Principled Position on the Invasion of the Sovereign State of GRENADA

eae Seilsonet Oe

OES 2

INVASION

GUYANA’S PRINCIPLED POSITION ON THE INVASION OF THE SOVEREIGN STATE OF GRENADA.

Artwork by Design & Graphics

CONTENTS

Introductory Note

1.

GRENADA AT A GLANCE (a) Facts and Figures, Dates in History

(b) Notes on the New Jewel Movement and the People’s Revolutionary Government.

(c) Some Achievements of the People’s Revolutionary Government GUYANA — GRENADA RELATIONS

A Brief describing Guyana’s relationship with the People’s Revolutionary Government and New Jewel Movement

THE OCTOBER 1983 CRISIS

A Chronology-of-Events type of sequence tracing the beginning and development of the Grenada Crisis,

THE SELL-OUT (a) Two articles by Editor-in-Chief Courtney Gibson:

“Grenada and Caricom: The Folly and the Tragedy”, “No Consensus on Key Issues,”

(b) Two Statements by President Forbes Burnham.

(c) The President Elaborates — Excerpts from A Press Conference hosted by President Burnham,

THE INVASION AND OCCUPATION: GUYANA REACTS

(a) Reactions from Guyana: Guyana’s Ambassador to the U.N. Cde. Noel Sinclair’s Statement. Foreign Minister Rashleigh Jackson in the National Assembly (Excerpts).

(b) Statement by the Central Executive Committee of the P.N.C.

(c) Joint Resolution in the Security Council

(d) Resolution Passed at Mass Rally

(e) | Statement by the Guyana T.U.C.

THE (DIS) INFORMATION STRATEGY:

Three (3) pieces that indicate how the United States and certain regional

media agencies controlled, slanted and distorted information about the Invasion:

Page

18 22

43

(a)

(b)

The Regional Media and the Grenada Tragedy — A Viewpoint by Allan Fenty.

Protests Continue Over Press Restriction, Misleading Information — A Press Report from the Associated Press.

An Off-the-Record War-Article taken from Newsweek magazine, November 7, 1983.

es

43

45

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

This publication is comprised of a small collection of articles statements and resolutions which all indicate Guyana’s principled position on the United States-led invasion of sovereign CARICOM member-state Grenada in October of 1983.

Readers are introduced to Grenada in the first biographical piece. There then follows a selection of statements and speeches, reports and resolutions which express Guyana’s rejection of the interference in the internal affairs of a small sovereign State by a mighty, heavily-armed Super-Power.

As Guyana’s President Forbes Burnham observed: “. . .here we have a case of the re-introduction of colonialism and imperialism by invitation . . . in the Caribbean. We have a group, most members of which are members of the Non-Aligned Movement, which has as one of its principles, “the Non- Interference in the Internal Affairs of Sovereign States.”

“The whole thing is contrary to International Law and the Charter of the United Nations as well as the Declaration of the Inadmissability of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States subscribed to and supported by all CARICOM countries who were members of the United Nations when _ it was agreed to by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1981.” .

From the biographical “Glance” at Grenada to the Resolutions demanding the withdrawal of the American invasion forces from Grenada, this slim publication presents how the leader-ship and nation of Guyana felt, and still feel, about this latest blatant act of aggression against a people’s sovereignty.

Editor Publications Unit Ministry of Information Brickdam, Georgetown March, 1984.

GRENADA AT A GLANCE

STATUS: Independent State within the Commonwealth of Nations. Became independent February, 7, 1974.

CAPITAL: St. George’s.

LOCATION: Grenada is the southernmost of the Windward, Islands of the Eastern Caribbean, It is located some 100 miles from Barbados, 90 miles from Trinidad and 68 miles from) St.Vincent. :

SIZE: 344 km2 (133 square miles).

POPULATION: 106,267 (1981 mid-year estimate).

POPULATION DENSITY: 309 persons per km2,

MAJOR PRODUCTS: Bananas, nutmegs, cocoa, mace,, »

CURRENCY: The Eastern Caribbean Dollar.

GOVERNMENT: Grenada is an Independent State, a-member.of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Organisation of American States. Grenada became a member . of CARICOM on May 1, 1974. At that time, Eric Gairy who led Grenada from 1952 to 1979, was the Head of Government.(During the period 1957 to 1967 Herbert Blaize’s Grenada National Party was in power). Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is represented by a Governor-General. A popular people’s government was formed on March 13, 1979. In October of 1983 internal dissension within the People’s Revolutionary Government led to the death of the Prime Minister, Maurice Bishop, and the subsequent invasion of the island by United States forces assisted by Caribbean forces from the O.E.C:S, and Barbados and Jamaica.

LANGUAGE: English

ETHNIC GROUP: Black (84%) . Mixed (11%), East Indian (3%). White.

RELIGIONS: Predominantly. Roman Catholic; Anglican, Methodist, Seventh-Day Adventist. ,

OTHER TOWNS: Gouyave, Grenville, Victoria, Sauteurs.

