The Complex Fracture: The US Administration and Manuel Noriegas Fall

Introduction

The US administration's fraught relationship with Manuel Noriega remains a fascinating chapter in the history of international politics and drug trafficking. The dynamics between the US and Panama during the late 1980s were complex and eventually led to Noriega's downfall. This period saw a series of intricate maneuvers, alliances, and betrayals, culminating in one of the most infamous dictatorships in history.

The Background: Manuel Noriega and the Rise of the Dictatorship

Manuel Noriega was a de facto leader in Panama from the 1960s until 1990. His rise to power was marked by a combination of political maneuvering, corruption, and violence. Norwich's Divorcing the Dictator and Shoot the Moon provide rich insights into Noriega's character and the landscape of Panamanian politics. Noriega was not merely a dictator, but a crafty politician who managed to thrive in a complex political environment.

US Interests and Noriega's Initial Alliances

Initially, the US saw Noriega as a valuable ally in combating drug trafficking in Central America. This was a strategic arrangement where Noriega agreed to cooperate with US law enforcement in exchange for support against his enemies. However, the relationship was always fraught with tension due to Noriega's authoritarian tendencies and his exploitation of everyone involved.

Internal Conflicts and Betrayals

The relationship between the US administration and Noriega began to deteriorate when it became clear that Noriega was more interested in maintaining his power than cooperating with US interests. This led to internal conflicts within the Panamanian government and between US agencies.

For instance, Noriega's 'rabi blancos' (white-asses) represented the wealthy, business elite who feared his interference in their affairs. He alienated these powerful individuals, many of whom had established connections with American diplomats. This put Noriega in a difficult position as he contended with both the upper classes and international law enforcement.

Another key factor was the disagreement within the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) about how to deal with Noriega. While the Panama branch wanted to maintain their relationship with him, the Florida branch recognized his true nature and advocated for stricter measures.

Reagan's and Bush's Strategies

As tension mounted, the Reagan administration saw Noriega as a useful pawn. They initially planned to leverage him further by threatening him with drug charges to ensure compliance. However, when Bush Jr. succeeded Reagan, he was more eager to project American strength and assert leadership.

According to Divorcing the Dictator, Bush's desire to establish himself as a strong leader was a driving force in the decision to act against Noriega. This was a strategic move to disassociate himself from his father’s shadow and demonstrate that he could handle tough diplomatic challenges.

The Prewar Tensions and the Final Confrontation

By the time Bush was elected, tensions were high, but Noriega still believed he had allies in places like the CIA. A US general was sent to offer Noriega a dignified exit, but Noriega interpreted this offer as a mere formality. It was only after Ford's bloody encounter and theNavLink

The Final Crackdown and December 20th, 1989

The final straw that broke the diplomatic relations between the US and Noriega came in the form of the killing of a US soldier. This event triggered the decisive intervention that led to Noriega's downfall. The Panamanian government's crackdown on dissent and its disdain for international norms only added to the growing international pressure on the US to act.

On December 20, 1989, a US military operation code-named "Operation Just Cause" began with a surprise assault on Noriega's residence. This operation aimed not only to capture Noriega but also to restore order to Panama and to end the dictator's reign of terror.

Conclusion and Legacy

The conflict between the US administration and Manuel Noriega serves as a stark lesson in the complexities of international relations and the importance of maintaining consistency in policy. While Noriega may have thought he could manipulate his way out of trouble, his actions ultimately led to his downfall.

The legacy of this period remains in the international discourse on drug trafficking, the rule of law, and diplomatic strategy. The events surrounding Noriega's fall continue to be studied and reflected upon, offering valuable insights for future generations of diplomats and policymakers.