October 19 marked the 42nd
anniversary of the assassination of Maurice Bishop, who became the prime
minister of Grenada in a bloodless, popular revolution that ousted Eric Gairy’s
government in 1979. Along with seven others, Bishop was executed by firing
squad in an act of usurpation orchestrated by his close political ally Bernard
Coard, which triggered the United States-led invasion of the island.
The Washington Post’s investigative podcast series “The Empty Grave of Comrade Bishop,” released two years ago on the 40th anniversary of the killings, is a compelling listen, as it offers historical context — including Bishop’s rise to power, lingering Cold War tensions, and U.S. involvement via Operation Urgent Fury — and explores the long-unresolved question of “Where are the bodies?”
It is a question that has plagued the country for decades, and there is an evidential basis to the argument that the United States knows more about the whereabouts of the bodies than it is letting on. Whether or not this turns out to be the case, as many believe it will, critics view it as a manifestation of neo-colonialism that underscores the U.S. military operation’s encroachment on the rights of a small but sovereign nation.
Fast-forward to 2025: Caribbean waters have become a strategic corridor for U.S. military assaults on suspected narcotics traffickers from Latin America in general, and Venezuela in particular. Since its initial drone strike on a vessel that killed 11 people on September 2, 27 people have now been killed during ongoing attacks in regional waters. U.S. President Donald Trump maintains that all affected vessels have been associated with “drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists.”
In its dealings with Venezuela, which in recent years have required the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to take positions on challenges to Maduro’s presidency and a border dispute with Guyana, it has made a point of respecting international law and upholding the region as a “zone of peace.”
The genesis of the term can be traced back to the ideology of Grenada’s Bishop. In an address to the United Nations General Assembly not long after he took power in 1979, Bishop said, “We join with our sister Caribbean nations in re-emphasising our determination to preserve the Caribbean as a zone of peace, free from military intimidation. We demand the right to build our own processes in our own way, free from outside interference, free from bullying and free from the use or threat of force.”
His speech went on to note that while the country desired “normal friendly relations with the Government of the United States […] it must be manifestly clear that our relations must be based on the fundamental principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, equality and noninterference in each other’s internal affairs, a position which in fact applies to all other states.”
In 2014, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a group that promotes self-definition outside of the influence of Washington, formally declared the Caribbean region a zone of peace.
Against this backdrop, CARICOM — except for Trinidad and Tobago, which “reserved its position” — in an October 18 release, stated that the regional bloc remained resolute on the zone of peace principle, and emphasised the importance of dialogue in conflict resolution. Even as it affirmed its “continued commitment to fighting narcotrafficking and the illegal trade in small arms and light weapons which adversely affect the region,” the members asserted that “efforts to overcome these challenges should be through ongoing international cooperation and within international law.”
The statement ended with a declaration of CARICOM’s “unequivocal support” for the sovereignty, territorial integrity of regional states and the safety and livelihoods of their citizens. While several regional civil society organisations have endorsed the concept of the region as a zone of peace, at least one regional national found the CARICOM release to be “the most neutral statement in the history of neutral statements.”
Expressing his views on the Trinidad and Tobago government’s support of the U.S. on the Venezuela issue, academic Richard Drayton remembered how regional leaders, led by the twin-island republic, once resisted the access of U.S. armed forces to the region: “Trinidad indeed led that block of Caribbean nations which — unlike Barbados, Jamaica, and Dominica — opposed the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, seeking to find an internal regional solution to the crisis. There once was a time when the Caribbean nations were united in the defence of the sovereignty of Venezuela, and universally rebuked the attempt by the US, UK and others to force us to support the Guiado putsch.”
“[I]t is still true,” he continued, “that most Caribbean leaders, with Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Mia Mottley of Barbados, continue to call for a de-escalation of the US threat of intervention in Venezuela, and the defence of the Caribbean as a zone of peace. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar of Trinidad’s stance is not merely pro-US, or anti-Maduro, it is also let us be clear, defiantly, even rudely, anti-Caricom.”