DATES IN GRENADA’S HISTORY 1498 Discovered by Columbus. 1609 First settlement (English) attempted — ejected by Carib Indians.

1626/7 Both FRANCE and ENGLAND claimed title.

1638

1650

1651 1664 1674 1700 1763 1779 1783 1795 1838 1843

1857°

1871

1943 1955

1958 1962 1967 1974

1979

1983

First French settlement attempted — fought off by Caribs.

__|sland bought by Frenchman (du Parquet) and settlement established.

Caribs defeated by French, culminating in “Caribs Leap” at Sauteurs.,

French West India Company took over island.

~ French Colony. w 1c

First census: 257 whites; 525 slaves; 53 free coloureds. Island ceded to Britain (Anglo-French'7 years war). Captured by French.

Restored to Britain under Treaty of Versailles:

Revolt of French residents under Fedon’failed:

Slaves freed.

Nutmeg cultivation introduced.

First East Indian Immigrants.

Telegraph connected. *

Pearl’s Airport opened.

Hurricane Janet devastated the Caribbean, including Grenada. West Indies Federation.

Dissolution of West Indies, Federation.

Associated Statehood with Britain,

Independence from Britain achieved. Grenada remains a monarchy within the Commonwealth.

March 13 — People’s Revolution — People’s Revolutionary Government installed.

October — PRG collapse. Invasion by U.S. Army. Occupation and installation of an “Interim Administration”.

FROM THE NEW JEWEL MOVEMENT (NJM)

TO THE PEOPLE’S REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT (PRG)

Early in the nineteen-fifties Eric Gairy enjoyed the support of the Grenadian people. He won the first general elections and obtained the mandate to work for the improvement of his people. It might be said that after a promising start, Gairy succumbed to the varied temptations of power and greed. Forgetting the masses, he joined those who formerly exploited the people and became even more corrupt, eccentric and repressive.

By the early nineteen-seventies popular opposition to Eric Gairy assumed organised proportions.

In March 1972 an opposition organisation called JEWEL was formed. “JEWEL” is the acronym for Joint Endeavour for Welfare, Education and Liberation (of the People). This group was based in the south-eastern (parish of St. David) of Grenada. Teachers, peasants, youths had all been mobilised. They had established an Agricultural Co-operative Society and had even begun to publish an informational News Sheet.

Six months later, in September of 1972, another grouping, based in the capital parish of St. George’s, was born, That organisation was the Movement for the Assemblies of the People (MAP) and it was composed of a mixture of professional types — lawyers, teachers — as well as other workers and youths, To quote Bernard Coard, former Deputy Prime Minister of the deposed PRG Government of Grenada: ‘‘What they all had in common was that they were young; they had come out of a Black Power tradition of the late 1960’s and early 1970's. Many had lived in Britain, Canada and the U.S.A. and had studied and worked in those countries, They were all [inked with young people struggling for similar broad goals, objectives and ideals in the neighbouring islands. Many were influenced by the 1970 uprising in Trinidad. All were deeply committed to the development of the country”.

So it was that these two organisations quickly identified themselves as one, and after massive joint Congresses and Conventions of the People one year after the formation of JEWEL, the two groups formally merged in 1973 to become one body known as THE NEW JEWEL MOVEMENT.

Between 1973 and 1974 opposition to the Gairy administration, led by the NJM, intensified. Gairy had won the 1972 elections and had set about entrenching himself. In one unforgettable display of brutal reprisal, Gairy, angered by massive NJM — led mass protests, unleashed the terror against his opponents including the young lawyer Maurice Bishop. Six NJM members, Bishop included, were savagely beaten by his Mongoose Squad on Sunday November 18, 1973 — a day afterwards known as “Bloody Sunday.’ In January 1974 a general strike was called. The dock-workers who spearheaded it held out for three months. On the twenty-first of that month, Mr. Rupert Bishop, father of Maurice, was murdered by Gairy’s “Mongoose Squad’”’.

Independence came to Grenada in February of 1974, Allegations of electoral fraud accompanied Gairy’s next election victory in 1976, Concerned and worried by the growing influence of the young NJM however, Gairy stepped up his policies of brutality and repression. The Mongoose Squad increased its bloody programme of violence, The prime targets were the top-ranking members of the NJM, But these new leaders of the Grenadian people, who by this time had become increasingly hostile to the Gairy regime, were readying themselves.

Early in March 1979 the NJM leadership received reliable reports that Gairy was planning their capture, torture and eventual demise even as he planned to be temporarily absent from the island. The NJM decided to act as it knew that the majority of the people, the army, all right-thinking Grenadians were on their side. The capture of the True Blue Army Headquarters was effected with swift precision during the wee hours of that fateful morning of March 13, 1979. All of Gairy’s police stations were also quickly taken, most of them surrendering to the revolutionary forces of the NJM. After the

seizure of the lone radio station, it was at 10.30 a.m. (approximately) that Maurice Bishop, the 35 year-’ old barrister, went on the air to announce the formation and assumption of power of a Provisional Revolutionary Government under his leadership.

