Crimea and Panama
Pointing out that America has committed a crime that we are denouncing Russia for neither justifies the crime, nor make it go away. However, it does give it some perspective, and perspective is critical when nuclear weapons are involved.
Here's a story that should sound familiar to you.
A small, militarily weak country is racked by internal dissent after its government rejects a treaty with a foreign power. Secretly encouraged by a nearby superpower, a rebellious faction in this troubled country seizes a chunk of land and declares its independence. The superpower quickly dispatches a military force to the breakaway territory to ensure the success of this secession.
If you think I'm talking about the events that are playing out in Ukraine, the Eastern European country that's nestled against the southwestern edge of Russia, you're wrong.
Sure, Russian President
Vladimir Putin dispatched thousands of troopsinto the Crimea region ofUkraine as it declared its independence and asked to be annexed into Russia. That action followed bloody street demonstrations that forced Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's democratically elected president, to flee the country after he rejected a trade pactwith theEuropean Union . Yanukovych, whose opulent lifestyle and roguish rule stained his presidency, favored closer economic ties with Russia. Not surprisingly, the unelected government that replaced Yanukovych signed the agreement with the European Union on Friday.But I'm talking about the series of events that brought about the creation of Panama in 1903.
When I think of Russia's 2014 Annexation of Crimea, I think of a U.S. invasion of Panama and how similar the circumstances are.
However, I'm not thinking of 1903. I'm thinking of 1989.
Criticism abounds from all sides over Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, while Moscow is vilified in Western media at levels unseen since the Cold War. Yet the West seems to have forgotten that 25 years ago, the United States behaved exactly the same, invading a country on strikingly similar grounds. That country was Panama.
In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush ordered an invasion of Panama. The US president’s justification for the offensive was to safeguard American nationals living there. This followed a fatal incident where US servicemen were critically wounded after they attempted to overrun a roadblock manned by Panamanian defense forces. However, the mostly covert reason behind the invasion was to assert ownership of the Panama Canal, a strategic American asset since 1914.
Russia's 2014 Annexation of Crimea was preceded by a bloody coup in Ukraine, just like the United States invasion of Panama in 1989 was preceded by a coup by Noriega, and a 2nd CIA-sponsored, failed coup.
Both invasions were about control over a strategic naval base.
Both invasions were done without even consulting the U.N., or the international community.
However, there are some differences.
Russia's 2014 Annexation of Crimea killed exactly three militants.
We don't actually know how many people were killed in the United States invasion of Panama in 1989.
The official death toll is:
234 Panamanian Defense Forces
26 U.S. soldiers
As for Panamanian civilians, it depends on who is counting:
U.S. military: 202
United Nations: 500
CODEHUCA: 2,500–3,000
Why were so many civilians killed? Because we targeted civilian neighborhoods.
As Human Rights Watch wrote, even conservative estimates of civilian fatalities suggested "that the rule of proportionality and the duty to minimize harm to civilians… were not faithfully observed by the invading US forces." That may have been putting it mildly when it came to the indiscriminant bombing of a civilian population, but the point at least was made. Civilians were given no notice. The Cobra and Apache helicopters that came over the ridge didn't bother to announce their pending arrival by blasting Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" (as in Apocalypse Now). The University of Panama's seismograph marked 442 major explosions in the first 12 hours of the invasion, about one major bomb blast every two minutes. Fires engulfed the mostly wooden homes, destroying about 4,000 residences. Some residents began to call El Chorrillo "Guernica" or "little Hiroshima." Shortly after hostilities ended, bulldozers excavated mass graves and shoveled in the bodies. "Buried like dogs," said the mother of one of the civilian dead.
Why the vast difference between how we treated the civilians of Panama in 1989, and how the Russians treated the civilians of Crimea? There's an obvious answer.
The U.S and European Union may want to save Crimeans from themselves. But the Crimeans are happy right where they are.One year after the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in the Black Sea, poll after poll shows that the locals there -- be they Ukrainians, ethnic Russians or Tatars are mostly all in agreement: life with Russia is better than life with Ukraine.
Little has changed over the last 12 months. Despite huge efforts on the part of Kiev, Brussels, Washington and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the bulk of humanity living on the Black Sea peninsula believe the referendum to secede from Ukraine was legit. At some point, the West will have to recognize Crimea's right to self rule. Unless we are all to believe that the locals polled by Gallup and GfK were done so with FSB bogey men standing by with guns in their hands.
Comments
It's a long stretch to call the Crimea an invasion
when Russia had the troops there legally all along. It was a naval port of theirs, after all.
We legally had troops in the Canal Zone in 1989
so I think the comparison works.
