Google Ads

Showing posts with label Grenada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grenada. Show all posts

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Grenada paid for the U.S. defeat in Vietnam

 
In what context did the U.S. invasion of Grenada take place
30 years ago? What similarities exist with the current U.S. position?



By Dalia González Delgado




WHAT could lead the most powerful country in the world to invade a nation of only 110,000 inhabitants? Three decades ago, some 7,000 U.S. marines and parachutists occupied Grenada, in an operation labeled Urgent Fury. The capital of this Caribbean island was bombarded by aircraft, helicopters and warships.

Maurice Bishop in 1980
(FOTO:ARCHIVO)
The United Nations condemned the aggression. Ronald Reagan, who occupied the White House at the time, responded, "100 nations in the United Nations have not agreed with us on just about everything that's come before them where we are involved, and it didn't upset my breakfast at all."

This was the same President who when asked about the possibility of invading Nicaragua in 1986 said, " You're looking at an individual that is the last one in the world that would ever want to put American troops into Latin America, because the memory of the Great Colossus of the North is so widespread in Latin America, we'd lose all our friends if we did anything of that kind."

The events of October 1983 took place within the framework of an effort by Reagan, elected in 1981, to reestablish what in the view of neoconservatives was "the needed recovery of the U.S. military's ability to coerce," according to Cuban political scientist and researcher Dr. Carlos Alzugaray.

Some 7,000 U.S. marines and
parachutists invaded Grenada
October 25, 1983
"In the perception of this group, there existed what they described as a growing danger, evidenced by revolutions in Iran, Nicaragua and Grenada; Cuba's support to struggles in Angola and Ethiopia; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and other international events," the expert told Granma.

"They believed that all of this was due to the weak image projected by the United States after the defeat in Vietnam and the policy they described as pacifist which President Carter had implemented: a canal agreement with Panama, tolerance of the Soviet-Cuban-Nicaraguan support for revolutions in Central America, the Camp David Accords between Israel and Palestine, a pacifist policy in Europe, to give just a few examples."

Thus the current debate about the relative loss of power on the part of the United States - exacerbated by developments in Syria - has a precedent in the 1970's. 1979, when Maurice Bishop and his revolutionary New Jewel Movement came to power, was also the year of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. This was compounded by a decade of economic crisis.

The U.S. needed a show of force to make clear that the country still had the resources, and the will, to protect its strategic interests wherever they might be challenged, Alzugaray said.

"The Caribbean Basin was, for many, the perfect site, a location in which the relationship of forces favored the U.S. given the closeness and overwhelming military advantage.

"Both Nicaragua and Grenada were considered vulnerable," Alzugaray continued, "but different strategies were followed in the two countries: a covert war against the first, with support to reactionary regimes in the area, and an open invasion of the latter, once propitious conditions existed."

Grenada's revolutionary process fell victim to internal contradictions. The new government had disarmed the police, created a Popular Assembly with representation and participation by all social layers; began the redistribution of land; supported access to health care and education. More than 2,500 people had learned to read and write by 1981. Nevertheless, one segment of the leadership questioned Bishop's politics and demanded more radical positions. This led to his destitution, arrest and assassination on October 19, 1983. These were the conditions under which the U.S. mounted the invasion.

The most powerful country in the world is today experiencing the erosion of its hegemony. When faced with a similar situation in the past, the U.S reacted by attacking a small country. How might it respond today?

There were and are two possible reactions, then and now, said Ernesto Domínguez, from the University of Havana's Center for Hemispheric and U.S. Studies (CEHSEU), speaking with Granma: "Assume the decline and attempt to manage it in such a way to preserve a privileged position, or try to detain the process by resorting to the use of force, with several concrete objectives, such as giving a show of power, reaffirming geo-strategic positions, controlling key resources or stimulating the economy with military spending."

However, Dr. Domínguez commented that there are important differences between that historical moment and the present. "In the first place, at that time we were still in the middle of the bi-polarism of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. This added a factor which does not currently exist, one of an identified rival with which to compete, and a relationship of understandable confrontation-equilibrium," the professor asserted.

"At that time the decline was more apparent than real, given that the rival in question was in the process of internal disintegration which was not evident until a few years later, but which was already having serious effects, while the United States was far from this. The movements in Latin America and the Third World in general were strongly connected to the USSR in many ways.

"Currently, the relative decline appears more real, since multi-polarity is an emerging process, albeit with still a long way to go. Latin American movements do not depend on a socialist camp or on a power counterpoised to the United States. The current leftist and revolutionary movements have their roots more openly and solidly established in national and regional realities and contradictions, and they themselves are attempting to construct alternatives of integration," Alzugaray said.
 