A new era had dawned for the island-state and people of Grenada. Gairy had fled to the United States. The People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) had been born on March 13, 1979, Its credo was: “Forward Ever, Backward Never’’.

SOME ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE NEW JEWEL MOVEMENT’S PEOPLE’S REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT

A Look At Some Gains of the Revolution

Before the advent of the New Jewel Movement, literacy was running at a very low percentage; unemployment at 50 percent or 23,000 persons; no agro-industrial development, negative growth rate, no social security programme, rampant crime and prostitution and a constant, flagrant violation of human rights,

With the assumption of power in 1979 by the People’s Revolutionary Government rapid strides were made during the four and a half years of the revolution.

The People’s Revolutionary Government of Grenada achieved growth rates of 2 percent in 1979, 2.1 percent in 1980, 2 percent in 1981 and 5.5 percent in 1982. For 1983 the government had aimed to reach a growth rate of between 7.5 and 8.5 percent.

KK ROKK KOKO KK OK KK ROK OK KOK OK OK KOK ROK OK

By June 1983 unemployment was reduced to 12% and was expected to be completely eradicated in 1985 with the imminent creation of new jobs in the expanded agro-industrial sector, the new airport complex, tourism and construction.

* By 1982 the State had controlled about 25% of the economy.

* Under the P.R.G. domestic investment grew from EC$8 million in 1978 to EC$109 million in 1982.

* Gigantic strides in the improvement of Social Services: health, education, scholarships, uniforms; first National Insurance Scheme; loans for housing including the establishment of a Pre-Fab Housing Plant.

* Diversification of agricultural production.

* Diversification of the markets for those commodities.

* Development of Grenada’s fishing industry.

* Full integration of Grenadian women into the revolutionary process.

eR RK ROE KKK KOK KK KK KKK KK KOK OK kK KK OK

The following abridged article entitled “WHAT WAS BURIED ALONG WITH BISHOP”, was written by Cathy Sunshine, staff-member of the Washington-based Ecumenical Programme for Inter- American Communication and Action (EPICA), and was co-ordinating editor of EPICA’s study, “Grenada: The Peaceful Revolution”.

10

“The roster of achievements under the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) is familiar to many on the left in the U.S. and indeed throughout the world. Rational and creative economic policies, an anti-elitist restructuring of education and health care and a broad-based spirit of voluntariness were the hallmarks of revolutionary Grenada, What is less well-known is how the programmes of the revolution directly addressed the legacies of colonialism so deeply entrenched in the political and economic structures of the Caribbean.

To take a small but symbolic example, it took a revolution for Grenada to begin producing its own salt-fish .... Nearly 150 years after the end of slavery, Grenada and the other islands were still import- ing salt-fish from Canada, instead of producing it from the rich fishing beds of the Caribbean.

At little expense and without high technology, the PRG built a fish-processing plant which now not only supplies Grenada with cheap salt-fish, but can also export to neighbouring islands. While apparently little more than common sense, this was a radical departure from the dependency economics of the Caribbean. There are many more examples to the credit of the Bishop government.

Judged in conventional economic terms, Grenada’s revolution was shaping up as a success, According to the International Monetary Fund, the country’s real Gross Domestic Product (all the goods and services produced within the country) grew by an average of 3% over the last four years making Grenada one of the few countries in the hemisphere to enjoy positive economic growth. The PRG’s economic policies were also praised by the World Bank in an August 1982 memorandum which stated:

“The public investment program of the government stresses three sectors: agriculture (including fisheries), agro-industries, and tourism. The ongoing effort to improve infrastructure -- particularly the construction of the new international airport, of roads and feeder roads, as well as investment in electric power and telephones—is designed to re- vitalize the three priority sectors.” ROK OK OK KOK OK OR ROK OK OK OK KOK OK OK KOK OK OK KOK OK OK KOK It is in the field of education, health and social services where the Bishop government’s special strength — its concern and respect for ordinary Grenadians — was most marked. For example, education — so fundamental to a people’s ability to participate in government — has been treated with pointed neglect by many post-colonial leaders. This was certainly true of Gairy, whose educational policy could be summed up in a few words: Keep them ignorant to rule them better. . .

This colonial concept of education as an elite privilege was systematically refuted by the Bishop government. Soon after the revolution, the PRG implemented a broad-based literacy and adult education program modelled after similar efforts in Cuba and elsewhere, and designed with the help of Paulo Freire, the revolutionary Brazilian educator. Under the slogan “‘Each one teach one,” volunteer tutors helped hundreds of Grenadians — mostly farmers and agricultural labourers — to achieve a functional literacy for the first time in their lives. To upgrade primary education, communities were encouraged to organize voluntary work brigades to renovate the decaying school buildings, using materials provided by the Government.

* KKK OK KOK KOK KKK KOK KK OK KOK OK KOK OK OK KOK OK KK

The programs of the Bishop government will doubtlessly be scrutinized in the coming months in an effort to answer the agonizing questions now emerging from the tragic disintegration of the PRG. Was the revolution on track or stagnating? Should Grenada have moved more decisively toward socialism? Ironically, such weighty questions may partly obscure the many successes of the Grenadian experiment and their significance for the rest of the region. While the New Jewel Movement’s Central Committee wrestled with problems of progress and power, the 4 year-old revolution had already won the support of Grenadians and offered the people of the Caribbean an alternative model of development and change.”

OK OR OK OR KR oR oR ok OR OR KK OR OR KOK KOK OK KOK KE OK OK

11

12

PAPER TWO: GUYANA-GRENADA RELATIONS

(i) ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC TIES

Guyana initially established diplomatic ties with Grenada on May 28, 1969 with the appointment of the late Mrs. Winifred Gaskin‘as Commissioner to the Associated States of the United Kingdom, of which Grenada is a member'state. Her appointment fostered’a closer involvement of the two developing states in efforts for mutual development, through’ bilateral and regional co-operation.

Relations were further strengthened upon the accrediting of Mr. Frederick Hilborn Talbot as High Commissioner of Guyana on February 4, 1977 at St. George’s Grenada. In his speech at the accreditation ceremony, Mr, Talbot, on behalf of the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, declared that “the people of Guyana desire to continue to work with the people of Grenada in the spirit of friendship, brotherhood and equality towards further strengthening of regional bonds”... .

Grenada had endorsed the establishment of Diplomatic Relations with Guyana when Mrs. Florence A.|. Rapier was accredited in Georgetown as the first Grenadian High Commissioner to Guyana, on July

2, 1976. 2, CO-OPERATION

Guyana and Grenada, as members of CARIFTA had been committed to mutual considerations on trade. These were confined to food and local manufactures, on a preferential basis.

The signing of the Treaty of Chaguaramas in 1973 establishing CARICOM created the potential for a much wider scope of cooperation between Guyana and Grenada. This embodied the strengthening, co- ordinating and the promotion of social, cultural and technological development of member states

through the integration movement.

Guyana, based on its regard for the national sovereignty of an independent state, respected the Government of Grenada under the Leadership of Prime Minister, Mr. Eric Gairy, despite divergence in political focus; -and strove to realise the objectives. of CARIGOM: This commitment was pronounced in the High Commissioner’s speech to the Prime Minister of Grenada, urging that ‘‘we (Guyana/Grenada) should see CARICOM as essential for promoting and protecting the sovereignty and independence of members as well as for advancing through self-reliance, the social, cultural and economic development of the people. of our region. We.look-forward to Grenada continuing to playa vital role in our Caribbean Community.” 3

By. year 1979 the Guyana/Grenada relations. had not developed to any significant level to. be termed as splendid but rather were still in need of more involvemention the bilateral level,. This was Pees achieved during the period of Leadership by Mr. Maurice Bishop who seized power on March

, 1979,

On March 13, 1979, Prime Minister, Sir Eric Gairy was overthrown in a coup led by Mr. Maurice Bishop, (of the Opposition. People’s Alliance) who assumed the premiership in a “People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG)”.. Immediately. after)the new Government came into power’ the 1974 ‘Constitution was suspended, This; was followed by. an) announcemention: March 27, by the new Government of its intention to create a People’s Consultative Assembly “made up. of:representatives of:all' sectors of the population” to draft a new Constitution.

The, day. aften the, coup, an extraordinary, meeting of CARICOM Ministers was held in Barbados, (14-15: March),. to discuss. the situation in. Grenada. Except for Trinidad and Tobago which offered:no reason for its non-attendance at the meeting, all the other-independent CARICOM member States were present. Grenada was represented by Mr. George Louison, Minister of Education; Social Affairs, Community Development, Youth and Sport. J

13

The question of recognition was raised at the meeting and Guyana, along with Jamaica, supported a call for early recognition of the P.R.G. This was in contrast to the stand adopted by the smaller Eastern Caribbean States which opposed such recognition fearing that it would set.a precedent for similar uprisings in the region.

Though no decision was reached at the meeting, on the, question of recognition, the Government of Guyana subsequently announced its recognition of the Bishop Government on March 21, 1979. This was later followed by. an announcement by Guyana that.a “political and technical team’? would be sent to Grenada for discussion on the possible establishment of a separate central bank, a “‘streamlining’’ of the Treasury and an) assessment of Grenada’s overall financial situation, including that country’s external

debt.

