Rasta TimesCHAT ROOMArticles/ArchiveRaceAndHistory RootsWomen Trinicenter
Africa Speaks.com Africa Speaks HomepageAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.com
InteractiveLeslie VibesAyanna RootsRas TyehimbaTriniView.comGeneral Forums
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 12, 2024, 02:55:10 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25910 Posts in 9966 Topics by 982 Members Latest Member: - Ferguson Most online today: 212 (July 03, 2005, 06:25:30 PM)
+  Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum
|-+  WORLD HOT SPOTS
| |-+  Around the World (Moderators: Tyehimba, leslie)
| | |-+  False Claims Led to Attacks on Grenada, Iraq
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: False Claims Led to Attacks on Grenada, Iraq  (Read 7991 times)
Ayinde
Ayinde
*
Posts: 1531


WWW
« on: October 28, 2003, 03:33:50 AM »

by Sheryl McCarthy
 
Twenty years ago this past Saturday, 1,900 United States marines and paratroopers invaded the tiny Carribbean island of Grenada.

President Ronald Reagan claimed that the unrest following the recent overthrow and murder of Grenada's socialist Prime Minister Maurice Bishop had put the lives of more than 500 American medical students there at risk.

He said he was also concerned about the growing Communist influence in Grenada and suspected that an airport being constructed there would be used as a staging area for Cuban and Soviet troops. The invasion was "forced on us by events that have no precedent in the eastern Carribbean," Reagan said, so the United States "had no choice but to act strongly and decisively."

Grenada's tiny army was crushed overnight, almost 100 people were killed and the United States installed a provisional government. But the reasons the Reagan administration gave for invading Grenada turned out to be dubious. The medical students, it turns out, were never in any danger. The presumed plans for the airport and reports about an alleged stash of weapons were grossly exaggerated. Even the administration's claim that it was invited to invade Grenada by the concerned leaders of some neighboring Carribbean countries turned out to be dicey at best. But these were the days of the Cold War, when U.S. officials were driven by paranoia that Grenada would turn Communist and that the rest of the Caribbean would follow.

"The United States was looking for a pretext to get rid of Bishop and his regime, to move the whole thing out," said Don Rojas, the general manager of WBAI-Pacifica Radio and Bishop's press secretary at the time of the coup. "The coup was just a great opportunity to invade and overthrow the government in its entirely." Moreoever, "fabrications were used."

The claims that the airport was being constructed as a Soviet and Cuban military base and was therefore a threat to U.S. security "was totally false," Rojas says. Nor were there any weapons of significance, other than some small arms and a couple of armored cars. "There were no jet planes, no tanks or anything like that."

Twenty years later, the comparison with Iraq is striking. The hype about Saddam Hussein's still-missing weapons of mass destruction. The supposedly imminent threat he posed to the United States. And the Bush administration's repeated efforts to link Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, just as Reagan linked the building of an airport to a pending takeover by the Communists. All of these claims have been proved false.

The invasion of Grenada outraged the international community. "It is very clear that in today's world the United States has decided that might is right, that nobody has the right to decide its own destiny when the United States decides that it is the wrong destiny," Grenada's ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Ian Jacobs, said. Granted, there's no comparison between the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and the left-leaning tendencies of Maurice Bishop. But Iraq, like Grenada, was a case of a big country telling a small country what it could and could not do.

Rojas, a native Grenadian who was a schoolmate of Maurice Bishop as a boy, recalled that Bishop was loved by the Grenadians and admired throughout the Caribbean. He had overthrown a corrupt dictator who'd been supported by the United States because he was fervently anti-Communist. During Bishop's four years in office he greatly improved living and economic conditions in Grenada, promoted self-determination for Grenada's people after years of British domination and was preparing to hold democratic elections.

After the coup Grenada might well have resolved its internal struggles in its own way, had it not been for the big foot of the United States.

Depending on whom you talk to, Grenada has either thrived as a result of the U.S. invasion or has sadly failed to reach its potential in the last 20 years. The point is that the invasion of Grenada, like U.S. interventions in Vietnam, Nicaragua and Iraq, remind us that when we mess around in the affairs of other countries, not in pursuit of their interests but our own, we set into motion all kinds of forces, the impact of which may not be known for years to come.