October 31, 2013
 
 

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Dark days of revolution and coup

Analysis by Rickey Singh:



MANY DISTURBING questions remain about the destruction of Grenada's "revolution" and the related United States military invasion of 1983 that occurred some seven years prior to the aborted Muslimeen coup in Trinidad and Tobago.

There continues to be, for instance, disagreements over the precise number of those killed and buried in unmarked graves 26 years ago on that bloody day of October 19, when Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, symbol of "the revo" was executed along with leading cabinet colleagues.

Likewise, there continues to be serious questioning of the "legality" of the US military invasion one week later, as was hatched in Washington and carried out by the then Ronald Reagan administration in the face of a sharply divided Caribbean Community.

Among the lead objecting governments were those of Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and The Bahamas while Barbados, Jamaica and St Lucia were in the category of primary collaborators.

There have been court trials and sentencing of those convicted for the murders committed in Grenada, with the leading players, like Bernard Coard, now finally freed.

Here, in Trinidad and Tobago, there remains unfinished legal battles and political squabbles about the roles of the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen and its leader Yassin Abu Bakr.

For all the passionate debates about the abortive Muslimeen coup and the collapse of the 'revolutionary' experiment in Grenada, no government in either Port-of-Spain or St George's has shown the slightest interest to date in the establishment of an international commission of inquiry, with clearly defined mandates, so that the public could benefit from the lessons of the respective tragedies of 1983 and 1990.

In the absence of such lessons to be learnt, some may well recall the maxim of the philosopher George Santayana, that "those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it".

Now, as fresh debates surface over the implications of the Muslimeen's failed coup and the US invasion of Grenada , concerns are being expressed over some claims involving the executioners of Bishop and others.

One example I have chosen to focus on pertains to the tales told by a retired Barbadian police officer who has been "recollecting" his "discoveries" as an "investigator" into the circumstances of the killings that took place at Fort Rupert on October 19, 1983.

'Heartless killers", he claimed in an interview published by the Barbados Daily Nation on September 14. It subsequently appeared, in part, in other regional newspapers, including the Trinidad Express.

The "heartless killers" headline was taken from a statement attributed to the retired crime investigator, Jasper Watson, in reference to the release, a few days earlier, of Bernard Coard and others who, he feels, "should have been hanged" for the murder of Bishop and others.

Having previously written much about the killing spree of October 19, 1983; the primary executioners and their victims; the death of the "People's Revolutionary Government; as well as the US invasion, my primary interest at this time is to secure, if possible, some answers to a few of the claims of the former Barbadian "lead investigator" during that those dark days in Grenada.

Watson is entitled to his views that Coard and fellow condemned 'comrades' should have been hanged. Personally, I do not favour the death penalty for murder. My interest in his "heartless-killers" contention relates specifically to two observations:

* First, his claim-offered without any supporting information- that he had "discovered a plot to poison the Barbadian police investigators" by immediate relatives and friends of Coard and other then held as prisoners for the slaughter of October 19.

* Secondly, his "recollection" about a three-year-old girl being thrown into a truck and placed among dead bodies..." knocked down with a gun butt by a soldier and carried away while crying 'mummy', 'mummy', and later "buried with the dead at Camp Feddon..."

Is there any way this former lead "investigator" could help, in the interest of public information, to share some relevant details, at least about the little girl who was "buried" (alive?) at Camp Feddon, even if reluctant to offer more than his claimed "poison plot discovery"- useful as this also would be?

Journalists and others with whom I have spoken (including in Grenada, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago) to seek help on Watson's astonishing claims, have admitted to "no recollections" of either the "poison plot", or the more traumatic incident told about the three-year old child.

Hence, the following questions:

* Did any of those claims/allegations surface at the trials of the accused condemned for the murder of Bishop and others?

*Is there any police record, known to Watson, about this child among "missing persons" during that dark period in Grenada's history?

Since, as Watson said, the tragedy of the little girl "will remain with me for eternity", he should enlighten us about his own efforts to trace her family connection as well as indicate whether he had engaged the Grenada Police Force, then or subsequently, about either the "poison plot" claim, or the "burial" of the unknown little girl?

I anxiously await Mr Watson co-operation in the interest of facts and justice.


October 4th 2009

trinidadexpress

Friday, July 2, 2004

Ronald Reagan Caribbean Legacy

Ronald Reagan and Grenada



Reaction To Reagan’s Role In The Caribbean


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.