Evidence of Guyana’s friendly relationship with Grenada was seen in a joint declaration (St. Lucia, Grenada, Jamaica, Guyana — October, 1979) criticising the Carter Administration for its intention to reinforce military capability in the Caribbean. They agreed inter alia, to “preserve the Caribbean area as a zone of peace free from the great power of rivalry” and expressed their wish that no decision affecting the Caribbean should be taken by a major power ‘“‘without proper consultation with involvement of the sovereign governments which represent the inhabitants of the region.”

On October 6, 1980, the new Guyana Constitution came into effect and in December 1980, elections were held and the ruling People’s National Congress Party was returned to power with President L.F.S. Burnham holding the Office as Executive President.

The end of 1979 saw no elections in Grenada, as promised by the Bishop Government, nor the establishment of a revised Constitution for the people of that island. While this situation was creating growing concern among the CARICOM countries, Guyana adopted a positian of respect for the internal affairs of a Sovereign State.

By 1981, Grenada’s involvement in the Non-Aligned Movement and moreso in her association with the Eastern-bloc countries was viewed with antagonism by the United States. This engendered economic pressure and subtle propaganda attacks on Grenada by the’ United States Administration.

Consequently, in July, 1981, there was a cabinet reorganization in Grenada, the purpose being to place Grenada on a ‘“‘war footing in the face of economic aggression and propaganda destabilization by the United States.” faasais 2

A

. TR as , , 4 Although Guyanasad voted with the U.S. in condemning the Soviet intervention of Afghanistan in 1980, when Grenatlawoted in favour of the Soviet action, she rallied to the cause of Grenada by supporting her later in 1981, at the EEC-ACP meeting when the question of funds for Grenada’s new airport project was raised. (The U.S. had made representations to the EEC countries requesting them not

to give aid'to Gre the project). REI y

The early months of 1982 saw both Guyana and Grenada facing American hostility by way of the Caribbean Basin Initiative which excluded both countries from benefitting from U.S. aid to the region.

Throughout 1982, Guyana remained firm inher support for ‘the development of Grenada, free from, external intervention..While the OECS member states informed’ Grenada that they would change their, stand.and start to;accept foreign multilateral aid offered on terms’ which excluded Grenada, Guyana stood as.a'friend'with that isolated island in the Caribbean.

There was some disagreement earlier in the year with regard to Argentina and her conflict with Britain) over the»Falkland Islands in April. Whereas Guyana and the rest of CARICOM supported Britain, Grenada gave her support to'Argentina. This, however, did not seriously’ dampen relationships with the two, countries. ‘November of that same year saw*both countries at the third CARICOM Heads of Government Meeting in: Jamaica.

14

Guyana and Grenada were represented at the Fourth Heads of Government Meeting held in Trinidad and Tobago in July, 1983.

In! October. this year) the Bishop. Government. was..overthrown. and the Prime Minister was assassinated. This was followed by the invasion of the island by U.S.-led troops and those of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), Barbados and Jamaica.

Guyana expressed her condemnation for the action taken. by those external forces, and this was made clear both at the United Nations and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit held in

New. Delhi in-November,

THE OCTOBER 1983 CRISIS: EVENTS AS THEY HAPPENED

OCTOBER 14 Prime Minister Maurice Bishop: reported under house arrest, but no clear indication was given as to who was heading the Government.

OCTOBER 17 Commander-in-Chief of the Grenadian Armed ‘Forces, General Hudson Austin in a broadcast on Radio Free Grenada monitored in other Caribbean countries said that the Central Committee of the ruling Socialist New !+w-' Movement, had voted to oust Bishop. from power and the Party, and then agreed to review his future in the People’s Revolutionary Government.

OCTOBER 18... » - Foreign Affairs Minister Unison Whiteman announced his resignation and that of ‘three other Ministers from the Government.

OCTOBER 19 General Hudson Austin announced that the Prime Minister and his colleagues — Unison Whiteman, Vincent'Noel, Jacqueline Creft, Norris Bain and Fitzroy Bain — were among persons killed in St, George’s, Grenada’s capital during a protest march. The People’s Revolutionary Government was dissolved and a sixteen-member Revolutionary Military Council headed by General Hudson Austin}was established in’ the:country. The Military Council imposed a four- day twenty-four-hour-a-day curfew throughout the country.

OCTOBER 22 » Twelve Caricom Government Leaders met in Trinidad and Tobago to discuss the Grenada situation. Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize and the Bahamas strongly opposed military intervention suggested by Jamaica, Barbados and

the O.E.C.S.

OCTOBER 23 President Forbes Burnham at a press conference in Trinidad and Tobago brought newsmen up-to-date on his country’s position on the Grenada situation.

OCTOBER 24 Guyana’s Foreign Affairs Minister addressed the United Nations (the occasion

of the U.N.’s 38th Anniversary.) He told the world forum that Guyana main- tains its unswerving conviction that strict adherence to the provision of the UN charter could reduce global tension and improve the international environment.

