Non Intervention and Intervention: CARICOM in Action, Grenada 1979-1983

• Author: Ambassador Rashleigh Jackson
• Pages: 1-42

1

Non-Intervention and Intervention

The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states has

been a cornerstone of international law and an important desideratum of

state practice. States have traditionally held this principle dearly. The principle

is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.7 which states

inter alia “Nothing contained in the present Charter should authorise the

United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the

domestic jurisdiction of any state...” Further, there are numerous resolutions

of the United Nations which reaffirm this principle and call for its observance

by states. As well, an initiative was taken by Guyana and other non-aligned

countries in 1981, as a result of which the United Nations adopted a Declaration

on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs

of States. This principle was invoked in 1979 in respect of Grenada. On

March 13 that year, Maurice Bishop’s New Jewel Movement staged a coup

d’état in Grenada and overthrew the government of Eric Gairy. That coup

d’état, which one Prime Minister of the then Eastern Caribbean Common

Market countries described as a “coup de radio,” evoked reactions in the

Caribbean of both relief and concern. Relief, because the actions of Prime

Minister Gairy, a self-styled mystic, had caused uneasiness among many

CARICOM countries and peoples, and concern, because of the precedent

which the Bishop coup, the first in a CARICOM country, would set in the

region.

In the early afternoon of March 13, Maurice Bishop made contact by

telephone with Prime Minister Burnham. Bishop indicated that he had tried

to reach Prime Minister Manley but was unable to do so as Manley was

NON-INTERVENTION AND

INTERVENTION: CARICOM IN ACTION

- GRENADA 1979 AND 1983

11

11

1Ambassador Rashleigh Jackson

2Interview, Border and Maritime Issues in CARICOM

reportedly otherwise engaged. He, however, spoke with Mrs Manley. The

purpose of Bishop’s call was to request support from Guyana and Jamaica.

Prime Minister Burnham subsequently contacted Prime Minister Manley and

proposed that there should be a meeting of CARICOM Foreign Ministers in

Barbados. It was agreed that Guyana would contact St Lucia and Dominica

whilst Jamaica would contact Prime Minister Adams who would be requested

to make contact with Trinidad and Tobago. Prime Minister Burnham also

discussed with Michael Manley his conviction that there should be no outside

interference and that CARICOM should define a collective position on

Grenada. Prime Minister Burnham indicated to Prime Minister Manley his

intention to convey a position along these lines to the representatives of the

ABC countries in Guyana - America, Britain and Canada - and suggested

that Manley do likewise. That night, Burnham met separately with the three

representatives and conveyed to them the position of the Government of

Guyana, that the situation was an internal matter for the people of Grenada

to decide, and that there should be no outside intervention. He informed

them that CARICOM Foreign Ministers would meet to work a CARICOM

response to the Grenada situation and he invited these governments to be

guided by the decision of the CARICOM states.

Agreement was reached that a meeting of Foreign Ministers should be

held in Barbados on March 14. I attended that meeting, accompanied by

Permanent Secretary, Harry Dyett. The meeting was chaired by the Prime

Minister of St Lucia, John Compton, as St Lucia was the current Chairman

of the CARICOM Standing Committee of Foreign Ministers. Other Ministers

who participated were Henry Forde, Foreign Minister of Barbados; Carlyle

Dunkley, Minister representing Jamaica (PJ Patterson, the Foreign Minister

of Jamaica was in Europe); and the Attorney General of Dominica, Leo

Austin, who was in Barbados en route to London. Trinidad and Tobago did

not attend on the ground that the situation in Grenada was complex and

confusing and sufficient information was not available to it. Nevertheless,

Trinidad requested that any additional information which the meeting may

unearth be passed to it. In any event, Trinidad and Tobago held the view that

recognition is accorded to states not to governments. The change in

government in Grenada did not, therefore, require a specific act of recognition.

After considerable discussion, the meeting arrived at certain conclusions

on principles and took decision for future action. The Ministers affirmed that

the affairs of Grenada were for the people of that country to decide and that,

as a result, there should be no outside interference. They recognised that the

wider interests of the CARICOM region of which Grenada was an integral

3

Non-Intervention and Intervention

part, should also be taken into account. In this regard, they were of the view

that a return to constitutionality was required, the continuing functioning of

the Governor General being regarded as an important factor in the

circumstances.

It was also observed that the overthrow of a government was contrary to

the traditional methods of changing governments in the region. In this respect,

they took note of the declaration of the leaders of the regime to hold free and

fair elections in due course. The Ministers felt it was necessary to hold

consultations with the regime in Grenada and, therefore, decided to extend

the meeting into the following day. At that meeting, a representative of the

Bishop regime, George Louison, was present. In the course of the consultation,

Mr Louison was asked by one Head of Delegation when the regime intended

to hold elections to validate the revolution. In a pithy response, Mr Louison

asserted that elections cannot validate a revolution. He went on to say,

however, that the regime was committed to holding free and fair elections, to

a return to constitutional normalcy, and to fair play and justice in the society.

A novel idea was put forward by one of the participants for a return to

constitutionality. He said that he put to Maurice Bishop a scenario which

could lead to his constitutional appointment as Prime Minister. The idea was

that the acting Prime Minister, Proudhomme, (Gairy was out of Grenada)

would recommend to the Governor General, the appointment of Maurice

Bishop as a Minister without Portfolio. Once that was done, Proudhomme

would resign as a Minister and the Governor General would then appoint

Maurice Bishop as Prime Minister. It was reported that Bishop was interested

in the idea. Some leaders of delegations at the meeting expressed their support

for the idea. Guyana was of the view that Bishop should confirm his position

to the meeting. However, Proudhomme refused to cooperate. Despite lengthy

conversations between the proposer of this idea and Proudhomme and Minister

Hosten, both declined to support the idea. It was speculated that they were

afraid that Gairy would somehow get at them.

After discussions with the representative of the regime, Mr George

Louison, the Ministers agreed on a joint statement in which it was reaffirmed

that the affairs of that country were for the people of that country to decide

and, accordingly, there should be no outside interference. Ministers took

note of the stated declaration of the leaders of the regime to hold free and fair

elections as well as the intention to have the closest relations with CARICOM

states. At the end of these deliberations, the Ministers announced a consensus

reflecting the following positions: