984 during the height of many of these conflicts and I ask my parents from time to time what they remember from this period, and besides lots of embarrassing tales of baby poop in strange places and all-nighters with a sickly child, no recollection of any of these events exists.  While I wouldn’t exactly say I that came from enlightened surroundings, there is no arguable reason for such a flagrant lack of transparency and accountability toward those who funded these deplorable acts of selfishness and violence, the American taxpayers.  These events were paid for with the blood of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives and a revolving door of political instability; just the way the U.S. prefers the developing world.  The saving grace could be an acknowledgment of past abuses and perhaps a lesson learned.  However, it seems that our elected officials have quite selective memories.  Blame is not solely in the hands of our elected officials, but also on those of the American people., as we step aside and continually allow for these things to happen, myself included.  I do feel that educating oneself on these matters is a huge step in preventing future atrocities, it is only until what is learned becomes more practical and theoretical, or better yet, fictional.

Enough ranting.  Enjoy the film.

¡Hasta la próxima vez!

Los Pepes and an American military force that may or may not exist

                                      

The True Story of Killing Pablo (2002)

Directed, Written, and Produced by David Keane

While I was not expecting this one to be my initial post, here it is.  I have spent the past week or so watching various films about Oaxaca, Chiapas, Allende and Pinochet, Fujimori and Noriega, and for whatever reason, this History Channel documentary is the first one I will write about.

Keane has an extensive background producing many TV series and documentary that touch on issues ranging from U.S. foreign relations and prison life in the United States to contemporary issues of the Taliban and Al Queda, and conflicts in Africa and Latin America.

While the ubiquitous Che is a figure that is examined in Keane’s work The True Story of Che Guevara (2007), The True Story of Killing Pablo is a TV documentary that I first caught a glimpse of some years ago while geeking on the History Channel, which was a common activity of mine while I had cable.  This hour and a half long film, as long as you’re not watching it on TV, tells the story of the infamous Columbian criminal Pablo Escobar.  The film focuses primarily on his demise though it does offer some pretty good arguments as to how exactly Escobar was able to build his empire and maintain such a stronghold on not only the Columbian marijuana and cocaine export sector, but also the nation of Columbia and it’s people as well.

Keane’s work is largely based upon the research and work of Mark Bowden, who appears throughout the documentary.  The film’s legitimacy is marked by interviews and accounts from many of the key players in the combined U.S. and Columbian efforts to bring down Esobar, including then U.S. ambassador to Columbia Morris Busby and several leaders of the aptly titled “Search Bloc”, Bloque de Búsqueda, which was a government-sanctioned patrol squad of several hundred soldiers whose sole purpose was to seek out members of the Medellin cartel and, ultimately, to bring them to justice, along with Pablo Escobar, of course.  The film also features interviews with high-ranking Columbian governmental officials, many of whom survived assassination attempts by Escobar, as well as a candid interview with Carlos Castaño, a former member of the Medellin cartel AND a former leader of Los Pepes, a paramilitary group that formed to basically terrorize members of Escobar’s family and of the cartel itself is the period leading to Escobar’s demise.  Los Pepes later transformed into the AUC, a paramilitary guerrilla group formed in response to FARC, led by Castaño.

Interestingly enough, we also hear from an unnamed gentleman who sits in a shadow and whose voice has been altered.  This man tells viewers of the involvement of Delta Force, a special operations force which “may or may not exist” and whose existence has not REALLY been confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense.

It has been my experience with History Channel documentaries or specials that a sense of mystery and intrigue must accompany the story.  Fittingly, the documentary draws to it’s end by discussing Escobar’s fatal head wound.  According to accounts of members of the Bloque de Búsqueda who were present at the time of Escobar’s death, Escobar met his demise by way of a gunshot inflicted by a member of the task force.  Whether this shot from a distance by way luck or from point blank range as a wounded and helpless Pablo Escobar lie in wait of eventual execution, the evidence presented points to a Columbian being ultimately responsible for bringing an end to the life of the murderous leader of the Medellin cartel.  The United States, though not recognizing Delta Force, has accepted responsibility for having trained the Bloque and herein lies the controversy; could it have been a shot from a highly-skilled Delta Force Operator that ended Escobar’s tyrannical reign?  The U.S. does not accept responsibility for Escobar’s death and seems to blame it on the Columbians.

This concise and succinct depiction of the events leading to Pablo Escobar’s death is a great example of the breadth and complexity of many issues throughout Latin America.  Unfortunately, as is all to often the case, Pablo Escobar’s death did not bring an end to the widespread violence and death in Columbia.  As the Medellin cartel crumbled, it opened up the market for the Cali cartel, Medellin’s primary rival.  To “pick up the slack” so to speak, other organizations such as the AUC and the FARC began trafficking and picking up where Pablo and Medellin left off.  The violence between cartels in Columbia still persists today.

This film raises an interesting thought.  It equates active military involvement in Escobar’s death with his assassination attempt of unfavorable presidential candidate, interviewed in the film, in which two U.S. citizens lost their lives.  At this point, Escobar became a national security threat and a clear and present danger.  While the United States expressed concern about the drug trafficking, it was not until American lives were actually lost that military action was taken.  Will this be the eventual situation with the cartels in Mexico?  As narco-trafficking cartel violence increases in Mexico, it has yet to significantly spill across the border.  While I have speculated for some time as to exactly when the U.S. will become involved militarily with the Mexican cartels, this is a case the case of the Medellin cartel stands to reason.

To wrap up as this has become longer than expected, Keane’s work is a definite must see for Latin Americanists.  Though it is a little heavy on the side of the U.S./Columbian depiction of events, something tells me Keane’s may have had some difficulty obtaining interviews from past members of the Medellin cartel.  Though it may not be for this blog, another of Keane’s works The True Story of Charlie Wilson is one that I will definitely be on the look out for based upon my opinion of this one.

Saludos

While watching a Vice Guide segment last week, the notion occurred to me that it might not be a terrible idea to record my thoughts and witless rantings about the documentaries and films that I find myself watching for future reference.  As I have studied all things Latin American for some time now, it began to make even more sense to begin collecting ideas and try to make sense of the region, though seemingly fruitless.  The blog idea was solidified when I realized that I could actually publish my mundane musings and asinine mind-dribble online and nobody could stop me, aside from the almighty Google, of course.


Perhaps I should begin by disclosing the fact that I have, as of today, never read a blog.  I'm not even sure what exactly a blog is other than a global platform for individuals to express themselves and, if this is in fact the case, I should probably start reading more of them.

I am by no means an expert in the field of Latin American studies.  While I do hold a B.A. in Spanish with a minor in Latin American studies, the diversity and complexity of Latin American society, culture, politics, economics, and linguistics offers a lifetime of fascinating journeys through a region and a people largely sweep under the rug in the modern global arena.

I suppose alternate purpose of this blog would be to bring increased awareness of the Latin American peoples.  While I have concentrated my studies primarily on socio-political issues and Latin American/U.S. relations, it is another objective of this blog to delve into the rich cultural diversity that is Latin America; that which piqued my interest from an early age.

My first 'real' blog entry that deals with a film will arrive shortly.  I appreciate your taking the time to read and think about my blog and please keep doing so. 

¡Hasta pronto!