15

OCTOBER 25

OCTOBER 26

OCTOBER 27

OCTOBER 28

OCTOBER 29

OCTOBER 31

NOVEMBER 1

NOVEMBER 2

16

United States of Americ¢a-led invasion into Grenada. The United States of America was supported by a small contingent of soldiers from the O.E.C.S. states, Barbados and Jamaica President Forbes Burnham in a radio broadcast to the Guyanese nation in the evening strongly condemned the U.S.—led invasion of Grenada.

President Forbes Burnham hosted a press conference. He outlined Guyana’s principled position on the Grenada situation.

Mass Solidarity Rally hosted by the People’s National Congress at Sophia Auditorium.

Mass demonstrations by P.N.C., P.P.P., and other organisations infront of the U.S. embassy. The demonstrators then marched to Parliament Buildings. A motion condemning the U.S. and the six Caricom States — for invading Grenada received unanimous support from parliamentarians during the Parliamentary debate on the Grenada situation.

Specially-convened meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the Grenada invasion. Guyana, along with Zimbabwe and Nicaragua submitted a Draft Resolution for consideration by the Council which the proposers felt reflect the feelings of indignation over the invasion of the Caricom State. The resolution was not adopted because of a negative vote by the United States of America which is a Permanent Member of the Security Council and has powers of veto:

Guyana’s President, Forbes Burnham wrote members of the United Nations Security Council expressing his government’s gratitude for their support for the Guyana resolution deploring the U.S.—led invasion of Grenada.

The. ten member-countries to whose leaders letters were sent were China, France, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Poland, the Soviet Union and Zimbabwe.

Fighting reportedly stopped on October 31. (It was reported that Barbados was defeated (38-106) by Peru for the Latin America and Caribbean seat on the Security Council of the U.N.)

The U.S. and Caribbean invaders’ of Grenada failed to prevent the United Nations General Assembly from deciding to hold a full-scale debate on the situation in Grenada in which the majority of the 158 members condemned the U.S.—led invasion andcalled for an immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Grenada.

zl

ORK OK KOK OK KK KK KOK KOK KOK OK KOK KOK KOK OK KK

17

THE SELL OUT GRENADA AND CARICOM: THE FOLLY AND THE TRAGEDY

by Courtney Gibson (Georgetown 83-10-24)

After close to one week of confusing, confused and sometimes distorted reports about what was supposed to be happening in St. Georges, the Grenada capital, General Hudson Austin sought to clear the air in his no-nonsense military voice around 23:15 GST last Wednesday night.

“The revolutionary armed forces were forced to storm the fort (Rupert) and in the process, the following persons were killed: Maurice Bishop, Unison Whiteman, Vincent Noel, Jacqueline Creft, Norris Bain and Fitzroy Bain among others.”

And so it was that the world learnt that Maurice Bishop, the magnetic, electrifying and charismatic tall and bearded revolutionary leader of Grenada who had come to power ina coup in 1979, had met a violent death at the hands of his own armed forces.

And so it was, too, that the world learnt that the People’s Revolutionary Government of Grenada had been dissolved; that a 16-member revolutionary Military Council headed by General Hudson Austin, had been established to run the country; that a four-day, 24-hours-per-day, curfew had been imposed throughout Grenada and that violators of the curfew were liable to be shot on sight.

aN

The reaction throughout the Caribbean was quick and sharp. It varied from expressions of shock

and disbelief to downright naivette and hysterics from friend and foe alike of the late Maurice Bishop.

The actors included the uninitiated, and unliberated Caribbean man-in-the-street and, strangely enough, responsible Caribbean people in leadership positions who had no intellectual difficulties with advocating interference in the internal affairs of the Spice Isle and, worse yet, outside (foreign) military intervention in the affairs of a sister Caricom state.

Today, just under one week after Hudson Austin somewhat unceremoniously announced Maurice Bishop’s untimely death and one day after a disappointing, informal Caricom Summit in Port-of-Spain, there are still more unanswered questions than there have heen answers.

There are still several versions as to how Bishop met his death. There are some including at least two Caribbean Prime Ministers who have rejected General Austin’s version and who are contending that Bishop and his close colleagues were executed.

And even before his death, when it was learnt that he was under house arrest, one Caribbean Prime Minister publicly suggested that an outside country (Cuba) was now “calling the shots’ in Grenada.

Many of the public pronouncements since Friday October 14 when it was learnt that Bishop was under house arrest, and moreso, since Wednesday, October 19 when Bishop’s death was announced, did absolutely nothing to promote an early resolution of the Regional crisis.

Instead many of the statements and pronouncements tended to inflame further what was already a badly inflamed situation.

It was, therefore, very heartening news when it was learnt that the Caribbean leaders planned getting together to discuss the crisis with a view to promoting its early resolution.

18

By then, however, the ship of commonsense was already adrift in the Caribbean sea — a feature which must have contributed in no small measure to the paucity of success at the just concluded informal Caricom Summit.

President Forbes Burnham said he was not satisfied with the outcome of the summit and conference Chairman Prime Minister George Chambers of Trinidad and Tobago said it was a‘‘very, very difficult meeting.”

