Who in the kitchen feeling the heat

A dictionary definition of “history” would probably go something like this: “A chronological study of past events, especially human affairs.” Henry Ford, the man largely responsible for the mass production of motor vehicles, is reported to have said, “History is bunk.” The great Napoleon, who did much to change the course of European history, is also reported to have defined “history” as, “A fable that’s agreed upon.” With due respect to those two, I’m inclined to the view that history is more than the collation of authenticated anecdotes and documented facts. As a matter of fact, there seems to be generally a subjective element involved, even when the historian resists the temptation of imposing his/her own vision on the skein of phenomena and events.

So at a certain level, especially in retrospect, history can more aptly be defined as the “reconciling of perspectives that are of course grounded in factual and plausible bases.” Now, to come back down to earth, another fellow suggested that those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to be victims of past errors, or some such thing. That suggests why we should be interested in what those who have been privileged to have been at close quarters to the unfolding of dramatic events have to say in their recorded versions of such events. It is therefore in this context that I find myself quite interested in what Sir Paul Scoon (and others with inside info, you might say) have to share with us and possibly put to rest much idle speculation.

From a newspaper report, Sir Paul has published or intends to publish shortly an account of his public service experience as Governor General straddling the Eric Gairy/Maurice Bishop regimes. In an earlier article I openly wondered whether the Governor Generalship did not conceivably provide a constitutional fig leaf that eventually covered a multitude of political sins on the part of the PRG (People’s Revolutionary Government). Now I’m not ascribing blame here. Sir Paul himself has been reported as saying that the PRG has long lost its legitimacy and Maurice Bishop’s death was the occasion but not the cause of the PRG’s disintegration (or self-cannibalisation) — my word. Someone once suggested that there are more Grenadians and people of Grenadian descent living in Trinidad than living in Grenada. Now I don’t propose to quibble over that, but apart from “neighbourly concerns” there is a substantial number of persons who hail from Grenada to make any traumatic event in Grenada of very real concern and interest to the general public here. One recalls how the so-called “talking heads” had a field day blah-blah- blahing about what should or should not be done to come to the rescue of our Grenadian brethren.

As you know, talk is cheap so it wasn’t surprising that every Tom, Dick and Harrylal had a view and, more than that, had a say. When it comes to public discussion we can proudly boast of “a confabulation of dogs among doctors — better still, dogs that are doctors and doctors that are dogs.” Be that as it may, some of the public debate centred about the concept of sovereignty. Our own then Prime Minister held strongly to the view that there was to be no external intervention in our “internal affairs,” even if larger countries saw us, contemptuously, as “a small black speck of dust.” That was PM George Chambers’ “principled stand.” Chambers was the sitting chairman of Caricom at the time and apparently tried to persuade his Caricom partners that “sanctions against the remnants of the regime in Grenada was the way to go.” Only Forbes Burnham was in Chambers’ corner. I have already dealt with Burnham’s characteristic duplicitous buffoonery, elsewhere. Realising that Chambers and Burnham were going to be the proverbial “flies in the ointment,” the other Caricom partners left them with the impression that the debate was still on-going and the matter was still under review. Chambers apparently felt that he had been double-crossed and had been played for a sucker. Coincidentally, the images of the Caribbean leaders disappeared from the television screen at “Panorama.” Williams may have started the trend but did not have the monopoly on Prime Ministerial pettiness.

When I said, in an earlier article, that “cockroach have no right in fowl dance and sardines should avoid shark-infested waters,” I wasn’t being hyperbolic. Those puffed-up political ignoramuses could well have given — unwittingly, I expect — the excuse that political hawks in Washington needed to declare war on Cuba. There is evidence that neither President Ronald Reagan nor President Fidel Castro wanted a US/Cuban military conflict. Castro secretly conveyed that to Washington and his friend Michael Manley publicly confirmed this. Ironically, while some of our academics and armchair politicians were explaining the distinctions among the terms; invasion, rescue mission and military intervention; Ronald Reagan had been using those terms interchangeably, as though they were synonymous.

In any case, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States had asked President Reagan to intervene militarily in Grenada. There has been some speculation as to whether the Governor General was the one to issue the formal invitation and the attendant circumstances. All that’s academic now. However, the acme of ironies was that whereas our own iron lady, Eugenia Charles, was posing for the cameras with Reagan on the morning of the invasion, Britain’s iron lady, Margaret Thatcher, was boiling mad because she had, all along, been left in the dark. Thatcher called on Reagan to call off the invasion because Grenada was part of the British Commonwealth and the United States had no business interfering in its affairs. Grenadians might well tell Mrs Thatcher that “its who in the kitchen feeling the heat.”