The American invasion of Grenada heralds a decisive step to overcoming the 'Vietnam syndrome' — the political inability of the United States to intervene to halt revolutionary developments throughout the world. Chris Palmer argues that the rightward shift within US politics makes such interventions again on the cards, and [illegible] the invasion.
The Grenadian invasion is a component of US intervention in the Middle East and in the region of Central America and the Caribbean. Starting under the Jimmy Carter administration but escalating sharply under Reagan, the United States has stepped up the arms race to pressurise the Soviet Union both economically and militarily. Also, through the creation of the Rapid Deployment Force and aid to reactionary governments and counter-revolutionary forces, war has been waged on the colonial revolution. In the Caribbean, 'aid' programmes like [illegible] unrest. In this light it is worth noting that several of the states [illegible] rounding up of suspected opponents of Prime Minister Eugenia Charles, Jamaica experienced a bloody election campaign in 1980 which saw hundreds killed in gunfighting. At the time of Independence in 1979 a Black Power uprising shook St. Vincent. In 1982 John Compton defeated a government in St Lucia that had tried to improve relations with Cuba. Even the apparently peaceful island of Barbados shows signs of unrest as unemployment increases.
The events in Grenada have been used to bolster the US's strategic aim of overthrowing the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. This threat is now very real with up to 6000 US troops in Honduras until at least March 1984 for manoeuvres known as Operation Big Pine 11 along the Nicaraguan border. Statements coming from the United States make clear the aim of having an alternative [regime] to that of the Sandinistas established in some part of the country by December.
Also part of the backdrop to the context of the invasion are the gains made by revolutionary Grenada in the past 4½ years. The invasion has destroyed the process of socialist revolution, a process far more radical for example than that which occurred in Jamaica under Michael Manley. It marks the destruction of a new state which served the interests of the workers and peasants of Grenada rather than the bourgeoisie.
Like other Caribbean islands, Grenada was initially developed through the slave trade and plantation system from which the colonial power profited, initially France but later Britain. The ending of the slave trade did not qualitatively alter the way in which such islands were inserted into the world economy. Grenada was, and still is, reliant on three main crops — nutmeg, cocoa and bananas — for its export trade and foreign exchange. Because of the way the economy has developed nearly all manufactured goods, much food and petroleum have to be imported. In other words, Grenada has been completely subordinated to the needs of imperialism and the world capitalist market.
The government of Sir Eric Gairy, which was in power at the time of the 13 March 1979 revolution, initially came to power in the 1950s on a wave of working class struggles and pro-working class rhetoric but was unable to tackle the power of [illegible]. The New Jewel Revolution was the first serious attempt to tackle these problems on the basis of an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist programme. Although stating their socialist intentions, the People's Revolutionary Government (PRG) which the New Jewel Movement (NJM) formed, correctly did not [illegible] towards collective ownership [of the economy] and the tourist industry. It realised that at the beginning of the [illegible] in which, according to finance minister Bernard Coard, the state sector was to be dominant. Collective ownership itself would not have altered the distortions of an economy, 97 per cent of whose exports were bananas, nutmeg and cocoa. Nor could it have altered a situation where prices for Grenadian produce were falling on the world market while prices for imports were rising. Cocoa prices for example fell by 65 per cent between 1981 and 1983. In general, between 1979-1980 prices for Grenada's exports fell by 22 per cent, while the cost of imports rose from US $43million to US $50m.
In agriculture, the most important sector of the Grenadian economy, the PRG attempted to make the most productive and rational use of available resources. Although only about 12 per cent of the land — 27 of the 67 large estates — were state-owned, laws were established which made possible the nationalisation of idle or underused land. Twenty three agricultural cooperatives were also established, since cooperatives were envisaged as the third sector of the mixed economy. Credit facilities were made available to small farmers through the newly created and state-owned Grenada Development Bank. Limited attempts at diversification were made by developing an agro-industrial plant to process local produce.
