Sunday, December 8, 2013

Russia had no stomach for the Grenadian revolution

By EVERTON PRYCE

IT is often said that the marginal Marxist-Leninist Caribbean state of Grenada under Maurice Bishop's New Jewel Movement (NJM) of 1979-1983 was a satellite of Russia. But many readers of this column may be surprised to learn that Moscow had no desire to aid the spice island economically or otherwise, at levels the native revolutionaries expected.

Shortly after seizing power on March 13, 1979, the NJM's expectation of fraternal assistance from Moscow went into overdrive based on the assumption that communist countries had a greater concern than the West for the plight of Third World peoples.

BISHOP… seized power on March 13, 1979

And given the large cache of Russian-made guns, ammunition and military hardware that found their way in the control of the People's Revolutionary Army (PRA), the outside world also formed the impression that Russia was backing, unconditionally, the aims and objectives of the revolution.

But documents on Grenada-Russian relations released by the United States, after the 1983 invasion which it dubbed 'Operation Urgent Fury', tell an interesting story: Moscow did not want, nor could it afford, any more Cubas in the Caribbean.

Though somewhat dated, the documents referenced the deep involvement in the revolution of several prominent middle-class Jamaicans who are today comfortably ensconced in academia and the private sector with possible knowledge of how Bishop and some of his Cabinet colleagues were murdered and the location of their remains.

The documents also show Moscow's reluctance to commit itself to the Grenadian revolution to the same extent it did for the Cuban revolution 20 years earlier. This means that the Grenadian revolution was running on ideological fumes only for much of its existence.

"The Soviet Union is very careful, and for us sometimes maddeningly slow, in making up their minds about who to support," the Grenadian ambassador to Russia at the time is quoted as saying in the documents.

We can only imagine how disappointed Bishop and his band of revolutionary leaders must have been on learning of this Russian foreign policy attitude towards their country, given that in capturing State power they clearly felt that they qualified for Russian aid and support far beyond the levels that were actually forthcoming.

After all, the NJM had modelled itself on the Soviet Communist party even before it took State power, and in the United Nations, Grenada's voting pattern under the NJM favoured Moscow on important issues, more than other Third World Socialist-oriented states.

Even the NJM's party structure followed a Leninist pattern: a Politburo, Central Committee and the rest. The ruling party also had overriding control over the army, and imposed strict censorship on the media.

So, what could have prevented a major injection of Russian aid and support for revolutionary Grenada? Why wasn't Grenada benefiting from Russian developmental aid to the same extent as Cuba, which was estimated then at US$6 million per day?

Truth be told, the Grenada revolution came about at the wrong time, because the cost of Cuba was a price Moscow paid as a result of Russian policies in the Third World under Kruschev. In the post-Kruschev era in the early 1980s, the Russian leadership was far more cautious and selective in choosing the recipients of Russian economic aid and had become increasingly more cost-conscious and economically more self-interested. On reflection, Russian foreign policy was about concentrating on the problem of protecting established Soviet positions.

Russia's lack of involvement in the construction of the Point Salines International Airport (renamed appropriately the Maurice Bishop International Airport in 2009) bears this out. The airport project was the NJM's major economic preoccupation, and was the priority heading on the agenda of most Central Committee meetings, as well as being the main plank of the first Five-Year plan. The ruling party had hoped that the airport would go a long way in boosting the island's tourism trade and foreign exchange reserves.

But when Bishop, in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in April 1983, appealed for a Russian grant of US$6 million toward the airport project, the Russians turned down the request. Ultimately, the NJM had to turn to western donors for the funds to boost construction of the airport.

Bishop had even expected the Russians to purchase 1,000 tons of nutmeg on an annual basis. But the Russians replied that Moscow was only willing to import what it consumed each year, about 200-300 tons, and then "only at the world market price or below".

What is clear from all of this is that post-Kruschev Russia was not prepared to bail out the Grenadian economy, despite the fact that trade relations between the two countries had increased slightly. Neither was Grenada, under Bishop, blessed with observer status in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) — a status Mexico had enjoyed for a number of years.

Kruschev clearly had global ambitions for Russia in a practical sense: he considered the support of nationalist Third World leaders as a way of increasing Russia's role in the international political system outside Eastern Europe. Hence, by 1956, Moscow had begun to establish diplomatic relations with all Latin American states on the basis of non-interference in each other's domestic affairs and to develop a broad range of economic relations on the principle of equality and mutual advantage.

In the final analysis, Russia did not support hardline policies in Grenada during the period of the counter-revolution when Socialism became equated with murder and mayhem.

