Inspiration without opportunities is dead

By Dr Isaac Newton

Words can consolidate a marriage, stop a raging war, and uplift a bruised soul. They can kill a reputation, destroy a friendship and issue a verdict of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Yet some decry the deep connection between words and actions. They claim that words are worthless because there is a nagging gap between what we say, and what we do. With disastrous repercussions, they dismiss the reality that words format, inform and direct our actions.

I wonder to what degree of seriousness do those who reject the life-force of words take the constitution, the Bible, their insurance policies, and their marital vows.

I suspect that those of us, who labor in the inspirational, legal, teaching, journalism, preaching, advising, counseling, and writing professions, know the impact of words to motivate, free, ignite, question, persuade, guide, reflect, and create.

That is why critical thinkers out rightly reject, the false separation between ‘the word’ and ‘the world. They see words as the blueprint of actions and actions as the outcome of words. These two forces—words and actions—interact with each other, are tied together, and are inseparable.

The late philosopher and education scholar, Paulo Freire, reminded us that one way of breaking the culture of silence that defines the oppressor/oppressed relationship, is for oppressed people to learn to liberate themselves in communion with each other. He proposed that they should intuit from real life situations that freedom comes, not from using the oppressor’s words, but from creating new words reflective of their emancipation struggles.

Freire felt that a sharp divide between theory and practice misses the mark altogether. He implied that every practice contains a theory, and every theory is guided by a practice.

From the vantage point of spiritual discernment, ‘as a man thinketh in his heart so is he. In the sacred completeness of words and actions, our nature is revealed. At any given moment, through our words and actions, we either give life or enact death.

Equally, I think that inspiration and opportunities are indivisible. Having the drive to dream requires making the tools available to do well.

Unlike many inspirational gurus, I believe that our success comes not merely from our inner strengths. But, ultimately, our destiny springs from our recognition that we are accountable to God. This conviction should profoundly shape the way actualize our potential and talents.

One of the shortcomings of inspirational books and speeches is this: sometimes they cut off motivation from real opportunities. Although, I agree that inspirational words can help open doors to concrete opportunities, they can also hide the brutal fact, that opportunities are not merely forged through self-belief and positive thinking.

Opportunities emerge from another world of inter-generational capital and social networking. And having all the inspiration in the world would not necessarily penetrate that other world.

If we want to accelerate the success of the Caribbean, opportunities must bridge the gap between what is and what is possible.

Last week, I listened with admiration to president Obama’s speech to American students in particular, and to all students in general. Weaving moving rhetoric through a sharp mind, Obama used his personal story of struggle, to inspire students that they could write their destiny, by visualizing what they want to achieve, and by working to make their dreams come alive.

Obama challenged students to cultivate a mindset of excellence. He encouraged them to choose success by linking subject- content to real life problems solving. And he wanted them to understand that their humble beginnings are not to be seen as barriers to superstar achievements and great societal good.

After listening to the president’s speech, I felt that although he had motivated students to embark upon a brighter future, he also made commitments that the USA would continue to create ample opportunities for them to succeed.

In the Caribbean we haven not yet created enough tangible opportunities for our students to realize their academic and professional goals. To make inspiration really matter, I strongly believe that we have to put forward innovative initiatives.

It is simply not enough to inspire self-disciple and high ambition in our students. We must place a high premium on facilitating their dreams through a network of programs, structures and systems that imprint their contribution to nation-building.

If we support the practices of building a strong and unified region, we will have to come to a point where we operationalize our beliefs. Surely, it takes a village to praise, as well as to raise a child.

But what precisely are our governments doing to generate innovative knowledge? What specific programs have we invented to maximize on students’ achievement? I have observed that too many Caribbean political leaders deny indigenous talents wealth-creating opportunities or a real stake in contributing to the public’s welfare. They, rather seek lackluster talent from overseas, because of an inferiority complex that things foreign are superior.

I wonder what models of success and leadership opportunities we in the wider society, have provided for our students to fulfill their ambitions.

What ‘go to’ programs are available to support and assist parents in helping their children achieve measureable social and academic success?

Unfortunately, I see us functioning on the non-sustainable free market mindset, which glorifies self-interest and legitimizes legalized greed. We are not building structures that will help each of us grow and flourish. Therefore, we abuse our beautiful environment and expand conditions of poverty for the masses of our people.

We do not provide opportunities for our students to practice political efficacy. I don’t think we help them understand and learn to appreciate civic skills. We don’t let them practice, through effective organizing and strategic advocacy, to influence the political process and shape our governments’ agendas.

By denying our students these critical exposures, it is as if we expect them, through osmosis, to become responsible citizens when they grow up.

According to Harvard professor Dr. Meira Levinson:

“Students can actually practice democratic rights and responsibilities, either within or outside the school walls. For example, students may poll their peers about features of their school that concern them, and then work together to improve them. They might debate a current issue and then write a group letter expressing their opinions to an elected official. Students could conduct a voter registration drive in the school parking lot. Many other types of activities are possible—the common threads are drawing students’ attention to how democratic systems work, and demonstrating through their participation the power of a community joining together for a common purpose.”

When are we going to plug our students into social networks that provide access and entry into financial institutions, and prized jobs? I leant earlier on in life, that although talent counts, if you are not working your network, you are not working.

In the real world of competition and survival, our students should have access to generational networks, after we equip them with the inner resources of self confidence to shine and deliver.