I appreciate the work you did to put this together and
it does throw perspective on current events.
"Too much fucking perspective"...David St. Hubbins
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Oh, GJ, How Could You?
Don't you know that the Russkis are barbarian invaders in Crimea - even though Crimea is overwhelmingly ethnic Russian, not Ukrainian? And that the U.S. was invited into Panama to assist out friends there - even though Panama has never been part of the United States.(However, the Panama Canal will always be ours - period.) Gee, it's really very simple.
The similarities between Panama and Crimea are minimal
and superficial. Russian involvement in Crimea came as a request (a request that had been loudly voiced since 1954) from its citizens. US involvement in Panama did not come as a request from the citizens. It was forced upon them with considerable indiscriminate violence that resulted in massive damage and death for such a small, poor country.
"How the Iraq War Began in Panama": 1989 Invasion Set Path for Future U.S. Attacks (Full Interview)
I think you got it right CB.
But in any case, the USA has understandable reasons for insisting on control over the Panama canal, just as Russia has understandable reasons for insisting on control of Crimea.
native
Yes. But the methods used for such control were vastly
different. The US method was a crime against humanity and not necessary. At no time was the canal itself in any danger from Noriega. The canal was a source of funds for the country.
The US had been closing down their bases well before Operation Just Cause so having bases there was moot. There never were any major naval bases in Panama. The US was well prepared to defend the canal from the mainland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_United_States_military_inst...
... didn't you mean to reference "Operation Just Because" ...?
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
A nation's having understandable reasons for wanting
something is not the same as a nation's having a right to have that something.
That is just a general statement, not specific to Crimea or Panama.
The boundaries of nations are usually
determined as much by might as by right. A nation can control only as much as it is strong enough to defend -- regardless of the fairness or validity of its claims. The same rule applies for empires like the former USSR or the current USA.
native
Of course. Look at the British Empire's "colonizing."
The Gulf War Poppy waged because Saddam, after asking our permission, began fighting for Iraq's historical boundaries, is a good illustration. Except, in that case, the might was by proxy. Our boundaries were not involved at all, but we bombed the Iraqi people anyway.
Of course, the Iraqi people did not control Saddam or his military, but, for some reason, it was apparently okay to kill them for what Saddam did--and only after he asked if we would have any objection we said, in essence, that Iraq's borders were his business, not ours.
Isn't war fun?
@CB
Of course we knew that they had been living under a dictator but our government didn't care that he was a brutal dictator as long as he played by the rules of the USA. Just like Saddam, Gaddafi and countless other dictators were allowed to commit heinous human rights abuses while our government looked the other way.
The Duviers in Haiti were allowed to commit torture and other abuses and when Baby Doc was finally deposed, he was allowed to take millions of dollars from the Haitians and when he resurfaced after the earthquake he was not arrested for stealing the money or his actions while he was a dictator, he was allowed to run for the presidency.
And after success in restoring democracy in Panama
our government decided to bring democracy to Iraq and other countries. It's a damned shame that the people who they were bringing democracy to are dead, refugees or still living in unimaginable poverty and under the thumb of ISIS or the Iraq and US troops.
I agree with Jose.
And we are seeing people buying into the government's propaganda about Russia interfering with the election and if we disagree about that then we are Putin lovers.
This is another way of saying that You are either with us or against us.
I remember a time when people laughed at this statement. But that was when it was a republican president saying that.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
New from Counterpunch
As long as nothing stands in the way of the US global empire, screw our kids, the environment, our health care and anything else the people want and need. Just STFU and pay.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Robert Parry has a new one out as well.
More: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/18/the-did-you-talk-to-russians-witch-hunt/
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
I just can't imagine (and wont name),
who or what brought this on gjohn.
As usual, you make light of history and tie it to current world affairs.
We, as a nation, have learned nothing of history. Current affairs, as you would say, are fake reality.
Thanks.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Damn, this is excellent.
I never thought of that...and I certainly should have. I was part of it in 1989. The official lofty name of the operation was JUST CAUSE, but we called it "Just 'cause", because we at least understood that the United States was doing it just because they could.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Very thought provoking analogy.
Not perfect, but damn close.
I guess the biggest difference is that the Russian peaceful invasion was of Russians by Russians; whereas the US violent invasion was of Central Americans by Northern Americans.
The difference racial identity may have a bit to do with the difference in body counts. That and the fact that George H. W. Bush is a total asshole.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Thank you, gjohnsit. You are both prolific and good.
I don't know how you manage both. I am in awe.
Operation Nifty Package
"a low moment in US Army history", psy-op testing for future lows, says hindsight. Thanks for the comparisons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nifty_Package
PEACE