America's Prisoner: The Memoirs of Manuel Noriega

by Peter Eisner

Manuel Noriega is the only American prisoner of war. He may be a demon in the eyes of most Americans, but he's a unique & alarming view of the secrets behind US relations with Panama & the real reasons for the 1989 invasion that removed him from power. In this memoir, certain to be one of the most newsworthy & controversial of the year, Noriega describes for the 1st time his backstage dealings with George Bush, Oliver North, Wm Casey & the CIA, Jimmy Carter, Fidel Castro & Moammar Gahdafi. But this is more than a deposed strongman's tell-all that some might find hard to believe. His story was investigated independently by Peter Eisner, a top foreign correspondent who's written about Latin America for 20 years & covered Noriega's fall for Newsday. Eisner's reporting finds support for some of Noriega's assertions & provides additional perspective for others, in his conduct as head of Panama's military, his secret dealings with Cuba on behalf of the CIA, his relations with key US officials & the unconscionable damage inflicted upon Panama's people by the US invasion. Moreover, Eisner raises new questions about the allegations that Noriega was a drug dealer & a murderer. In fact, he concludes Noriega isn't guilty of these charges. Then there's Noriega himself, a surprisingly savvy military man who saw himself as a nationalist, an honest broker between his allies in US intelligence & neighboring Latin American leaders. As Noriega tells it, his problems began when he began to resist the Reagan administration's efforts to fight communism in Central America. America's Prisoner is one of the most unusual & important accounts ever written about US aggression & duplicity. It's the story of how we have imprisoned a man & a nation.

Genres: Biography, Politics, History, Nonfiction

324 pages, Hardcover

First published March 11, 1997

About the author

PETER EISNER's newest book is MacArthur's Spies, a nonfiction account of American spies and guerrillas who challenged the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. He has served as deputy foreign editor and Washington, D.C, political editor with the Washington Post, foreign editor and senior foreign correspondent of Newsday, and bureau chief and correspondent for AP in the US and Latin America. Eisner is the former managing director of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based watchdog organization. He is the author or coauthor of five previous books, including The Pope’s Last Crusade, The Italian Letter, and The Freedom Line, winner of the Christopher Award.

Reviews

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not an expert about the most recent U.S. invasion of Panama, having only read the mainstream media at the time and one subsequent book by a U.S. military man about the actual operations conducted during the invasion. Other than that I've read only background historical material and one brief piece written by Noriega from prison and published in The Nation. Consequently, in reading this memoir, I've had to rely on co-author Eisner's claim that he fact-checked Noreiga's text--a claim which seems to be substantiated by the footnotes qualifying and elaborating Noriega's comments.

Given this background and this level of trust, the claims made by Noreiga and implicitly sanctioned by Eisner are damning. According to this book the U.S. invasion of Panama was an illegal exercise of raw power intended to oust an uncooperative head of state and replace him with a more compliant one. The reasons for this stemmed principally from (1) the previous illegal Contra war against the Nicaraguan government, a war in which the Panamanian government refused to cooperate; (2) conservative opposition to the handing over of the Canal Zone to Panama--an event which was to occur twelve days after the invasion; (3) Noriega's nationalism and refusal of a two million dollar bribe to leave his military command and politics prior to scheduled elections in which the U.S. was financing an oligarchical opposition; (4) Panama's opening up of commercial relations with other countries, particularly Japan, which threatened traditional U.S. economic interests; and (5) Panama's independent relations with countries deemed opposed to U.S. political interests such as Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba and Libya. Additionally, and here I'm less certain personally and more dependent on the allegations of the book, it appears that the charges of murder, drug smuggling and money laundering brought against Noreiga were false.

Whatever the case, it is refreshing to read a book about another, non-English speaking country written by one of its more knowledgeable natives, particularly as regards the light it casts on mine. I resist acknowledging the enormity of the evils conducted in my name by the government of the U.S.A. and this tendency to ignore and resist is all the more reason to be exposed to this kind of critical material.

[Babak Fakhamzadeh · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the introduction, Eisner, the biographer, takes care of perhaps the biggest questions; the drug case against Noriega, for which he was convicted, was deeply flawed and wholly circumstantial; the US invasion was unjustified on legal, political and moral grounds.

Noriega's memoires, the bulk of the book, are interesting as far as they go, just; descriptive, less so analytical.
They make a clear point: the US invaded because they stood to lose control over the canal, after Panama had secured the Torrijos-Carter treaty and was shifting focus on working with Japan to expand the canal. And, because Panama declined to kowtow (enough) to the US in their covert operations in Central America.
On the downside, Noriega tries a bit too hard to prove the US was the only bad actor, making it appear as if he and his former boss Torrijos always and alone acted in good faith.