Are we organizing our villages and towns, even our run down communities to help students prepare for college? There is ample research that reveals that family involvement can help prepare disadvantaged students for college.

When was the last time you volunteered your time to become an influential parent-like figure who monitored a student’s academic and social activities? By simply giving of your time, that student is likely to have lower rates of delinquency and higher rates of social competence and academic growth?

I have seen a mark difference in helping so many parents become familiar with college preparation requirements. But I have also worked with these very parents, to help them look for scholarships so that their children could get a college education.

Inspiration and opportunities go hand in hand. Have we provided opportunities to help our students work through the relationships between procrastination and productivity? What programs have we created to pool resources that youngsters could plan long-term success, using measurable goals and time schedules?

Perhaps those who are in charge of education ministries and schools should come to see the nexus between quality education and a successful society. They should care enough to put programs and structures in place, both to motivate students to become role-model, and to give them diverse opportunities, to practice leadership competencies.

Instilling students with the inspiration to produce caring communities, become contributing citizens and build vibrant economies devoid of real opportunities can cause them to lose momentum.

“I would therefore wish to see the ordinary man and woman in this society spend less time insisting on his or her rights, important as those are, and much more time being aware of, and putting into practice, his or her responsibilities”. These prophetic words of Regional Dumas, a former head of public service are so timely and so relevant (‘Assaults on good governance’, Trinidad Express). I couldn’t agree more.


caribbeannetnews

Haitian president-elect Rene Preval offers hope for economic progress in Haiti

Haiti’s Ambassador to The Bahamas - Louis Harold Joseph believes that with economic improvement, fewer Haitians would be inclined to make the desperate voyage to The Bahamas and other countries in search of better opportunities

Envoy Hopes For Economic Progress In Haiti

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

5 May 2006

Hope for economic progress in Haiti is building as Haitian president-elect Rene Preval prepares to be sworn in on May 14.

Mr. Preval, who has vowed to restore security and create jobs to help pull Haiti’s poor out of their state of despair, won the election earlier this year.

Haiti’s Ambassador to The Bahamas - Louis Harold Joseph believes that with economic improvement, fewer Haitians would be inclined to make the desperate voyage to The Bahamas and other countries in search of better opportunities.

"Certainly, a stabilized country will have an impact on the economy," Mr. Joseph said in an interview with the Bahama Journal on Thursday.

"First of all, that will allow the government of Haiti to concentrate on more important matters in the country, particularly alleviating the situation of the poor people in the country and put everything in place for the economy to work properly."

He noted though that many Haitians living in The Bahamas have been contributing to the economic development of the country for decades and believes that there is a way this can continue to happen legally.

It’s why Mr. Joseph supports the establishment of a labour accord between The Bahamas and Haiti - whereby The Bahamas would get labourers from Haiti when needed.

"Since we’re going to have a new government, I cannot get into details because I don’t yet know what will be the position of the new government, but I think this is one possibility," the ambassador said.

The labour accord is also something that government officials like former Labour Minister Vincent Peet, and Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell both believe can work.

Bahamas High Commissioner to CARICOM, A. Leonard Archer also believes that a labour accord would be mutually beneficial for The Bahamas and Haiti.

On Thursday, Mr. Joseph said the kind of stability Haiti is beginning to experience with presidential and legislative elections now history, would also help foster greater investments in the country by outsiders, including Haitians who live in other countries.

"A stabilized country certainly could attract more investments.  People will be more willing to go to Haiti and work with the business sector," he said.

"We are on the right path toward democracy and at this particular time Haiti deserves the support of the international community as well as that of all our neighbours and particularly our sister nations in CARICOM."

Minister Mitchell also said recently that CARICOM expects that Haiti will take its seat again around the table after Mr. Preval is inaugurated.

Mr. Joseph said he thinks the promises between The Bahamas and Haiti are great.

He also noted that over the last 15 years or so there was no economic growth in Haiti, but the population has been increasing.

Mr. Joseph said that The Bahamas has traditionally supported Haiti, and Haiti expects that that support will continue.

"We need that support at this particular phase because the political situation in Haiti is always fragile, particularly at this time, and we continue to need the support of [The Bahamas]," the ambassador said.

Beware of Nigerian Fraudsters and Thieves Online

Nigerian Crooks are Busy Online in Search of Gullible People to Rob, Swing, and Swindle

African Diplomat Warns About Nigerian Fraud Schemes

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

10 October 2005

If you are among the many Bahamians receiving e-mails from Nigerians almost daily inviting you to assist in the transfer or investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, authorities say there is a good chance that you are being invited to participate in a fraudulent scheme.

Nigerian High Commissioner to The Bahamas Habib Elabor reminded when he appeared on the Love 97 programme, "Jones and Company", which aired on Sunday that "it takes two to tango."

"As they say in law, the thief and the man who agrees to keep stolen property are equally guilty of theft," Mr. Elabor said.

"We know that there are thieves in Nigeria who have stolen our money, kept this money in Western banks and when we now ask the West to release this money to Nigeria they are refusing to do that.

"How do you explain [that]?  Is it Nigeria that is corrupt or those people who are abetting in this corruption?"

Bahamian police said recently that in 2002, a Bahamian businessman reported that he was scammed out of thousands of dollars and threatened by the Internet perpetrators.

Police eventually advised the man to change his e-mail address and telephone contact.