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-vpmcc273511436oct27,0,1799506.column?coll=ny-ny-columnists
Logged
Ayinde
Ayinde
*
Posts: 1531


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2003, 03:34:45 AM »

The tiny (110 thousand) Caribbean island of Grenada had stuck in Washington's craw for four years, including close to three years of Ronald Reagan's first term. Here, within a few miles of US territory, was a socialist government that not only declined to participate in the "neo-liberal" free trade economy on US terms, but had friendly relations with Cuba. It was especially embarrassing to someone who had announced the "Reagan Doctrine" of "rolling back Communism."

The island had been one of the United Kingdom's several Caribbean possessions. But in 1967 Britain had granted it internal self-government and Grenada secured its full independence in 1974. Universal adult suffrage had been instituted in 1951 and a populist trade union leader, Eric Gairy, won five of seven general elections from then until 1979. Although seen as their champion by the large black majority, Gairy's rule was marked by fraud, brutality, mismanagement, and links to Duvalier's Haiti and Pinochet's Chile. Grenada's economic elite controlled an opposition party, the Grenada National Party (GNP). It won two elections and was in power twice (1957-61 and 1962-67).

It was especially galling to the elite that Gairy used the additional power granted by Britain in 1967 to institute a land reform program that expropriated his political opponents' estates and turned them into land grants to workers. His rule was marked by buffoonery, patronage and corruption. It was also true that the opposition was corrupt when it was in power. The corruption was of little interest to the US because both administrations gave uncritical support for American foreign policy in the Caribbean. That changed when the radical New Jewel Movement took power.

A revolution in March, 1979 was led by charismatic Maurice Bishop, a London educated lawyer, and his New Jewel Movement (NJM). His party, the People's Revolutionary Government (PRG), sought to pull Grenada out of its colonial legacy of dependency. During the four years it was in power, against great odds, it initiated low cost housing projects, free medical and dental treatment, and free primary and secondary education. It provided thousands of government jobs, a ministry of women's affairs (with paid maternity leave, day care etc.), and a substantial involvement of the people in decision-making through unions, zonal councils and the like--but no elections. Some of its programs received the help of Castro's Cuba, especially with educational and medical programs and with infrastructure development.

At first, Bishop's government was given high marks from several sources, the World Bank among them. But as time went on this "bad example" led to tensions between it and other Caribbean governments. For its part, the US immediately evidenced its fear of "another Cuba." When he had been in power for only three weeks the US ambassador wrote Bishop "...it would not be in Grenada's interests to seek assistance from a country such as Cuba to forestall [a counter-coup]." Bishop, of course, feared a CIA plot or a counter revolt from Gairy, who was residing in the US. And for four years the US aimed a wide variety of harassing methods at Grenada, including:

spreading false rumors to discourage tourism, lobbying the IMF to not make loans, developing plans to cause economic difficulties, charging that it was now part of a Cuban-Soviet terrorism network, claiming that a submarine base was being constructed, claiming that it had received 200 advanced model Soviet war planes, announcing that the airport runway was being lengthened to accommodate bombers that would threaten the US, and planting false but alarming stories in cooperating European newspapers that were then picked up by Grenada's papers (an old CIA trick).

Interestingly, although many of the false stories were dutifully reported by the US mainstream media, the IMF went ahead with its loans to Grenada. The Washington Post reported that the sea was too shallow to accommodate a sub base and no air armada was ever received by Grenada. Grenada said the runway was being lengthened only to accommodate passenger jets for tourists. As a matter of fact, at least five other Caribbean islands had runways as long, the World Bank encouraged the airport project, the European Common Market contributed money toward the construction, and following the invasion the US finished lengthening the runway--to accommodate passenger jets for tourist travel.

Washington immediately sought a way to replace Bishop's rule with a government acceptable to the US and to the several transnational corporations interested in opportunities for trade and investment that the island offered. Those purposes would become clear when the US invaded in late 1983. Personnel from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) arrived in Grenada at almost the same time as the troops. USAID administrator Peter McPherson acknowledged that the military and USAID "have been working closely together, really as a team." They would soon be joined by members of the Department of Commerce and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. USAID's arrival signaled the reentry of Grenada into the free-market economy.