In tourism, the major development was, of course, the new airport at Point Salines, due to open in March 1984 to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the revolution. A limited number of tourist facilities — three hotels and four restaurants — were also taken into state ownership. The financing of the airport project is, in fact, a typical example of the PRG's strategy for economic development — acquiring international finance to develop productive resources. The US would not supply aid but it was forthcoming from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (despite American opposition), the European Economic Community (EEC), Canada, the Soviet Union, Algeria, Syria and Libya. The Cubans contributed personnel and equipment rather than money. This reliance on international funding, without which the economy could not have developed, was a further factor militating against collective ownership. The expropriation of the bourgeoisie would clearly have precipitated the cutting off of crucial funds. Such a project would only really have been viable through some sort of socialist federation of Eastern Caribbean islands or assimilation into COMECON, neither of which was a feasible option at the time.
Thus a socialist economy became a future, rather than an immediate aim, although this had the inevitable drawback of allowing the bourgeoisie to maintain much of its economic power in a situation where its political power had been smashed. This strategy did in fact produce the required economic development. The economy grew in each year of the revolution culminating in a rate of 5.5 per cent, making an accumulated growth in the years of the revolution of 15 per cent. These figures impressed even the World Bank: 'Grenada has been one of the very few countries in the Western Hemisphere that continued to experience per capita growth during 1981', 1982 Economic Memorandum on Grenada. They stand in stark contrast to the backward growth under Gairy and the stagnation and recession gripping other islands as well as the major developed capitalist countries. Importantly, these developments were led by the public sector which experienced a 34 per cent growth in 1982/83. This economic development was not used to provide the bourgeoisie with fat profits. Rather, it was used to improve the lives of working people on the island. As a result, unemployment was reduced from 49 per cent under Gairy to 14.2 per cent in the 1982 unemployment census. A free education system was introduced along with an adult literacy programme. Free medical and dental care was provided; no one lived more than 3 miles from a doctor, for example. Transport and roads were developed. This was possible because economic growth enabled public spending to rise from US $8million in 1978 under Gairy to US $101 million in 1982. Furthermore wage rises kept ahead of the rise in the cost of living, increasing by 10 per cent in 1982 while the cost of living rose by only 7 per cent.
The bourgeoisie was not allowed a totally free hand. Key imports, particularly rice, sugar and cement were controlled by the state-run Marketing and National Importing Board (MNIB). In one sense these benefits were simply passed on to the people by a benevolent government. But in another they were the product of a deep-going transformation of the relationship between the workers and the state. Thus the PRG encouraged the growth of trade unions independent of the state so that the level of unionisation rose from around 40 per cent under Gairy to about 85 per cent. Other mass organisations were established; the people's militia, through which sections of the population were armed and received military training, the National Youth Organisation, the National Women's Organisation, zonal councils and parish councils.
Through these bodies, the Grenadian people were able to confront their leaders and members of the government. They were able to debate, complain, suggest and argue for change. The most elaborate example was the budget whose four step process lasted for about three months. The Ministry of Finance studied expenditure requests from other departments, and in consultation with them drew up a draft budget. Then a delegates' meeting, drawn from the mass organisations, discussed the proposals before they were taken on to discussions in the smaller units of the mass organisations: the trade unions, the zonal and parish councils. Then there was a further mass meeting to which anyone who felt they had anything to contribute was invited. This was followed by a 3 day session with managers and representatives of state enterprises. The budget was then returned to the PRG cabinet for final approval. In this way the whole population was able to play a part.
But one of the tragedies of the revolution is that these bodies, and this process, never became more than consultative, never more than a means of mobilising the population. They were never legislative, never real workers' councils through which the people could make decisions for themselves. Certainly the leaders took notice of what was said to them, certainly they acted on these discussions, but ultimately the decisions rested with the government rather than the people. Nevertheless, these new structures did represent the most democratic system in the English-speaking Caribbean, far more democratic than any bourgeois democracy.
But from the beginning there were pressures on this revolutionary process over and above the desperate need to develop the economy. The military pressures included operations like Amber and the Amberines and Ocean Venture '83 which planned and rehearsed the invasion of Grenada. The economic pressures came from the IMF putting the squeeze on less developed countries, particularly those like Grenada which had offended imperialism.
These pressures raised sharply within the NJM the question of the future development of the revolution, particularly the role and position of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop within the leadership of the revolution, and the attitude towards the new constitution, involving an elective component, which Bishop and his supporters were proposing. The question of the economic power of the bourgeoisie may have been a consideration but in no sense does it seem to have been the main focus of the disputes. Indeed, all the evidence suggests no divergence in actual political line within the NJM leadership. This has been confirmed by Kendrick Radix, one of the founders of the party; by the Cubans, who characterised the disputes as personal and subjective rather than political; by Merle Hodge, who attended the 13 October NJM meeting which placed Bishop under house arrest; and by Trevor Monroe of the Jamaica Workers' Party, who was a close associate of Coard.