An understanding of the key issues involved at the moment is crucial to an understanding of why the informal Caricom Summit did not meet with the measure of success many had hoped for.

These key issues include the question of recognition of the new regime in Grenada, the question of armed or other forms of intervention in the internal affairs of a sister Caricom state and the question of Grenada’s membership in Caricom.

Other major issues, of course, include the imposition of sanctions against, and the nature of those sanctions,

By the time the meeting of the Heads was convened around 22:00 hours (GST) last Saturday, it was clear that there was much sympathy abroad for some form of intervention (military or other) by Caricom Governments possibly with “outside’’ support in order to deal with the situation in the Spice Isle.

It was evident however, that much of this “sympathy” was riding on a wave of emotionalism rather than on a wave of enlightened thinking.

Saturday’s issue of the “Trinidad Express’’, for example, provided a good measure of the degree of emotionalism that was abroad and which was being fuelled by some sections of the media in the region.

The “Express” vitriolic editorial on Saturday, seemed to have one thing in mind: Helping to set the ‘stage for an armed pivewyention in Grenada’s internal affairs with the hope of overthrowing those who are now in control. ;

The editorial called on regional governments to “‘take a firm decision to mount a security force to enter Grenada and free the people from this terror’’ and it was riddled with emotive language.

On no less than 12 occasions, for example, expressions such as “The Butchers in St. George’s”’, “The Clique of Murderers,” “The Gangsters,’’ and “Those Murderers” were used in the editorial. The editorial in the Trinidad ““Guardian” of the same date was no different.

Perhaps, it was excusable that the uninitiated should advocate such action without thinking seriously about the far-reaching implications, The tragedy of it all, however, was that some Caricom leaders present at the weekend summit seriously advocated intervention and (very suspiciously) seemed to be in favour of intervention from anywhere if the regional effort did not succeed in restoring normalcy in Grenada.

Guyana, of course, maintains a clear and unequivocal position in support of the sacred and inter- nationally accepted principle of non-interference of the affairs of sovereign states and as such was firmly against any intervention in Grenada’s internal affairs.

(Reports at the end of the meeting said the Bahamas, Belize and Trinidad and Tobago were also against intervention).

The haste with which some governments seemed prepared to mount a military force to invade Grenada must be Considered a worrying development for clearly they must realise that such action could

19

help open the floodgates for armed and other forms of foreign intervention in the internal affairs of their own countries,

An important question which the people of the Caribbean will have to deliberate upon is whether sanctioning military intervention — regional or extra-regional — in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, they would be forfeiting the moral right to condemn similar intervention by other states in the internal affairs of states in any part of the world.

Another worrying development is the seeming singlemindedness of the majority of Caricom members states in their pursuit of the expulsion or suspension of Grenada from the integration move- ment,

This singlemindedness was so evident at the weekend gathering of leaders that even though the meeting itself was not formally constituted in keeping with the treaty of Chaguaramas, and even though there was no unanimous decision as is required, the conference Chairman announced at a press conference that Grenada has been suspended from the movement.

This is an interesting development. To begin with, Grenada was not invited to the meeting so that at best the weekend session was an informal gathering of 12 of 13 leaders and not a duly constituted heads of Government conference for which all members should be invited.

In addition, Guyana was firmly against expulsion or suspension. And as President Burnham explained at a press conference yesterday (Sunday) the majority view that Grenada should be suspended becomes worthless in terms of the Caricom Treaty which, in an issue like this, calls for unanimity.

However, in the view of the Conference chairman, the decision to suspend Grenada was “a political decision demonstrating political will” and “if somebody wants to challenge that in the inter- national court at the Hague, they may do so!”

That seems to be some interesting food for thought — and for possible action — for the region’s leading legal minds.

The folly and the tragedy of these recent developments, however, is that while all Caricom leaders have been very solicitious of the welfare of the 110,000 Grenadians, some seem bent on causing untold hardships for the very people they are ostensibly trying tp protect.

Wisdom, one would imagine, suggests that the better approach during this challenging period would be, first of all, to establish contact with the authorities in Grenada, ascertain the facts about what happened there recently, and about what is happening there now and, at the same time, recognise and accept as fact, the new “reality” prevailing in Grenada today.

Lots of blood has already been shed. The likely consequences of an armed intervention is mind-boggling.

20

21

THE SELL-OUT

ADDRESS TO THE NATION ON THE GRENADA SITUATION BY HIS EXCELLENCY, COMRADE L.F.S. BURNHAM, O.E.,S.C. PRESIDENT OF THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1983

Comrades, Fellow Guyanese,

On Friday before last, the 14th October, we in Guyana learnt that there was an internal rift in the New Jewel Movement which forms the Government of Grenada. After a series of events many of which remain unclear, after a series of rumours, contradictory reports, we learnt of the untimely and tragic death of the former Prime Minister of Grenada, Maurice Bishhop, and a number of his ministerial colleagues and close political allies. We were most saddened and deeply regretted these deaths, especiatly that of Maurice Bishop.