Eisner, in his afterword, starts of by reiterating the same points he made in the introduction; Noriega was not guilty of the charges against him, the invasion was not justified.
He elaborates, and makes an easy case for what should now be widely known (the book was published in 1998); the US' constant and very extensive high level control of, what should be independent, countries in the Americas.

[Lance Karlson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eisner was as qualified as any to write these memoirs, having followed Noriega and his rise well before the dictator's heavy fall into US custody. I really appreciated reading Noriega's side to the story, but I found too many of his details to be contradictory to facts. Noriega's descriptions of Hugo Spadafora as a former ally rather than adversary, as well as his apparent naivity surrounding his assassination were hard to believe. The book did state that there were events which would not be discussed, but I feel that a truly authentic memoir needs to include everything from childhood isolation and bullying, through to addressing the accused rapes during his time in Peru and in Bocas Del Toro... Through to his drug trafficking and money laundering activities.
I applaud Peter Eisner for his patience and persistence with this book.

[Sabrina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic read. I finished it one night. I couldn’t put it down. It highlights the way that the United States will overthrow governments in Latin America/ The Middle East for their own personal gain. I don’t think that he’s a good person in anyway but this is a pattern of America and his adventures are so fascinating. The fact that he was an informant for the US is just mind blowing. I would recommend everyone to read this book!

[Tommy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a good introduction to the political developments in Central America in the 1980s but an interesting take on things if you're familiar.

[Kael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Still don’t know what’s true with this guy. But America definitely invaded Panama after essentially creating the country to build and control the canal. Never even heard about before reading

[Harry Rutherford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Political memoirs should probably always be approached with a healthy scepticism. This one was written by a man in prison for drug-trafficking, so I approached it with a lot of uncertainty; especially since I don’t know enough about the politics of Central America in the 80s.

The book does provide some help in the form of Peter Eisner, the American journalist who ghost-wrote the main text, based on interviews with Noriega, and added an introduction, footnotes and endnotes which (as agreed in advance) Noriega did not have any say over. So that provides some useful context.

Noriega’s version of events is that he was nothing but a patriot, working for the good of the people of Panama, trying to avoid getting caught up in the shitshow of Nicaragua and Honduras, and trying to keep on the good side of both the Americans and the Cubans. He also says that the US invasion of Panama was based on nothing but political expediency, that the drug charges against him were trumped up, and that the Americans were up to their eyeballs in every nasty, dirty, shady thing that happened in Central America, including drug-running.

Now a lot of his accusations are clearly true; but of course that doesn’t mean it’s all true. So, for example, given the stuff we know the CIA and the DoD were getting up to in Central America — most famously, but not only, Iran-Contra — pretty much any accusation against them starts sounding plausible. And of course the invasion was political: the fact that they ousted an uncooperative government 12 days before the Canal Zone was due to be handed over to Panamanian control doesn’t seem like a coincidence. And the idea that they did it because Noriega was a Bad Man? Well, given the kinds of regimes the US propped up in Latin America, they clearly had a very high tolerance for brutal dictatorships when it was convenient. But then you can say the same about, say, Saudi Arabia and Iraq: support for the Saudis undermines any claim to a foreign policy designed to spread democracy, freedom and human rights; but whatever the real motivations for invading Iraq, that doesn’t alter the fact that Saddam Hussein was a genuinely terrible figure.

For what it’s worth, Eisner’s conclusion is that Noriega was clearly guilty of a lot of things — like rigging elections and intimidating the opposition — but that Panama was still comparatively stable and peaceful compared to most of its neighbours. And that if Noriega was running drugs, the trial did a poor job of proving it; it relied on testimony from informants within the US prison system who were rewarded for their testimony with reduced sentences, and potentially damning evidence about American government involvement was ruled either secret or inadmissible.

Who knows. I mean, somebody probably does, and if I did the research I might have a clearer idea; but I found the book interesting, even without knowing what to make of it. The tangled politics of the region, and the extent to which the US government was caught up in it, is fascinating. Presumably, now we’ve moved on from the Cold War to the War on Terror, the CIA is less involved in Central America than it used to be, but who knows what they’re now getting up to in, say, Yemen. Or Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey…

[this is my book from Panama for the Read The World challenge]

[Troyvonn Barlow · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of my favorite memoirs so far. Manuel Noriega was able to tell his side of the story of the U.S invasion of Panama, defend himself of drug smuggling accusations, and explaining how the Panama Canal/Greed was the sole reason of his capture. Rather his story is true or not, it's interesting and a must read for war historians.