The split that took place was at the level of leadership. It was never taken to the membership of the NJM as a whole, which in any case numbered no more than 300 people. Nor were these differences made known to the population as a whole. Nuances of opinion may never be known now since many of the participants are dead, but the general outline of the debate is clear. Supporters of Bernard Coard, who were originally part of a grouping called the Organisation for Revolution, Education and Liberation which fused with the NJM in the mid-1970s, favoured a move towards joint leadership to restrict the individual power which Bishop was felt to wield. Despite accusations, there is no evidence to suggest that the Coard wing favoured an immediate attack on the bourgeoisie. For about a year, Bishop refused to agree on the issue of joint leadership but shortly before a trip to Eastern Europe in late September he conceded the position. On his return following a brief visit to Cuba, during which he did not discuss these problems with Castro, he changed his mind. Rumours were started, from within the Bishop camp, suggesting that Coard planned to kill Bishop.
At this stage it appears that the Coard wing had secured a majority on the NJM Central Committee and a meeting on 13 October placed Bishop under house arrest and asked the army to investigate the rumours. The majority on the Central Committee seems to have been completely out of step with the feelings of the country as whole to whom Bishop was still the hero and leader. This was proved by the size of the demonstration — up to 8,000 people — which marched to free Bishop from house arrest. The military moved in on the crowd, some of whom were killed and others injured, particularly as they attempted to escape over a 50 foot high wall outside Fort Rupert to which the crowd had taken Bishop. Bishop and the other leaders with him were later executed, although the precise circumstances are still shrouded in mystery.
Realising that these events had qualitatively increased the crisis, the PRA, led by General Hudson Austin, seized power in an attempt to stave off further problems. A 16-person Revolutionary Military Council (RMC) was formed and a 96 hour curfew imposed. Attempts were made to assure Western countries that their nationals were safe, promising to allow planes in to evacuate anyone who wanted to leave. All statements promised political continuity with Bishop's policies, including maintenance of the mixed economy.
Suggestions have been made of CIA involvement in the internal disputes. As yet, there is no firm evidence to support such accusations. But one thing is certain, if they had been involved they could not have been more successful in creating the confusion and demoralisation amongst the Grenadian people that paved the way for the invasion. To the best of their knowledge Bishop had been the undisputed leader of the revolution and they mistrusted those whom they held responsible for his death.
It is plain that the absence of real democratic structures was a contributory factor in this political crisis. Real democracy would not of course have prevented differences of opinion coming to the surface, but they would have provided the best possible conditions for their peaceful resolution. Keeping these issues from the population as a whole merely exacerbated the problems.
Whatever the political issues under dispute, whether or not Bishop was in a minority on the leadership, there can be no excuse for the use of the army or for the murder of Bishop and his supporters. Such actions are in no way compatible with socialist democracy. In this sense the statement of the Cuban Communist Party was absolutely correct: 'No doctrine, no principle, no position calling itself revolutionary, and no internal split can justify such atrocious acts as the physical elimination of Bishop and the prominent group of honest and dignified leaders who died...' The same statement carries a prophetic warning: 'Now imperialism will use this tragedy and the grave errors committed by the Grenadian revolutionaries to wipe out the revolutionary process in Grenada and subject her once again to imperialist and neo-colonialist domination'.
Early in the morning of 25 October the warning became reality. In an airborne assault, the [largest] of its type since Vietnam, the United States landed 2000 [Mar]ines and Army Rangers. These forces were backed up by C-130 troop carriers, helicopter gunships and a dozen warships, including the aircraft carriers Independence and Guam. Aboard were at least 70 combat planes including the sophisticated F-15 fighter-bombers which were later to attack the capital, St Georges. In addition, 300 back-up troops were supplied by the neighbouring islands of Barbados, Jamaica, Antigua, St Vincent, St Lucia and Dominica. St Kitts-Nevis also supported the invasion but does not seem to have supplied forces.