"These people who are involved in this type of scam act on the greed of individuals that they pitch the business idea to.  It’s amazing that in this day and age persons are being swindled out of money by advanced thieves," Assistant Superintendent of Police Drexel Cartwright told The Bahama Journal recently.

In an earlier report on this matter, The Journal released details of one of these e-mails in which an individual, who identified himself as a Nigerian and claimed to be a financial controller of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, pitched a business investment.

He invited the receiver to transfer $120,000 to a Nigerian account for a private investment, which would accumulate up to $120 million.

The letter also requested personal information from the individual including a personal address, phone contact, bank address and account number.

The letter states that after the deposit is received the Nigerian will meet with the investor to finalize the transaction.

Mr. Elabor expressed surprise that some people could be so "gullible" that they actually act on such offers.

The High Commissioner, who is also the Nigerian diplomat in Cuba, said about three weeks ago a Bahamian man came to meet him in Havana and informed that he was getting involved in an investment involving hundreds of millions of dollars with Nigerian partners.

"I [asked] this man, ‘did you execute a contract in Nigeria?  Where’s the proof?  Who are your Nigerian partners?’  Under our law there is no way you would execute a contract of such magnitude without having Nigerian partners.  He could not point out who his partners were," Mr. Elabor said.

"I said ‘If you want to pursue this matter, I would advise our government to listen to you.  But if it turns out you are [aiding and abetting] people with criminal intensions, you too could face [our] law’.  That is how we ended it."

Mr. Elabor said he gave the Bahamian man a copy of the advisory that the Nigerian central bank has been issuing throughout the Western press.

"If anyone is in doubt [he or she] should refer such letters to the embassy,"  he said.  "Don’t ever succumb to the temptation that is inherent in these letters." 

The CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) is A Work In Progress

CSME "A Work In Progress" 

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

6th June 2005

There are a number of elements of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy that have yet to be worked out, but the Caribbean Community hopes that The Bahamas will come onboard and sign the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas before the end of the year, according to CARICOM Secretary General Edwin Carrington.

While on the Love 97 programme, "Jones and Company", on Sunday, Mr. Carrington was unable to provide specifics on certain aspects of CSME, noting that the details are something that the heads of CARICOM will have to come up with.

"The CSME at the moment is a work in progress and the CARICOM countries that are involved are constructing this arrangement," he said.

Mr. Carrington indicated that there is still a whole lot to be worked out as it relates to the single economy.

"If you look at the treaty, you would see that the single economy has hardly been sketched out in the treaty document," he said.

"It has set out broad guidelines as to what would be involved in the single economy.  Essentially, the single economy is a process to move the economies of the region to certain common approaches in a number of areas that will enhance their competitiveness so that their productive capacity would be such that they can compete better in the international marketplace.

"That's the broad objective.  How you do that, what are the steps that you have to take, these are matters we are working on."

Another aspect of the CSME that has not yet been clearly worked out is the regional development fund which will be established to cushion the economic fallout that may result from the formation of the CSME, Mr. Carrington indicated.

He could not say specifically what contribution The Bahamas would have to make to the development fund.

Asked what this country's future with CARICOM would be if it does not sign the revised treaty, Mr. Carrington said it was a "political question".

"I'll tell you why," he said.  "The legal advice which we have is that this instrument, the revised treaty, including the single market and economy, does not provide as the previous instrument [did] for you to join the community and not the common market.  It is one integral product and joining it commits you to the entire product subject to, of course, reservations.

"So, if The Bahamas signs on, let's say, without reservations then it is committed fully to that.  If it wants not to participate in certain aspects of it then it would have to put forward reservations and get those accepted."

Mr. Carrington was also asked whether other CARICOM states could later challenge the reservations The Bahamas intends to secure.  He stressed that CARICOM is not a "fly by night" organization and if the sovereign states have signed certain reservations with The Bahamas, they stand and "no one can challenge them."

The Bahamas government has said that it wants to sign the revised treaty, but only if it is able to secure certain reservations against the free movement of people, the monetary union, the Caribbean Court of Justice at the appellate level, and the common external tariff.

"Let us assume that they have agreed to those reservations," Mr. Carrington said.  "That's it.  If you did not get the agreement that you wish, then I presume you would sit down and determine [whether you should] go in nevertheless or [whether you should] on the basis of not receiving these reservations not go in."

He again indicated that The Bahamas would be able to keep its reservations for as long as it sees fit.

"I'm not a head of government, but I would find it difficult to believe that [the heads] would not give them sympathetic consideration...They would not be changed without The Bahamas' agreement."

Echoing a familiar sentiment in the CSME debate, The show's co-host, Godfrey Eneas, asked the CARICOM Secretary General why The Bahamas with a per capita income of between $15,000 and $17,000 should be "saddled" with other countries with low per capita incomes.

But Mr. Carrington took issue with the use of the word saddled, saying it was unfortunate that Mr. Eneas would choose that word "because no one is saddled with any country."

"If I follow your argument, [The Bahamas] is seeking to enter the Free Trade Area of the Americas.  Then why should the rich U.S. saddle itself with a poor [Bahamas] in relative terms?  It seems to me first of all, the notion of saddling is wrong because you seem to suggest that you have to carry those countries.  That is not the case."

The show's host, Wendall Jones, then asked, "How do you answer the complaint of the criticism that the CSME is premature given the divergence of the states of the Caribbean, economically and socially.