One of the remarkable aspects of the US invasion was that it followed the overthrow of the man the White House wanted gone: Maurice Bishop, confidant and friend of Castro's. The invasion was announced as a way "to restore order." The revolt against Bishop merely provided the sought-for pretext for the US to take charge.

The various accusations about a) the purpose of the runway (to launch attacks on the US), b) the arrival of the Soviet war planes, and c) the building of a submarine base, played especially well with Americans with a limited knowledge of geography. (Why bother with Grenada, when nearby Cuba would make a better base for such operations?) But the most effective ploy was to stress that the US takeover was needed "to safeguard American lives," principally students at a medical school. When Bishop was overthrown, the Cuban government, knowing of the US's concern for the students, had offered to help in their safe evacuation. The offer was not only ignored but with one exception (near the end of a long article in the Boston Globe) was not reported by the US mainstream news media.

The US would later acknowledge that two days before the invasion Grenada had also offered to help evacuate American citizens, but that the Reagan administration "distrusted the offer." The Grenadian government directed its army to treat the students with utmost consideration. Vehicles and escorts were provided for students to shuttle between the school's two campuses. As the invasion threatened, most students were unwilling to leave but some decided to go. The Reagan administration indicated that they were trapped and that the airport was closed. Actually, four chartered flights, with some of their passengers medical students, left the day before the invasion, as the White House would later admit. Few of the retractions of the false reasons for invading ever found their way into the mainstream news media.

A further justification: the US said it had been asked to intervene militarily by an urgent plea from the OECS (Organization of Eastern Caribbean States). Not only was it not true but it would have broken new ground in international law: state A asking state B to invade state C. The Reagan administration's experts in international law worked overtime to put together some justification for invading. They cited the charters of the OECS, the OAS, and the UN. Those charters not only do not permit such action; they prohibit it.

All reasons to the contrary notwithstanding, on Tuesday, October 25, 1983, a force of 6,000 troops invaded Grenada to face 600 Cuban construction workers and a militia of 250. Despite the overwhelming odds there were many miscalculations and it took several days to subdue "the enemy." Many details of the invasion were kept out of the news: reporters and photographers were barred from the island for three days "to safeguard the lives and security of US troops." The media raised a big fuss about this--for several days--but backed off when the government PR experts convinced the public that the media were a threat. If American reporters had endangered any lives by their reporting it would have been the first time in history, despite all claims to the contrary.

After the island was secured, additional justification for invading was announced. A shed was found to contain many rifles, some of them made in the 1890s, and miscellaneous other defensive weaponry intended for the militia. But Reagan waxed eloquent in describing what had been found: "a complete base of weapons... which makes it clear a Cuban occupation of the island had been planned." "...weapons to supply thousands of terrorists." Grenada was "a Soviet-Cuban colony being readied as a major military bastion to export terror and undermine democracy, but we got there just in time." It would be revealed years later that a secret US intelligence report on October 30 (five days after the invasion) had concluded that the discovered weapons were "not sufficient or intended to be used in overthrowing the governments in the neighboring islands."

The invasion was almost universally condemned by other countries. The only Latin American supporters were Chile, Guatemala, and Uruguay. Governments of the Caribbean states would, in the end, indicate support for the invasion, not so much, apparently, because they agreed with it, as for various political reasons. When the UN overwhelmingly voted disapproval, Reagan shrugged it off: "...it didn't upset my breakfast at all." Remarkably, most Grenadians expressed support for the invasion. This was especially the case when citizens were interviewed by the media as US soldiers stood by with assault rifles. The elite, of course, who hated Bishop, strongly supported the US action. The apparent reason that most people supported the action was that they saw it as just deserts for the murderers of their beloved Maurice Bishop.

After the invasion big plans were announced for Grenada by the US. It was to become a showcase for US-fostered democracy. In August, 1984 the New National Party (NNP), was formed, primarily to keep Gairy from returning to power. With US assistance it won the December elections and put Herbert Blaize back in power. He would die in December, 1989 and with him the NNP. Five parties then participated in the next election. A coalition, the National Democratic Congress (NDC), won but by 1990 the government and the economy were in disarray and the plans the US had announced for Grenada's future seem to have gone glimmering.  

http://www.uscrusade.com/murder/usa.shtml
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005 AfricaSpeaks.com and RastafariSpeaks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!