The American population was not informed of the invasion until it was four hours underway when Reagan, accompanied by the Prime Minister of Dominica, Eugenia Charles, held a press conference. A three-fold justification for the invasion was offered. First, the lives of the 650 United States medical students at the St George's University School of Medicine were supposedly at stake. Secondly, a series of Eastern Caribbean countries had requested assistance. Finally, the United States had a responsibility to 'forestall further chaos' and to assist in the 'restoration of law and order and of governmental institutions to the island'. While they were talking in Washington, Radio 1580 was broadcasting from Grenada on behalf of the American forces, calling on Grenadians to resist the PRA and to 'cooperate with friendly troops in the restoration of democracy'.
Even the most cursory review of the facts is sufficient to [illegible] informed the White House that only 10 per cent of the students wished to leave, and then only temporarily. The Chancellor, [Charles] Modica, himself denounced the invasion and held Reagan personally responsible for any casualties. A day later, after the US State Department had called him for a meeting, he withdrew his statement. The RMC also allowed diplomatic representatives to visit the US nationals and ensured that they were under no threat.
[The Caribbean forces were sent] with only the flimsiest cover. They were not even brought onto the island until the US Marines had secured key positions. Their presence is plainly just for show and they have been used simply to guard prisoners at Point Salines. They provide an illusion of legitimacy and multilateral support which is the stock in trade of American intervention. In Korea for example 15 countries backed up US forces, while in Vietnam forces from South Korea, Thailand and the Phillipines were involved.
Because of the Eastern Caribbean involvement, attempts were made to justify the invasion under the treaty of the seven-member Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), which deals with defence and security. The treaty, signed on St Kitts-Nevis in 1981 by the respective heads of government including Maurice Bishop, makes it clear that a strict rule of unanimity has to be applied. Far from justifying the invasion, the treaty is clearly breached by it. But Barbados and Jamaica, involved in the invasion, are not signatories to the treaty, although Barbados is signatory to a regional defence pact, known as the Memorandum of Understanding, formulated in 1982 on Dominica. This, however, has not been ratified by many of the signatory countries. Further, a meeting of the Caribbean Economic Community (CARECOM) decided against intervention and for a fact finding mission to assess the real situation in Grenada. The wishes of Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize and the Bahamas were plainly disregarded by those who wished to aid the United States.
Similarly the invasion violates the United Nations Charter, as well as contradicting the official position of governments like those of Jamaica, Barbados and Antigua in favour of the Contadora proposals for ending the Central American crisis. When the crunch came they fell in behind imperialism. The post-war boom has incorporated these economies into that of the United States closely tying the Eastern Caribbean dollar to that of the United States. Now they turn increasingly to America for imports, exports and tourism and therefore side with its regional policies. Nor have any of the governments involved been able to produce the slightest evidence other than the usual wild accusations of Cuban plans, of a Grenadian threat to their security. The law and order Reagan talks about is no more than the requirements of imperialism and neo-colonialism, into whose far from tender care the island is now to be returned. The threat which Grenada posed through the process of what Maurice Bishop called 'disengagement from imperialism', has been ended. Suggestions of chaos exaggerate the situation in Grenada after the killing of Bishop and before the invasion. The curfew had been lifted, businesses were back in operation and workers had returned to their jobs. A civilian government was promised within fourteen days along with a renewed commitment to an elective component in the constitution. The hypocrisy of America is stunning when one considers the support they are giving at this very moment to the murderous and anti-democratic regime in El Salvador and to the Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries.
[illegible] the Cuban workers were housed around the Point Salines airport site, they were immediately in the forefront of the [illegible]. [illegible] gunships and, each having [illegible] rounds [of] ammunition, they began their heroic defence. [illegible] three days fighting continued around St Georges as invading [forces met] fierce [resistance] from the Cubans and [the PRA]. Meanwhile, more US troops were parachuted in to the North and East of the capital which was under constant bombardment. Particularly fierce fighting took [place]. When US forces finally reached the capital, Thursday and Friday saw hand to hand fighting, with the PRA blocking off streets with armoured cars. Meanwhile fighting continued on the road from Pearls to St Georges. By Saturday there were 6,000 invading troops on the island — three times the size of the PRA. As Fort Frederick and the capital were taken, fighters moved into the hills towards the centre of the island and also towards the Southern coast.
The US attacks were indiscriminate — the attack on the mental hospital, close to a children's and an old people's home, is just the best publicised example. Reliable reports, by eyewitnesses such as Lisbeth du Block who worked in the teacher education programme, suggest over 1000 Grenadian deaths. She also noted the flattening of Radio Free Grenada by helicopter gunships hours after it had been captured. Tourist cottages were repeatedly machine gunned and whole areas destroyed by bombing raids.