Mr. Carrington responded, "To say that it's premature seems to suggest that there is some better time to come when you can do these things."

During the show, Mr. Jones also indicated that there are many Bahamians who have concerns about the right of establishment provision of the treaty.

Mr. Carrington explained that, "First of all, the principle of a right of establishment is that a national of a CARICOM member state has the right to establish a business in another member state in the community in the context of single market and be treated as a national of that particular country.

"My understanding is that a number of countries have identified areas in which they cannot accept [this].  I believe every country has certain exceptions.  I don't know that the exceptions that you are talking about would be acceptable or otherwise.  It's an area I hope that discussions would take place."

Mr. Jones asked, "Can you say if there is anything in the revised treaty that states that the right of establishment will not apply to the retail and wholesale sectors?"

The secretary general said, "No. I don't think that there is anything in the treaty which is that specific...Let me just remind you [that] The Bahamas would be seeking in my view a political situation.

"It may well be that in putting that in a document to the heads they may say, "Sorry, we can't accept that one.  In other words, I'm saying don't limit yourself to what the treaty says because we are talking about a political arrangement which The Bahamas government would seek with a view to implementing the treaty."

Mr. Carrington was also asked why he thinks the CSME is so unpopular in The Bahamas.

"I can see no rational reason for the widespread unpopularity as you've said," he answered.

A Bahamian Soldier's Iraq War Experience

Bahamian Soldier, Raquel Smith on going to War in Iraq

Home From War A Soldier’s Story

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

09/07/2004

A lot has changed since 26-year-old Raquel Smith went to work at a local McDonald’s Restaurant after graduating from St. John’s College in 1994.

What she has seen since then would probably make many grown men shiver and back away.

 

Growing up in The Bahamas where the thought of going to war was unfathomable, it seems unlikely that she would have ended up joining the U.S. Army, much less fighting a war from which many hundreds of soldiers never made it home.

But the little girl who dreamed one day of becoming a lawyer is now content on being a career soldier.  If she could do it all over again, she says she would not do anything differently.

“I think I like the direction I went,” Ms. Smith says.

She served on the frontlines driving a truck, taking supplies back and forth.  She had only learnt to drive a truck when she was sent to Kuwait just before the U.S.-led war in Iraq last year.

“We carried supplies, anything from Kuwait to Iraq,” says Ms. Smith, who would probably have been among the more petite soldiers, driving a truck that looked more like a small hotel.

But it worked, since anything goes on the streets of Iraq, she says.

One time, she was a part of a convoy driving at night when there was a knock on the truck during a rest stop.

“They told us we had to get ready to shoot because the Americans and the Iraqis were fighting and the Americans were driving the Iraqis our way,” she recalls.  “They told us to get on the ground and anything we see running toward us to shoot.  We were about to shoot them, but we got backup.  So we didn’t have to shoot, they had to shoot.”

The fact that she served in Iraq for nearly a year easily makes her a national hero, not just in the United States, but also in The Bahamas.

But Ms. Smith says in reflection, “I didn’t do anything heroic, when it was time to go, I just did my job and I came back.”

She was only a few miles away from where U.S. soldiers captured ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who was found crouched in a tiny cellar at a farmhouse last December near his hometown Tikrit.

It was good news for soldiers, she says.  But it was also bad news because there was the realization that his supporters might retaliate, she adds.

Ms. Smith is home this week, just in time for Independence Day before she travels to Hawaii for a four-year engagement, but there’s no telling when she could be called to action again.

While admitting that she felt a bit out of place being back home, she reminds, “I am a Bahamian.  This is where I live.”

It’s not hard to see why other soldiers were puzzled over why she left The Bahamas to join the U.S. Army and fight in a war.

The story of Ms. Smith’s military experience started when she came to the realization that “my life wasn’t going anywhere.”

Watching television one day, she says she saw a U.S. Army commercial and decided to dial the number to make inquiries.

“I asked them what are the qualifications of joining the army and they told me,” she says. “I told my mother ‘I’m thinking of going in the army.’  And she said ‘are you sure?’ I said, ‘Yes, I’m sure.’  She said it was my decision.”

In October 2000, Ms. Smith, who was born in Miami, Florida, enlisted and underwent rigorous training.  She learnt to fire a weapon.

But she could not have imagined going to war, at least not that soon.  She was, however, prepared.

“I said if I have to go, I have to go because that’s what I signed up to do,” she says.  “I signed on the dotted line that I would defend the United States.  I was scared, I was surprised, but I said I had a job to do and I went to do it.”

She was told to be on alert.  No matter where she was, she had to be ready to go “at the drop of a hat.”

And she was.

She arrived in Iraq about two weeks before the war started last March.

“I was scared,” Ms. Smith says. “When it first started, we had a couple of close calls.  We could have been killed, but fortunately we weren’t.  I was real scared in the beginning, but after a while it started to become natural.”

She says she soon grew accustomed to the sound of gunfire and explosions.  Although the fear never completely subsided, Ms. Smith soon settled into the realization that this was her new life, her calling.

Apart from the realization that the chances of getting killed are heightened during a war, the day-to-day living in Iraq was difficult.

“Sometimes we had no water,” Ms. Smith recalls.  “Sometimes we had no heat.  We had no air condition…we had no ice, no freezers…we didn’t have regular toilets.  Sometimes we didn’t take showers for weeks.  We had to use baby wipes.  We had to make do with what we had.  The food really wasn’t that great either.  We slept on cots, we didn’t sleep on beds.”