In a public statement on Thursday last | communicated Guyana’s sadness and concern and expressed the hope that the Grenadian people would “. . . seek to heal their wounds and, as a united nation, to determine their future destiny within Caricom and in the wider International Community.” It was my view that whatever were the causes of the tragedy, it was for the Grenadian people to settle their problems .. . and to order their future as they saw fit. At the same time | despatched a message of condolence to the late Maurice Bishop’s mother, which ended with the words ‘‘.. . .Jt should be no-small consolation for you to know that your son devoted his life to the cause of his country and people.”

On Friday last, | received an invitation from the Honourable Mr. George Chambers, Prime Minister af Trinidad and Tobago and the present CARICOM Chairman inviting me to an emergency meeting of twelve CARICOM Heads of Government to be held in Port-of-Spain on the evening of Saturday, October 22nd.

At great inconvenience | accepted the invitation for | felt that the region of CARICOM might have been able to assist the Grenadians in any solution which they themselves sought. At the adjournment of the first session, which lasted until after 3.00 a.m. on Sunday, the Chairman, Mr. Chambers, announced the consensus with which Guyana agreed. The most important aspects of this consensus were that any resolution of the Grenadian situation —

a) should be wholly regional in nature; b) should not violate International Law and/or the United Nations Charter;

c) should have the restoration to normalcy in Grenada as its primary purpose:

d) should have no external jntervention, particularly in so far as extra-regional military intervention is concerned;

e) and further that a CARICOM fact-finding mission obviously acceptable to the Grenadian Authorities should be appointed from amongst eminent CARICOM citizens; and

f) that the point of contact might be the present Governor General of Grenada who is constitutionally the Queen’s representative.

\

22

Later on Sunday morning when the meeting resumed, sometime after 10.00 o’clock certain participants insisted that there had not been a consensus earlier and by majority resolved that Grenada should be deemed to have been expelled from CARICOM. The word ‘‘deemed”’ had to be used for the meeting was informal and could not under the CARICOM Treaty be properly constituted, since Grenada had not been invited in the first place.

Further, under the CARICOM Treaty, as was recognised at the Summits of Ochos Rios, Jamaica, in 1982 and at Port-of-Spain, Trinidad & Tobago, in July 1983, any major decision must be unanimous.

Guyana opposed any expulsion, deemed or otherwise. The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Group supported by the representatives of Barbados and Jamaica refused to accept the previous consensus especially in so far as it abjured outside intervention and it became clear that such outside intervention was contemplated and actively supported by all with the notable exceptions of Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, the Bahamas and Belize.

Today at 06.40 a.m. Guyana time, 05.40 a.m. Grenada time, United States troops landed on Grenadian soil, at the request of the OECS, Jamaica and Barbados to ensure the withdrawal of United States citizens on the island who in fact are not and have never been in danger. In any case how can these states which are external to Grenada legitimise any invasion or intervention by the United States Government? The whole thing is contrary to International Law and the Charter of the United Nations as well as to the Declaration of the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, subscribed to and supported by all CARICOM countries who were members of the United Nations when it was agreed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1981.

Today in the House of Commons of Great Britain, the Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe stated that the United Kingdom Government was informed by the United States of the proposed invasion only late yesterday and had advised against it.

The United Nations Secretary-General has refused to comment on the situation in Grenada prior to the invasion because in his view, which view is obviously correct, any comment would amount to interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. A spokesman for the White House has accepted the fact that there was no threat to United States citizens in Grenada but what is more interesting is that we have a situation where an ally of Britain has without any justification whatsoever under the International Law, invaded one of Her Majesty’s dominions.

Comrades, however unfortunate may be the events over the past twelve days in Grenada, and | concede they have been unfortunate, and | would further concede that they have been tragic, they cannot justify military intervention and aggression. The Government of Guyana condemns this invasion and seeks to have an immediate withdrawal of United States forces. Today, Grenada, tomorrow Guyana and the day after tomorrow someone else.

At a time when the Contadora Group consisting of Venezuela, Panama, Colombia and Mexico takes a stand against outside interference in the internal affairs of Central America, we in the Caribbean are witnessing such outside interference instigated and/or supported by a group of Caribbean countries, a group that has not thought its positian through, has not recognised that here we have a case of the re- introduction of colonialism and imperialism by invitation here today in the Caribbean. We have a group most members of which are members of the Non-Aligned Movement, which has as one of its principles, the ‘Non-Interference in the Internal Affairs of Sovereign States.’

While this group seeks to reintroduce colonialism and imperialism into the Caribbean, there has come opposition to this latest act of aggression from countries like Canada, Sweden, France and the Dominican Republic, and the Caribbean Council of Churches has also expressed its disapproval and opposition to the action taken today.

23

Your Government has consulted with the Opposition and has