On the third and fourth days, leaflets were dropped on Calvigny near Point Salines where the last remaining Cubans were resisting. The leaflets urged residents to leave the area and were followed by hours of bombardment from helicopter gunships. Besides this, US forces have failed to cooperate with the Red Cross. Not only has this made it impossible to assess accurately the number of casualties including those of Americans, but obstacles were placed in the way of evacuating the Cuban wounded and dead. In effect the US turned the dead and wounded Cubans into hostages for an end to hostilities when, on 31 October, a US representative informed Cuba that their personnel could only be evacuated when fighting stopped. Then, on 1 November, US troops surrounded the Cuban Embassy and refused to allow anyone in or out.
Despite the presence of Caribbean forces, regional acclaim for the invasion has been far from complete. For example, George Chambers, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, condemned the invasion complaining that his CARICOM partners had failed to notify him of their intentions. On 26 October, he told an emergency session of parliament that his first knowledge on the invasion came from the US ambassador. More than 24 hours after the invasion no Caribbean country had told him of their intentions. In Guyana, the principle concern of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham was the presence of US troops, declaring his preference for a Caribbean fact-finding mission before any action. He vowed not to recognise an interim government and was prepared to grant asylum to any Grenadians who needed it. A whole series of important political parties and trade unions in the region joined the condemnation: the Progressive People's Party and the Working People's Alliance in Guyana; Michael Manley's People's National Party and the Workers' Party in Jamaica; the Oil Field Workers Trade Union in Trinidad and Tobago for example. The Dominican Republic, itself victim of a US invasion twice this century, also strongly condemned the invasion and violent street demonstrations denounced the US. In Latin America, Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, Peru and Colombia, along with Argentina, were heavily critical, while only the reactionary governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, wellknown for their brutal US-backed regimes, welcomed the invasion. The strongest condemnation, along with that of Cuba, came from Nicaragua — with good reason since the Sandinista government there is clearly next on Reagan's hit list. Commander Daniel Ortega told a 30,000 strong demonstration in capital Managua that it was 'a demonstration of imperialist arrogance' and a forerunner of 'greater aggression against Nicaragua'.
Elsewhere the invasion has drawn almost total criticism, culminating in the vote at the United Nations where the majority condemning the invasion was greater than that which condemned the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. In Canada, for example, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said: 'What would happen if the US has now given itself the authority to invade any country where a democratic system did not exist?', while his Foreign Minister stated that the invasion, 'threatens to contribute to the mounting danger of war'.
Meanwhile the Thatcher government in Britain, although not initially supporting the invasion, could not be forced into direct condemnation. Importantly, however, Thatcher did indicate that she would also be opposed to an invasion of Nicaragua. Much Labour Party opposition, especially from Denis Healey, centred on the supposed insult to Britain and to the Commonwealth rather than on defence of the Grenadian revolution and the right of its people to self determination.
Some MPs, most notably Jeremy Corbyn, did, however, criticise and condemn the invasion in the context of defence of the NJM and the whole revolutionary process.
On the island, a rounding up of NJM supporters is taking place. Bernard Coard was arrested after threats were made to blow up his house. He has since been reportedly mistreated. Hudson Austin, Chief of the RMC and PRA, has also been arrested. There is a clear danger that these two in particular will be given a show trial, charged with Bishop's murder. But it is also Bishop's supporters who are being detained, most notably Kendrick Radix who used to be the Minister of Justice. Up to 14 November, 623 members of the PRA had been detained, 233 being still in custody. Some 639 members of the militia had been detained, of whom 56 were still in custody. In addition 15 of the 16 members of the RMC were detained.
To cope with these prisoners the US forces have set up a prison compound where the detainees are held in wooden boxes. Of these, Kendrick Radix said: 'You have to stoop right down to get into the cell. The opening is only 2½ feet high. The roof is a piece of badly fitting plastic sheet. The rain came in during the night and I was drenched'.