She slept on the floor of the kitchen at one of Saddam Hussein’s former military bases.

“I have pleasant memories and I have bad memories,” Ms. Smith says.  “When I was with my unit we were all so close and we took care of each other.  We made sure that everybody came back, nobody died.  We prayed before we went out.  We prayed after we came back.  We were a close unit.”

A lot of the females got urinary tract infections because they had to sometimes go for long periods without urinating, she recalls.

“It really wasn’t that sanitary,” Ms. Smith adds.  “It was really hard for us [females].”

But the women in her unit came from war without getting pregnant.  She points out that five of the women in a nearby unit got pregnant, reportedly for American soldiers.

Although things were tough, she says going to war “made me appreciate life more.”

“Sometimes when we watched the news, we would hear ‘four soldiers got killed today’.  Almost 900 people didn’t come back, but I came back and I am so grateful.  I appreciate water more because we sure didn’t have a lot of water.

“I don’t take anything for granted anymore.”

The army has taken her to many destinations since she left Nassau.  Her first duty station was in Korea.  She ended up going to Germany, The Czech Republic, Poland and many other places.

But it’s always good to be home, she quickly adds with a dancing smile.

Ms. Smith also has a few words for young people who may now be feeling like their life is directionless.

“Don’t give up,” she says. “If your life took a bad turn, God probably has something planned for you.  You may just do not know it yet.  Keep on believing.  Just don’t give up.”

Ronald Reagan Caribbean Legacy

Ronald Reagan and Grenada

Reaction To Reagan’s Role In The Caribbean

By Charles Fawkes

Nassau, The Bahamas

02/07/2004

HOUSE OF LABOUR: Reaction to last week’s column “Reagan’s legacy in the Caribbean", through e-mail and by way of telephone was swift and furious.  It is perhaps articles like that one that answers the question, "Is anybody listening?”  In one of the e-mails sent, the reader wondered if this column could shed some light on the fate of the seventeen Grenadians charged and jailed with murder, and manslaughter in the political incident that ended in the death of Maurice Bishop- the former Prime Minister of Grenada and his supporters.

To be honest this was a tall order.  I had long ago stopped following the development regarding those who were regarded as the counterrevolution in the experiment where Grenadians were attempting to establish the second workers state in the Caribbean.  However, after considerable research and a few phone calls to some of my Caribbean comrade’s- one recent article by Rich Gibson a professor of education at San Diego State University provided some insight.  What follows are excerpts from the lengthy article entitled “ The Grenada 17, The Last Prisoners of the Cold War Are Back” where Gibson argues: “The invasion of Grenada, more than 20 years ago, presaged many of the events that blowback on the US today: unilateral warfare, official deceit about the motives for war, a massive military moving against an imagined foe, stifling the press, leaders proclaiming their guidance from God, denials of human and civil rights, systematic torture and subsequent cover-ups-and a hero who refused to go along.  Many of the players in the Bush administration who promise perpetual war today cut their teeth on the invasion of Grenada.

On March 13, 1979 a revolution took place in Grenada, the first in an African Caribbean country, the first in the English-speaking world.  The people who made up the revolutionary cadre were young, average age around 27.  The uppermost leadership was predominantly middle class, educated abroad.  They called themselves the New Jewel Movement (NJM).  The revolution, or coup as some called it, was popular, replacing a mad dictator named Eric Gairy who spent much of the tiny country's (pop 100,000) resources investigating the reason Grenada was a favorite landing point for flying saucers.

At the time of the uprising, Eric Gairy was in the US visiting with Nazi war criminal (and United Nations Secretary General) Kurt Waldheim.  Gairy simply didn't return.  Maurice Bishop, Jacqueline Creft, Bernard and Phyllis Coard, were among the key New Jewel leaders.  Bishop and Coard had been childhood friends.

The NJM leadership was socialists, though their socialism was eclectic-hardly the doctrinaire image the U.S. later created.  They borrowed judiciously and won investments from any government they could, from the British to the USSR to Iraq and Cuba (which provided mostly doctors, construction specialists, nurses, and educators).  The exacting Brandeis-educated Bernard Coard, leading the financial sector, was recognized throughout the Caribbean as a rare, honest, economist.

They began a mass literacy project (led by Paulo Freire), quickly improved medical care, began to set up processing plants for fish and spices, and started building a jetport.  The country had a tiny landing strip only able to land prop planes, a problem for an economy tied up with tourist interests.  The plan in general, was to magnify national economic development by expanding existing forms of production (agriculture, small industries, tourism, etc.) and by creating a new class of technologically competent workers who might use their skills to create a role for Grenada in the information economy as well.  The far-sighted educational programs had a critical role in that project.

To claim that the NJM rule was a model of egalitarian democracy, as much of the chic left did at the time, would be off point.  It wasn't.  While international tourist-socialists danced during carnival in the beautiful houses allotted to revo leaders, democracy and equality went on the back burner in favor of national economic development.

With New Jewel under terrific pressure, The US quickly moved to crush the revo, made tourism nearly impossible for U.S. citizens.  It is fairly clear that the CIA made several attempts to murder key leaders.