Meanwhile, the United States has asked Grenada for permission to install a temporary radar system and personnel at the Maurice Bishop International Airport. As at the time of publishing, the government had not yet provided an official response, but commentators suggest that its decision may well constitute “one of the most consequential sovereignty decisions of modern times.”
Given the fraught history surrounding the assassination of Bishop and his colleagues, public sentiment on the issue has been decidedly opposed to the arrangement. One op-ed by Donovan Martin of TDS News suggested that hidden beneath the “diplomatic phrasing” of the request “lies an uncomfortable truth about power, sovereignty, and misplaced faith in American protection.”
Partnerships between the US and smaller nations, he went on to explain, “rarely begin with conflict, but they almost always end with control.” He also noted that the US invasion of the island “remains a defining moment in Grenada’s modern history — one that exposed how quickly foreign powers can override a small nation’s sovereignty when it suits their interests.” Grenada agreeing to the placement of military equipment belonging to its former invader, Martin argued — at the airport named after Bishop, no less — would effectively cheapen Bishop’s legacy: “It would say, in effect, that the lessons of 1983 have been forgotten.”
President Trump has already confirmed the presence of the CIA in Venezuela, and on October 18, the U.S. embassy issued a security alert in which it warned American citizens to “refrain from visiting all U.S. Government facilities in Trinidad and Tobago through the holiday weekend.” The island nation has a long weekend because of the observance of Divali. Trinidad and Tobago’s acting police commissioner, Junior Benjamin, citing the sensitivity of intelligence information, did not confirm whether the embassy advisory was connected to mounting tensions surrounding Venezuela.
NOW Grenada, in referring to a Maurice Bishop speech entitled, “In Nobody's Backyard,” a response to Theodore Roosevelt’s designation of the Caribbean and Latin America as the United States’ “backyard” — and echoed by Ronald Reagan, under whose tenure the U.S. invaded Grenada — summed up the situation by suggesting, “As Grenada and the Caricom region mark the anniversary of his tragic death and the end of the 1979 Grenada Revolution, it’s a poignant reminder that the struggle for regional integration and unity as a bulwark to neo-imperialist impositions and aggressions is still ongoing today in 2025.”
The Washington Post’s investigative podcast series “The Empty Grave of Comrade Bishop,” released two years ago on the 40th anniversary of the killings, is a compelling listen, as it offers historical context — including Bishop’s rise to power, lingering Cold War tensions, and U.S. involvement via Operation Urgent Fury — and explores the long-unresolved question of “Where are the bodies?”
It is a question that has plagued the country for decades, and there is an evidential basis to the argument that the United States knows more about the whereabouts of the bodies than it is letting on. Whether or not this turns out to be the case, as many believe it will, critics view it as a manifestation of neo-colonialism that underscores the U.S. military operation’s encroachment on the rights of a small but sovereign nation.
Fast-forward to 2025: Caribbean waters have become a strategic corridor for U.S. military assaults on suspected narcotics traffickers from Latin America in general, and Venezuela in particular. Since its initial drone strike on a vessel that killed 11 people on September 2, 27 people have now been killed during ongoing attacks in regional waters. U.S. President Donald Trump maintains that all affected vessels have been associated with “drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists.”
In its dealings with Venezuela, which in recent years have required the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to take positions on challenges to Maduro’s presidency and a border dispute with Guyana, it has made a point of respecting international law and upholding the region as a “zone of peace.”
The genesis of the term can be traced back to the ideology of Grenada’s Bishop. In an address to the United Nations General Assembly not long after he took power in 1979, Bishop said, “We join with our sister Caribbean nations in re-emphasising our determination to preserve the Caribbean as a zone of peace, free from military intimidation. We demand the right to build our own processes in our own way, free from outside interference, free from bullying and free from the use or threat of force.”
His speech went on to note that while the country desired “normal friendly relations with the Government of the United States […] it must be manifestly clear that our relations must be based on the fundamental principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, equality and noninterference in each other’s internal affairs, a position which in fact applies to all other states.”