One of the most sinister aspects of US control of the island is the way in which these prisoners came into custody. Immediately on entering St Georges, the US forces released imprisoned members of Gairy's dreaded gang of hired, criminal thugs, the Mongoose Gang. These people have staffed the road blocks with US forces identifying known socialists and those most clearly identified with the revolution. This is how Radix came to be arrested, for example, and is confirmed by US army spokesperson Captain George White who stated that Radix was 'picked up on the basis that he has been cited by the populace as an instigator, spreading bad will among the people'.
What the United States will attempt to do at all costs is to discredit the NJM, in the process cynically manipulating the enormous popularity of the late Maurice Bishop. In this sense figures like Kendrick Radix represent a problem for America since Bishop and his supporters were legitimised by the United States and branded as the victims of 'leftist thugs'. The possibility therefore arises of assassinations in order to get rid of those who legitimately claim to be following in the Bishop tradition. As many as possible will be implicated in Bishop's death. The last thing the US wants or is prepared to allow is for the NJM to reconstitute and reorganise itself in the proposed elections, since it is clear that candidates claiming continuity with Bishop and with no part in his killing would receive mass support. Thus, a campaign in defence of the NJM and its imprisoned leaders from whichever faction is clearly crucial in defending Grenadian self-determination. The NJM must be allowed complete freedom to function as a legal political party. In the absence of the successful reconstitution of the NJM, what lies in store for Grenada is not of course the promised 'democracy'. We see already that it means the savage repression of those sections of the population who supported the revolution and who still have the courage to be clearly associated with it. The people of El Salvador understand what US-style democracy means — brutal dictatorship, just as the people of Nicaragua experienced under Somoza before the Sandinista revolution. Already the Governor, Sir Paul Scoon, has banned public meetings and introduced press censorship as part of the process of preventing the NJM continuing its function as the political leadership of the Grenadian people.
Soon a major US embassy will be situated on the island. US economic aid will follow, supposedly to develop the island but in reality to make it imperialism's loyal and obedient servant, and to ensure that it no longer looks to Cuba and Eastern Europe for aid. After that follows a US military base probably, and ironically, using the same airport that the US claimed was being built as a Cuban/Soviet military base. Engineers working for Plessey on the airport site already confirm this project.
By the time this article appears a puppet government, pulled together by Scoon, himself a Gairy appointee, will be in power on the island. This interim government is supposedly non-political, as if a government set up following imperialist invasion can be anything other than political. It is a pro-imperialist government to carry out the necessary dirty work, to preside over the crushing of the NJM, to carry out political trials and to manipulate elections to ensure the return of a government sympathetic to imperialism. The nine-person advisory council, as this interim government becomes, has avoided open provocation by not bringing in those too closely associated with Gairy or the Grenadian Democratic Movement. Nevertheless, members of the Advisory Council, such as Dr Devere Pitt, who is to be responsible for construction, housing and science, are generally considered on the island to be supporters of Gairy. Meanwhile, the invasion force remains on the island and no commitment has been given for its eventual removal. Even the fraudulent democracy proposed may not materialise. Scoon has already suggested elections may not actually be held in the near future.
One proposal for removing US forces is for a Caribbean peace-keeping force to assist in the return to what is called 'normality'! Such a solution ignores the real issue of self-determination and concedes the right of imperialism to intervene. This is true even in the version of the plan proposed by the Britain-Grenada Friendship Society which calls for a force of non-aligned Commonwealth countries — like India and Zimbabwe.
Despite opposition to the invasion, Britain has agreed to offer British troops for such a force. Thatcher's refusal to support the invasion can therefore be seen as an imperialist division of labour. Britain, its hands unbloodied by the actual invasion, can now play its own special part in returning Grenada to imperialist domination. The apparent split within imperialism over the invasion itself in no way means a similar split over what should happen to the island. It is therefore as important to oppose the consequences of the invasion as it is to oppose the invasion itself.
It must be remembered that what is at stake here is not simply Grenada, because the invasion is not an isolated imperialist aberration, it is part of a coherent project. The US wants next to move against Nicaragua and to crush the FMLN/FDR in El Salvador. If it is allowed an easy ride in the next stages of imposing its will on the Grenadian people, it will be all the easier for it to carry out the next stages of its bloody counter-revolution. The defence of Nicaragua, the defence of Cuba, the defence of the El Salvadorean revolution are all tied up with opposition to imperialist intervention in Grenada.
CHRIS PALMER is secretary of the West Midlands El Salvador Solidarity Campaign and an active member of the Labour Party.