Pressed externally, NJM grew more isolated from the people.  Rather than reach out to expand its initial popularity, the party turned inward.  The leadership tried to rely on a correct analysis and precise orders rather than to build a popular base.  Even though there was no question that Bishop would win elections, the NJM leaders refused to hold them.  Then In 1982 and 1983, sharp disagreements began to emerge within the entire organization.  Within four years, by 1983, the NJM was in real trouble.

The Central Committee passed motions blaming the people for the crises in the economy.  In 1983, the whole party voted overwhelmingly to reduce Bishop's role and elevate Coard to an equal spot, though the entire party, and Coard, knew he would never be as popular as the charismatic Bishop, and could never rule without him.  There were many reasons for the move; one of the more important being Bishop's lack of personal discipline, called "waffling".  The shift to shared leadership was made in the context of a revolution already in crisis.  Bishop agreed to the plan, but expressed concern that his work was being repudiated, that this might be a vote of no confidence.

On 19 October 1983, a mob of thousands led by Bishop marched past armed personnel carriers (APC's) lined up in front of his home, freed "We Leader" Bishop, and (under curious banners like "We Love the US") began to move to the town square.  No one in the APC's moved to stop the crowd.

As the crowd moved to Bishop's house, a Cuban military outfit arrived at the downtown Fort Rupert (now Ft George).  They had not reported in days and were turned away by the commander on duty from the NJM.  In the town square, where rallies were traditionally held, microphones were set up for Bishop to speak to the people.  Bishop could have easily mobilized nearly the entire population of the island to come to the square to support him-and that probably would have been that.

But now led by Bishop and his friends, the crowd turned and marched on a nearby fort where arms and TNT were stored.  Bishop demanded that the commander of the fort turn over his weapons.  He did, and was locked in a cell.

At this point, things become murky.  An award winning Grenadian journalist, Alastair Hughes, famous in the region for his resistance to the NJM and his courage, saw the crowd move to the fort and bolted home, rather than cover the news.  Bishop moved his cadre to seize the radio and telephone centers, as had the NJM in overturning Gairy a few years earlier.  From another fort on a mountain about two miles away, Peoples Revolutionary Army APC's were ordered to quiet the mob.

The soldiers on the APC's were for the most part, hardly crack troops; they were mainly youths who had enlisted to get the money to buy shoes for their families.  One had deserted out of loneliness and been brought back the previous day.  They rode on top of the carriers, in full view. As they approached the fort, fire came from the mob.  The commander of the first APC, one of the few experienced soldiers in the group and a highly respected officer, was killed.  Discipline appears to have evaporated on all sides.  Fire was returned.

No one knows exactly how many people were killed and wounded.  No firm count was ever made.  There are films of people leaping over a wall at the fort (why a film-maker was so poised with such a powerful camera is an interesting question).

In any case, Bishop and other top leaders of NJM, including his pregnant companion Jackie Creft, were killed- after they had surely surrendered.  The remaining leadership of NJM imposed a curfew on the island.  In part because important documents taken from Grenada during the invasion remain classified in the U.S., no thoroughgoing investigation of this day's events has been possible.

Shortly afterward, on October 23 1983, 241 US troops were killed, blown up in their barracks in Lebanon by a truck bomb.

US President Ronald Reagan took to the TV, announcing he had discovered, through satellite photos, that the Cubans were building a secret Soviet Cuban military airstrip in Grenada-a direct threat to US security.

Reagan declared the US medical students to be in grave danger from the crisis in Grenada, said that the NJM was a threat to all regional security.  He got the organization of Caribbean nations to back him with a big payoff to those who went along-- and invaded a country the size of Kalamazoo with a massive military force, under a precedent_ setting news blackout.  The US had practiced the invasion of Grenada as early as 1981.

The invasion of Grenada (popular among most Grenadian people sickened by the long collapse of the NJM) was complete in a week.  It was, however, denounced as illegal by the U.N. Security Council, by Margaret Thatcher and the British government, and by a myriad of US congress people.

The US, however, quickly recaptured its post-Lebanon image as a military super-power.

Seventeen NJM leaders were charged with the murder of Bishop, Jacqueline Creft, and others, though most of them were nowhere near the incident.  The NJM leaders claimed they were tortured and signed transparently bogus confessions.  According to affidavits filed by former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark, and Amnesty International, the NJM leaders were denied attorneys.  They were tried by jurors who chanted "guilty" at them during jury selection, in trails led by judges hand-picked and paid by the U.S.  They were unable to make a defense in the kangaroo atmosphere.  Their lawyers were subjected to death threats and some fled.  Fourteen of the NJM members were sentenced to death.  In 1991, after an international outcry, the sentences were commuted to life.  Typically in the Caribbean, a life sentence amounts to around 15 years.

The New Jewel leaders are still serving time in a prison built in the nineteenth century.  The last prisoners of the cold war are black.  Their health is rapidly fading.  Despite immense obstacles created by prison officials over the years, the NJM prisoners are conducting one of the most successful literacy campaigns in the country.  Less than two in ten of the program' grads return to the Richmond Hill jail.

As of October 2004, the NJM prisoners will have served 21 years.  Phyllis Coard was released in 2000 to seek cancer treatment abroad, following an international campaign on her behalf.  She is still expected to return to the jail following treatment.

In October 2003 Amnesty International has issued a detailed report, demonstrating their conclusion that the Grenada 17 were denied due process in their trial: "the trial was manifestly and fundamentally unfair."  The selection of both judges and the jury were tainted with prejudice.  Documents that might have contradicted key prosecution evidence were denied the defendants.