To be sure, it did not condemn the Bernard Coard faction, as explicitly as did Castro, for its part in provoking the split in the NJM's leadership and putting Bishop under house arrest.

Such was the character of Russian foreign policy towards Grenada in the early 1980s. Moscow was able to provide loose political and ideological support for the NJM while not committing itself to providing assistance in the reconstruction of the Grenadian economy or in defence of the revolution from counter-revolutionary forces — home-grown and foreign.

December 08, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

To glorify the Grenada Revolution is a continuation of abuse

By Hudson George

March 13, 1979, was a day in Grenadian history we must never forget, and whatever happened before and after that day must be discussed if we want to move forward and accept democracy and individual freedom.

However, it is unfair and very disrespectful for persons of influence due to their professional status within society to tell us that we must focus only about the good things of the revolution. Persons who are trying to give us such an advice do not seem to understand and respect human beings feelings.

They fail to realise that the March 13, 1979, revolution was successful because oppressed Grenadians were able to unite together because they shared the same human feelings on that day. The oppressed Grenadians came out without fear and overthrew the Gairy regime.

The evil deeds of Gairy’s regime were what the leaders of the revolution preached against and used as evidence against Gairy, to gain support from the Grenadian masses throughout the period of the revolution. The good things that Gairy did were not mentioned by the them, therefore it is very selfish and disrespectful for any Grenadian whosever they are, to be that boldfaced to tell us that we must focus on the positive side of the revolution and try to suppress our memories of the negative events.

The Grenadian revolution did not belong to one group of people. It was supposed to be a people’s revolution, and if some people feel that the revolution did injustice to them, they should have a right to give their side of the story.

Personally, as a Grenadian I can say that the revolution was like the old English Language nursery rhyme, Solomon Grundy, who was born on a Sunday and buried on a Saturday. The leaders of the revolution were intellectuals who wanted to lead the people, but refused to listen to the voice of the people.

I can say that there were some revolutionaries who were right to show their disapproval of what was going on within the revolution, but their approach was wrong, because they went about the whole process the wrong way, trying to remedy the situation through violence.

I can say that the leaders of the revolution were happy and ready to use brute force against disgruntled revolutionaries who picked up arms to fight against them, because the leaders of the revolution were always scared of former supporters who did not say too much and just went about their daily life of survival.

Additionally, I can say that the revolution did not allow influential persons with a strong rural base to represent the rural communities in the interest of rural people. However, I know that my critics will say that I am talking rubbish and they will make excuses and say that Bernard Coard and Unison Whiteman were born in rural parts of Grenada.

But the fact is that Bernard Coard and Unison Whiteman became urbanised at an early age, because they did not live most of their lives in the rural parts of the country where they were born. They spent most of their years in St George’s and in foreign countries where they went to school and work for some time as professionals.

Those among us who want to glorify the revolution must also glorify Eric Gairy and his GULP party regime too, if they want to avoid talking about our brutal political past. Both regimes had similar political culture of doing good and bad things that left a major impact on the Grenadian society.

Grenada is supposed to be a Westminster democracy, but unfortunately, up to this present time in our history, we are still struggling to enjoy media freedom. Some of our journalists continue to play politics with the social media privilege that they have in their domain. Those of us who have an opinion that is not politically in line with what those mini media lords want to hear are despised and sometimes they go as far as warning us not to make any comments on their internet websites.

Sometimes we try to blame Eric Gairy as the genesis of political oppression in Grenada, but based on my personal experience within Grenadian political culture, it seems as though the majority of Grenadians do not like opposition. Whenever they have the privilege to control important institutions, they become oppressors, and when they fall to disgrace, those who take their place continue the legacy of oppression.

Therefore, in order for us to create a healthy functioning democracy we must end that cycle of ignorance so that the next generation can take Grenada to the next level. As long as we keep trying to avoid addressing the evils of our political past, we are creating a climate to repeat the same old violent political culture again.

Young people must be encouraged to ask questions about the revolution and they must enjoy the freedom to listen the stories of what took place, and those who were involved in the process must give the correct answers. Our young people should have the right to get the right answers from the various groups that were involved in the revolution.

However, I personally do not believe that any one of the groups involved in the fight and strife during the revolution period want to tell the Grenadian people the true story. And as long as they continue to keep their mouths shut, they should avoid trying to be so boldfaced and telling us to glorify the revolution.

I believe that the truth must reveal, if we want to discuss that very important period in our history. Therefore, to glorify the Grenada revolution is a continuation of abuse.

March 22, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Google Ads

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Russia had no stomach for the Grenadian revolution

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

To glorify the Grenada Revolution is a continuation of abuse

Connect with the Island Blogger