Grenada: We must remember October 1983!

Law and Politics: We must remember October 1983!

By Lloyd Noel


As we celebrate the Month of the Elderly and the Month of the Child, during the month of October, we in the Spice Isles cannot forget the month of October 1983, and how the happenings in that memorable month have affected our lives over the passing years up to date.

Some may even be asking whether or not the happenings, and the ups and downs, and the uncertainties now current in this October, bear any resemblance to those of that October in 1983. The uncertainties maybe, but the very dramatic happenings, and the movements from the apparent calm to households under tension, and then the arrival of the rescue mission forces to free up the people under house arrest, as well as those in detention on the Hill and Hope Vale, nothing nowadays can come anywhere close to that state of affairs.

But having gone through that period, as well as the years immediately following – when some of the players now on centre stage were also very much around the middle of the ups and downs – many of those now still undergoing pressure of one sort or another, from the actions and omissions of the powers-that-be are justifiably feeling that not very much has changed in many specific areas, and they are inclined to think that the resemblance is very close in those areas.

For those of us who lived through the periods of the struggle against Gairyism from 1973 to early 1979 – during which period we also gained the achievement of independence from England on the 7th February 1974 – many would still like to boast about, and cherish the memories of the so-called Glorious Revolution of March 13, 1979.

Because from that date the people of our Tri-Island State gained their freedom, from the oppression and atrocities that were unleashed by Gairy, after the New Jewel Movement (NJM) came on the scene in the month of May 1973, under the joint leadership of the late Maurice Bishop and Unison Whiteman.

The NJM was very popular among the young, the middle-aged, and even the older folks, so that when, in November 1973 (the 18th), Gairy’s Mongoose Gang, led by the police under the leadership of the late Innocent Belmar, attacked the “NJM Six” at Bhola’s Junction in Grenville St Andrew and brutally beat Maurice and Unison and Simon Charles, the people of Grenada, as a whole, rose to the occasion in protest, and from the churches, the trade unions, and the employers and their employees, the protest were island-wide, with demonstrations and strikes and civil disobedience all over the place.

And these only came to an end with the murder of Rupert Bishop, Maurice Bishop’s father, on the 21st January 1974, on the Carenage in St George’s in Otway house.

The Governor General, Sir Leo De Gale, consented to the request for a Commission of Enquiry, into the Bhola’s junction brutality, and later agreed to add the Rupert Bishop brutal killing as part of the terms of reference.

The Jamaican retired Chief Justice, Sir Herbert Duffus, the renowned Caribbean and international lawyer the late Aubrey Fraser, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Jamaica, Rev. Samuel Carter, were the commissioners.

Grenada was on centre stage for months, and witness after witness came before the commissioners to give evidence of incidents that took place from the date of independence to the murder of Rupert Bishop.

The Duffus Enquiry report condemned the atrocities and mismanagement of the system and in particular the behaviour of Belmar as a senior police officer, and he was dismissed from the force. He later contested a seat for Gairy’s GULP in the 1976 elections, and he was elected as MP for the Birchgrove area.

He was later shot in the Bamboo Bar in the same Birchgrove area, but the persons charged for the shooting were all three acquitted by the court.

And then came the first armed revolution in the English-speaking Caribbean in March 1979, when the Gairy government was overthrown and the NJM took power as the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG).

The PRG, with real assistance from Cuba, and later the Soviet Union of Russia, was concerned with putting together a socialist system in the Eastern Caribbean; and all the bright guys in the wider Caribbean area that saw socialism as the way to go were flocking to Grenada to share their ideas and give support.

And although Jamaica, under the leadership of the avowed socialist, Michael Manley, at the time was toying with the principles for a socialist state, it was the NJM in Grenada that attracted worldwide attention, as its Marxist communist ideals were brought into operation, which allowed no opposition and no dissent.

And those of us who dared to say anything that even sounded like a different point of view to that of the supreme leaders in control, it was up Mahogany Row at Richmond Hill Prison, or Hope vale Rasta Camp, for us all as detainees. Over 3,000 in total spent time at those centres, and when the US and Caribbean forces came to Grenadians rescue, there were still about 150 of us who were released on the 25th and 26th October 1983 – after Bishop and some of his top bureau members were killed on Fort Rupert, along with dozens more on the 19th October.

As one looks back at those times and happenings, even after all those twenty-eight years since they ended, it still revives old memories, both good and bad, of how the whole process came on stream, and how we traveled island-wide to share the worthy intentions with others.

A whole lot of people listened and accepted the ideas, and were staunch followers for many years; and that was why the deceptive changes were so very difficult to tolerate and remain quiet.

Nothing in our political calendar, since those years from 1973 to 1983, comes anywhere nearly as bad and disturbing as the happenings in that decade – and I dare say I seriously doubt, that anything even resembling those days could ever recur.

The lessons from those happenings have lived on, to put us always on guard not to allow any so-called maximum leader to gain or take on too much control of the nation’s affairs.