In 2002 Rich Gibson interviewed Grenada's ambassador to the US, asking him why his government is so determined to keep the Grenada 17 in jail.  He replied that he, and the nation's current leader, Keith Mitchell, believed there would be riots if the Grenada 17 were set free.  The possibility of serious civil strife in Grenada, about anything but the corruption allegations aimed at the Mitchell regime, are actually quite negligible, as leaders of the opposition party and the country's leading paper, the Voice, told Gibson.

Gibson concludes, “I spent 1996 in Grenada interviewing many of the jailed NJM leaders.  To say they are innocent of everything is not the case.  To say they are innocent of the charges brought against them is.  The New Jewel leadership made serious mistakes.  The prisoners have issued extensive, indeed insightful, apologies to that effect, taking responsibility for the crisis of the revolution, but not for the murders they did not commit.  Their continued imprisonment is a mysterious yet great wrong that needs to be righted.  The truth of the Grenada revo, and its destruction, needs to be known.”

Hopefully this information shed some light on the current status of these imprisoned as a result of the crushing of the Grenadian Revolution.

Charles Fawkes is President of the National Consumer Association, Consumer columnist for the Nassau Guardian and organizer for the Commonwealth Group of Unions, Editor of the Headline News, The Consumer guard and The Worker’s Vanguard.

Ronald Reagan Legacy In The Caribbean

Ronald Reagan’s crowning glory of his legacy in the Caribbean was the U.S. invasion of Grenada

Progressive Bahamians and Caribbean people deplored in the strongest terms, the act of naked aggression and imperialism that was carried out in October 1981, when the United States of America (USA), the world’s richest and one of its largest states, invaded tiny Grenada (pop. 110,000)

Reagan’s Legacy In The Caribbean

By Charles Fawkes

Nassau, The Bahamas

25/06/2004

HOUSE OF LABOUR: In Friday June 15th edition of the Bahama Journal, Godfrey Eneas of the Eneas File fame touched on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Black Americans.  I was particularly interested in his approach to the subject and he did say some things that needed to be said.  I was, however, disappointed that Eneas sought to examine Reagan’s legacy for black Americans, but neglected to mention Reagan’s legacy in the Caribbean; particularly, in reference to progressive individuals and movements in the Caribbean.

Indeed, President Reagan the 40th President of the United States was a polarizing figure - not only for Black Americans but all third world peoples particularly, in the Caribbean and Latin America.

During Reagan’s presidency, reaction to the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) had been much like the FTAA is seen today, as mostly benefiting Americans not the Caribbean.  More importantly, for Inside Labour is the fact that Reagan fired 13,000 U.S. air traffic controllers in 1981 after they staged a work stoppage.  He used the U.S. National Labour Relations Board to crack down on trade unions.  In line with this we saw many of our Caribbean leaders attempt similar “union busting” tactics that lingered on and ended with the busting of our own air traffic controllers union being put under “heavy manners” by the FNM government of Hubert Ingraham.

Reagan’s crowning glory of his legacy in the Caribbean was the U.S. invasion of Grenada.  An examination of this opprobrious event and its impact may prove useful in putting his legacy in the Caribbean in proper perspective.  Reagan’s 1983 invasion of Grenada was not universally applauded and indeed the full week coverage by CNN, NBC, FOX NEWS, ABC, CBS that attempted to deify this man, who demonized progressives the world over and setback the progressive forces of the world fifty years.

At that time progressive Bahamians and Caribbean people deplored in the strongest terms, the act of naked aggression and imperialism that was carried out in October 1981, when the United States of America (USA), the world’s richest and one of its largest states, invaded tiny Grenada (pop. 110,000).

The people of the Caribbean and all over the third world have suffered for centuries the racism, economic deprivation and political inequality of British and other colonialisms.  We also know that thousands of our exploited brothers and sisters have endured the harshest punishments in the attempt to escape from this status by becoming independent nations with the right to plot their own destinies.

When the U.S. imperialists under Reagan armed with phrases like “restoring democracy,” “eradicating Marxism,” “eliminating a source of subversion,” “preventing terrorism,” etc. destroy a sovereign nation like Grenada, it brought back to all of us the bitter memories of colonialism.  We were reminded that they were offering then a better life by enslaving us in the same ways the Japanese and German imperialists of World War II tried to convince the world that their systems of domination were “co-prosperity spheres”.

It should be noted that the vast majority of the world’s nations condemned the American action, including Britain, Canada and France, the then USSR and our own government of The Bahamas.  Such condemnation was proof enough of the unpopularity of this policy, and Reagan realized that his imperialism fooled no one.  The vote in the United Nations General Assembly on November 3 1981 (108-9 with abstentions), which demanded that the USA withdraw from Grenada, was further proof of the world’s opprobrium for that nation’s Caribbean adventure.  In many respects, this was the beginning in modern times of the United States becoming an international outlaw.

The major reasons given by the USA under Reagan for the intervention in Grenada were as follows: First the death of Maurice Bishop, ex- Prime Minister of Grenada, created much instability in that society, which instability threatened the safety of 1,000 Americans who were there.  The numbers included hundreds of students at St. George’s Medical School, a U.S. owned medical facility on the island.  Secondly, Grenada was exporting revolutions to other parts of the Caribbean. Thirdly, Grenada was a Cuba- Soviet military base in the U.S.A's “backyard” or in its “sphere of influence.”