In 2014, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a group that promotes self-definition outside of the influence of Washington, formally declared the Caribbean region a zone of peace.
Against this backdrop, CARICOM — except for Trinidad and Tobago, which “reserved its position” — in an October 18 release, stated that the regional bloc remained resolute on the zone of peace principle, and emphasised the importance of dialogue in conflict resolution. Even as it affirmed its “continued commitment to fighting narcotrafficking and the illegal trade in small arms and light weapons which adversely affect the region,” the members asserted that “efforts to overcome these challenges should be through ongoing international cooperation and within international law.”
The statement ended with a declaration of CARICOM’s “unequivocal support” for the sovereignty, territorial integrity of regional states and the safety and livelihoods of their citizens. While several regional civil society organisations have endorsed the concept of the region as a zone of peace, at least one regional national found the CARICOM release to be “the most neutral statement in the history of neutral statements.”
Expressing his views on the Trinidad and Tobago government’s support of the U.S. on the Venezuela issue, academic Richard Drayton remembered how regional leaders, led by the twin-island republic, once resisted the access of U.S. armed forces to the region: “Trinidad indeed led that block of Caribbean nations which — unlike Barbados, Jamaica, and Dominica — opposed the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, seeking to find an internal regional solution to the crisis. There once was a time when the Caribbean nations were united in the defence of the sovereignty of Venezuela, and universally rebuked the attempt by the US, UK and others to force us to support the Guiado putsch.”
“[I]t is still true,” he continued, “that most Caribbean leaders, with Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Mia Mottley of Barbados, continue to call for a de-escalation of the US threat of intervention in Venezuela, and the defence of the Caribbean as a zone of peace. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar of Trinidad’s stance is not merely pro-US, or anti-Maduro, it is also let us be clear, defiantly, even rudely, anti-Caricom.”
Meanwhile, the United States has asked Grenada for permission to install a temporary radar system and personnel at the Maurice Bishop International Airport. As at the time of publishing, the government had not yet provided an official response, but commentators suggest that its decision may well constitute “one of the most consequential sovereignty decisions of modern times.”
Given the fraught history surrounding the assassination of Bishop and his colleagues, public sentiment on the issue has been decidedly opposed to the arrangement. One op-ed by Donovan Martin of TDS News suggested that hidden beneath the “diplomatic phrasing” of the request “lies an uncomfortable truth about power, sovereignty, and misplaced faith in American protection.”
Partnerships between the US and smaller nations, he went on to explain, “rarely begin with conflict, but they almost always end with control.” He also noted that the US invasion of the island “remains a defining moment in Grenada’s modern history — one that exposed how quickly foreign powers can override a small nation’s sovereignty when it suits their interests.” Grenada agreeing to the placement of military equipment belonging to its former invader, Martin argued — at the airport named after Bishop, no less — would effectively cheapen Bishop’s legacy: “It would say, in effect, that the lessons of 1983 have been forgotten.”
President Trump has already confirmed the presence of the CIA in Venezuela, and on October 18, the U.S. embassy issued a security alert in which it warned American citizens to “refrain from visiting all U.S. Government facilities in Trinidad and Tobago through the holiday weekend.” The island nation has a long weekend because of the observance of Divali. Trinidad and Tobago’s acting police commissioner, Junior Benjamin, citing the sensitivity of intelligence information, did not confirm whether the embassy advisory was connected to mounting tensions surrounding Venezuela.
NOW Grenada, in referring to a Maurice Bishop speech entitled, “In Nobody's Backyard,” a response to Theodore Roosevelt’s designation of the Caribbean and Latin America as the United States’ “backyard” — and echoed by Ronald Reagan, under whose tenure the U.S. invaded Grenada — summed up the situation by suggesting, “As Grenada and the Caricom region mark the anniversary of his tragic death and the end of the 1979 Grenada Revolution, it’s a poignant reminder that the struggle for regional integration and unity as a bulwark to neo-imperialist impositions and aggressions is still ongoing today in 2025.”
No comments:
Post a Comment