Regardless of the level of support or popularity he/she acquires, the right and the focused intention to oppose any action, or omission, that appears dictatorial must always be available to one and all.

I would doubt very much that we in these isles could ever again have the cause to take the action that was taken in March 1979, that led to the massacre of October 1983, but the only way to make sure it can never happen again is to be always ready and on guard to ensure that what is right remains right – and always oppose what is wrong, regardless of where or from whom the wrongdoing is coming.

October 18, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

We must not forget the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)

By Ian Francis:


In 1980, many former regional politicians from the small states of the region journeyed to the capital of St Kitts and appended their signature to the Treaty of Basseterre. The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) came into existence, succeeding the old British-created organization known as the West Indies Associated States Secretariat (WISA), which in the early days was once led by leading lights as George Odlum and Gus Compton of St Lucia. Both men have since passed away and it is befitting that we pay respects to them and they rest in peace.

The OECS has existed for the last 31 years. With such longevity, the operations and achievements of the organization must be examined, as many of the deceased signatories might be asking what has happened to the OECS and the Treaty of Basseterre.

Some of the former signatories to the Treaty who have left this great earth include former prime ministers: Eugenia Charles of the Commonwealth of Dominica, Maurice Bishop of Grenada, Winston Cenac of St Lucia, Vere Bird of Antigua and Barbuda and Clive Tannis of St Vincent and the Grenadines and Franklyn Margetson of Montserrat. Dr Sir Kennedy Simmonds, who, at the time was the premier of St Kitts and Nevis and is still very much alive, was also a signatory to the Treaty. To all these former signatories, we can only wish God’s blessing and may they all rest in peace.

The OECS is an institution that continues to face the wrath of disregard and neglect by the Authority of the organization. According to the Treaty of Basseterre, the Authority is defined as each head of government of a signatory state. Therefore, there should be no confusion in the mind of readers as to who is the Authority of the OECS.

While it is not commonly known or suspected, there have been many jurisdictional incursions and resolutions between the CARICOM Secretariat and the OECS. The most recent incursion related to the CARICOM Secretariat hosting a diplomatic training workshop at a time when the OECS and many member governments have been involved in discussions with Spain, Chile and Brazil about diplomatic training for the OECS member states.

It was felt, and rightly so, that the Georgetown Secretariat should have backed off or return the multilateral funds for the workshop. To the dismay of the Castries Secretariat, the OECS Authority and the Standing Committee of OECS Foreign Affairs Ministers, although briefed about the incursion, did nothing to address the complaint.

With fairness and reality to the OECS, this organization should be given the lead responsibility for diplomatic training within its organizational jurisdiction, given the organization’s current maintenance of two diplomatic missions in Ottawa and Brussels. In addition, as the global environment revolves around many complex issues that ultimately affect the OECS, it is essential to have a well trained and competent career diplomatic corps that will be able to represent the organization and member states in various global forums where good skills, experience and knowledge can be applied.

This is one area in the OECS Secretariat that requires immediate attention and the Authority and Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs Ministers should see a priority. Management of diplomatic skills is necessary for the international functioning of the Castries Secretariat. It is quite possible that, if a result oriented parameter was established and maintained, the current poor OECS diplomatic representation in Brussels and Ottawa could have been avoided.

While the current stage of discussion about diplomatic training between the OECS and the three mentioned nations are unknown, the OECS might be interested in looking at the training model for diplomats in Jamaica or Trinidad, or for that matter all the More Developed Countries (MDCS), since they seem to have excellent track records on the international scene. The notion of picking a few personnel from various organs of a government and dispatching them overseas for diplomatic training require more thought and planning by the Castries Secretariat.

One final note of caution to the OECS and respective governments, there should be an agreement and full concurrence by regional governments as to who will be responsible for diplomatic training in the OECS. Is it the Secretariat or respective individual governments? Clarity is urgently needed.

The OECS organization is a necessity in the region and requires the full support and attention by member governments. In the context of support and attention, member governments must meet their financial obligations in a timely manner. Paying up arrears in full is excellent but the understanding is that the arrears cycle immediately restarts.

In conversation recently with a Secretariat official about member governments meeting their financial obligations, it would appear that the only OECS member that has paid up to date is the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. If this information is accurate, then Dr Douglas and his government must be commended. If there are other governments who feel they should be accorded the same sentiments attributed to Dr Douglas, then this writer joins in extending congratulations.

The danger always looms when a regional agency does not receive monetary support from its membership. It forces the agency or institution into the unhealthy investment of time to seek out multilateral funders for makeshift projects in order to survive. Recently, regional observers saw the demise of Dr Karl Greenidge and other staff members from the CARICOM Secretariat, whose positions were funded by a foreign agency. To carefully quote the outgoing Czar of CARICOM, Sir Edwin Carrington, “Funds for Dr Greenidge project ran out and the funding agency was not willing to consider an extension.”

In my view, the above should be a powerful and timely warning to regional institutions who feel that multilateral institutions can meet their core operational needs. This is a fallacy and regional institutions should be aware of the potential pitfalls.