All progressive people in the Caribbean and elsewhere deplored the senseless arguments among the then Grenadian leadership that resulted in the death of Prime Minister Bishop and some of his ministers.  However, if assassination of leaders was a valid reason for intervening in a country, the United States should have been invaded a long time ago.  For example in the last century America’s greatest President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.  In 1963 President John F. Kennedy was killed, and President Reagan in his time was shot.  We also recall that distinguished Americans like Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were killed.  It is common knowledge that when Dr. King died riots took place in large numbers of America’s cities.  Yet in spite of the instability, no nation “intervened” in the USA.

In Grenada after Bishop’s death there were no uprisings, the Americans on the island insisted that they were safe.  A US and Canadian diplomat visited the country a couple of days before the invasion and found their people safe, and General Hudson Austin had agreed to open the airport to allow foreign nationals to leave.  In this same context, President Fidel Castro of Cuba, a close friend of Grenada, who had nearly 800 of his nationals working on projects in the island like the then new airport, volunteered to act as a go-between to insure the safety of the Americans.  Clearly there was little “instability” in Grenada, and there was no threat to American lives at any time before the invasion.

Anthony Lewis in the New York Times October 3, 1983, in an article entitled: “What was Reagan hiding?” - questioned the Reagan Administration’s tale that the Americans were in danger and that the Grenadian government was attempting to hold them there.  Lewis wrote: “Now we know that Grenada and Cuba both sent messages to the United States saying that our citizens, in particular the large numbers of medical students were safe.  We know that the airport was open and Americans flew out the day before the invasion, encountering no problems at the airport and seeing not even an armed guard.”  Lewis went on to conclude: “The Reagan Administration was in fact not interested in exploring peaceful evacuation of Americans who wanted to leave.  It did not look into chartering ships or planes.  It did not respond to the Grenadian or Cuban messages until after the invasion was underway.  It was determined to make a show of force.”  In retrospect Inside Labour is convinced also; that Reagan was not interested in peace.

At the time The Reagan Administration and the right –wing in America and the Caribbean, constantly stated that Grenada and Cuba were bases for “exporting revolution”.  An argument that made no sense.  If a different worldview, for example, has no relevance to the lives of a people in a particular society, then the masses will reject it.  If capitalism is irrelevant to the needs and aspirations of a society, they will reject it also.  Ideologies- in other words are world outlooks that are either accepted or rejected by the masses; they cannot be exported.

On the other hand, if what Reagan and the right –wing meant by “exporting revolution,” the subversion of a country by the illegal use of force and violence, Grenada could not in any way be accused of this.  Indeed, none of the Caribbean countries involved in the invasion produced a scintilla of evidence to prove that the then Grenadian Government illegally conspired to overthrow them.

Philosophers warn us that it is a mistake to confuse analogies with identities, for while an analogy is a call to clarify the specific; it is not the specific itself.  The United States frequently depicts the Caribbean as being in its “backyard” - and as a mental construct to illustrate its proximity to the region; such a depiction is permissible.  However, America seems to see its “Caribbean backyard” not in terms of a close neighbor, but in terms of a region of the earth that they have manifest destiny to own, control and push around.  Such confusion turns an analogy into a principle of ownership.

Progressives the world over insists that the Caribbean consists of sovereign nations which have a right to plot their own destiny.  Much like in the recent case of Haiti.  The Caribbean nations are not parts of the USA like Hawaii; we are in nobody’s backyard.  Grenada in 1981 posed no military threat or “subversive threat” to any nation in this hemisphere, so Reagan had no right to obliterate that nation’s sovereignty, just like President Bush had no right to obliterate the sovereignty of Iraq.  In the meantime what is fearful is that the United States feels that is has natural rights to make every nation in the world her puppet.

Reagan’s legacy in the Caribbean proved that the United States violated all the rules in international law in its invasion of Grenada, and of making a mockery of the concept of national sovereignty.  It broke the elementary rules of international law regarding the recognition of states; it broke the U.N. charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), of which it is one of the founding members. The Charters of the OAS states explicitly: “The territory of a state is inviolable, it may not be the object, even temporarily of military occupation or other measures of force taken by another state, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever.”  Some international lawyers argued that even when the U.S unjustly invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965, it at least procured “legal cover.”  At that time it claimed that it was called by the military government of the Dominican Republic to “restore order”.  A claim, which it rammed through the OAS after the fact. In Grenada, on the other hand, the United States destroyed the legitimate government.

Finally, the Reagan administration in trying to secure some legal legacy for its actions argued that the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) provided a legal basis for the invasion.  But as Time Magazine stated: “Grenada is one of the seven members of the OECS, the charter of which says that any decision to take military action must be unanimous.  Grenada certainly did not agree to invade itself.  Nor was it clear that the OECS formed in 1981, had any provision, or any right to authorize military intervention in one of its member states!”  Without a doubt Reagan’s legacy in the Caribbean was cemented by this lawless adventure based on the principle that might is right!  When the definitive chapter on this event is written Reagan will be seen for what he was “a little man” not the colossus that the spin-doctors of Washington would have us believe.

 

 

 

 

Charles Fawkes is President of the National Consumer Association, Consumer columnist for the Nassau Guardian and organizer for the Commonwealth Group of Unions, Editor of the Headline News, The Consumer guard and The Worker’s Vanguard.