Horse for courses
Guest Editorial
Guyana Chronicle
April 3, 2004
FEW CARIBBEAN PEOPLE are displeased with the outcome of the recent meeting of CARICOM heads in St Kitts/Nevis, especially their resolve not to recognize the new administration of Prime Minister Gerard Latortue of Haiti.
Their position in support of the "democratically elected" leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was unceremoniously removed from the seat of government, appears on the face of it to be principled. It certainly gets the benefit of the view that today's Caribbean leaders are of the opinion that respect should be paid to the constitutional process.
In the Caribbean we have held the view that the constitutional path of free and fair elections is the only method of change to be encouraged.
But some Caribbean governments have to provide answers on how their position has changed over the years. Once we look back into history we have some questions for the Governments of Jamaica and Guyana, particularly Jamaica.
We refer to the Grenada coup.
Days after that event this is what the same People's National Party government had to say: "The government of Jamaica has decided to recognize the new Government of Grenada led by Mr. Maurice Bishop.
"It has become clear that the new government of Grenada is in complete control of Grenada and that activities in that state have generally returned to a state of normalcy. "
And the Guyana Government said: "The Government of Guyana today extended recognition to the new government of Grenada headed by Comrade Maurice Bishop.
"This decision was taken on the basis of the conviction of the Government of Guyana that the new government is in full and effective control and the undesirability of permitting a vacuum in relationship to arise in the Caribbean . . ."
We must ask what has happened in the Caribbean since the 1979 episode that followed the overthrow of the Sir Eric Gary's "democratically-elected" government in Grenada?
The rules seem to have changed.
Granted that the Grenada revolution was a popular movement. Granted that Caribbean governments were confronted with their first ever coup d'etat. And granted that Sir Eric Gairy had a tarnished reputation for human rights violations.
But their failure to work out a common principled attitude towards the Grenada revolution was also heavily influenced by the radicalism that prevailed at that time.
Today that radicalism has gone and has been replaced by an absence of sympathy for the United States position on most issues, including the Haitian crisis.
We must therefore wonder what other factors could have influenced CARICOM governments' 2004 decision. Horse for courses, maybe?