The wells are drying and Dr Greenidge might be the first victim. There are many more to come.

Ian Francis resides in Toronto. He writes frequently on Caribbean Affairs. He is a former Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Grenada. He can be reached at info@vismincommunications.org

March 4, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The vulnerability of small states in the Commonwealth Caribbean

By Ian Francis



The vulnerability of small Caribbean states was first raised at the 1979 Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Lusaka, Zambia, by former prime minister of Grenada, Maurice Bishop. This matter had received overwhelming support from countries such as Australia, Canada, Guyana, Jamaica and a host of other Commonwealth nations at the conference.

So impressed by Grenada’s vision on this issue, then President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia was in the process of planning a state visit to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and immediately made the decision to include Grenada on his list for a state visit.

President Kaunda’s visit to Grenada came approximately six months after the March 13th revolution and, with the assistance of the protocol machinery from the Guyana Ministry of Foreign Affairs, President Kaunda visited Grenada and was deeply touched by the welcome he received. Though late, both former Prime Minister Forbes Burnham and Foreign Affairs Minister Rashleigh Jackson must be recognized for the role played by these two outstanding regionalists.

The recent government of Grenada saga with Taiwan’s Sewang, One World affair could have been avoided if the nation’s elected and appointed representatives were fully conversant with Taiwanese foreign policy tactics and desire in the Caribbean Commonwealth. It is not a hidden fact that Taiwan’s pursuit to secure a diplomatic beachhead in the region is waning, with mainland China forging ahead on its diplomatic, cultural and economic ties. This being the case, Taiwan will leave no stone unturned in order to compete with the mainland in the region.

It is quite evident that the state of Grenada had an established relationship with the Sewang Group dating back to 1993.During this period, Grenada and Taiwan had very strong diplomatic relations and Grenada was always seen as a regional Taiwanese base from which the Taiwanese conducted their diplomatic and other tactics to undermine mainland China.

Therefore, it was not surprising to see the signature of former Deputy Prime Minister Gregory Bowen on correspondence between Sewang and the government of Grenada that addressed potential private sector investments.

The recent contact by representatives of this pariah group with appointed and elected officials of the current government and the signing of a memorandum of understanding attest to the ongoing saga that has now erupted into close scrutiny and the attention of the Grenada public.

The memoranda of understanding (MOU) signed between the Taiwanese pariahs and the government of Grenada seems to be merely a document that expresses a convergence of will between two parties and outlines a plan of action for the future. It is abundantly clear that the MOU(s) currently being referred to are not a binding contractual agreement(s), although there are clear indications that the current government of Tillman Thomas was under the impression that things can happen “in the future”.

As a senior foreign service officer lamented, “It is shameful and embarrassing because officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were not consulted. The MOF could have told Finance to tread cautiously due to our diplomatic relations with mainland China.”

With all of the above, these past and current situations stem from the ongoing vulnerability of small states like Grenada. Like many other small states in the global community, they are stricken with national debts; there is growing pressure and expectation of the population for the state to deal the socio-economic factors of its population and one of the key platforms for national development in these states is Foreign Investment.

Investment players are fully aware of these pressures and, given their deceitful and dishonest skills, they prey and pounce on small states, especially within the Caribbean Commonwealth, knowing full well of their vulnerability and the existing lack of appropriate tools that can be applied to weed out these global pariahs.

Dating back to 1967, shortly after statehood was granted by the United Kingdom and the election of the Grenada United Labour Party under Eric Gairy, many global pariahs arrived and offered all forms of goodies, which were never delivered. Similar occurrences took place during the ill-fated People’s Revolutionary Government of 1979-83. Unfortunately, many of the duped stories were not publicized due to the control of the media at the time.

The saga continued under the various coalition governments led by Blaize, Braithwaite and Brizan. While many of the foreign investor fallacies under these leaders were not published or exposed, sources that were close to these administrations have indicated that global pariahs were active but nothing materialized.

It is quite obvious that under the NNP-led administration, the situation became more atrophic, during which time the global pariahs extracted government guarantees at some local financial institutions and acquisition of prime properties. These situations occurred all under the desire of national development through foreign investment to address local socio-economic ills.

The recently elected Tillman Thomas administration continues to face such a dilemma and might have gone a little further to demonstrate to the population that they can get things better done than their predecessors. Hence, the Sewang One World affair has returned to haunt the current administration.

In my opinion, the Sewang World affair should be a further lesson to Caribbean Commonwealth nations. The advent of new technology tools which are being applied throughout the global community gives rise to additional schemes to which our vulnerable nations and people can become victims.

There are many across the global environment whose desire and exploration to prey on vulnerable small states are evident, they are quite skillful in locating and identifying local people with close political connections as their representatives.

Government officials must become more aware and develop the necessary transparent tools to circumvent and expose those who seek to exploit the situation.

Ian Francis resides in Toronto and writes frequently on Caribbean affairs. He was a former Assistant Secretary in the Grenada Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

October 13, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

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

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

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.