Over 45 years after the 1979 Grenada Revolution, a New York-based, Grenadian-born academic has explored “the situation” in the region during the Revolution and the subsequent US invasion, discussing why some Caribbean Community (CARICOM) states supported the invasion while others opposed it.

Writing under the topic, “Regionalism and Revolution: CARICOM and the Grenada Revolution,” in the journal Latin American Perspectives, Dr. Paul Clement, a professor of economics and former chair of the Department of Social Sciences at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), State University of New York (SUNY), said that the ideological conflicts surrounding the 1979-1983 Grenada Revolution “hindered Caribbean regionalism and almost led to CARICOM’s collapse.”

Latin American Perspectives, a journal associated with the University of California, Riverside, says its primary focus is on the political economy of Latin America, with particular emphasis on capitalism, imperialism, and socialism.

The journal also offers a multidisciplinary view of the forces impacting the region.

Latin American Perspectives says while a significant body of research has examined the events of the 1979 Revolution and the US intervention in 1983, there is “a gap in the literature regarding the revolution’s Marxist-Leninist ideology and its effect on CARICOM and Caribbean regionalism.”

It says Dr. Clement’s paper “aims to fill this gap by examining the theoretical arguments of regionalism, ideology, and international relations.”

It also says the paper “describes factors that helped garner support for the US intervention, including the active endorsement of specific CARICOM member states.”

The paper traces ideological conflicts within CARICOM governments back to the Marxist-Leninist-oriented path adopted by Grenada’s People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) in 1979.

Dr. Clement writes that the PRG’s embrace of Cuba and the Soviet Union, coupled with its adherence to Marxist-Leninist principles, led to retaliatory actions by the US, including isolating Grenada and using a “divide-and-conquer” strategy among CARICOM states.

He says that the ideological contentions within CARICOM were “rooted in opposing US doctrines, namely the Carter-Reagan Doctrines, vis-à-vis the Soviet Brezhnev Doctrine.”

The Grenadian scholar says these ideological clashes impeded the process of regional integration.

“The resulting division among CARICOM leaders resulted in blatant violations of the CARICOM Treaty, a breakdown in effective collaboration on foreign policy matters, and stalled progress towards CARICOM’s goal of establishing a unified regional stance,” he writes.

Dr. Clement posits that while a few progressive leaders within CARICOM supported the PRG, “conservative leaders succumbed to US pressures and advocated for the expulsion of Grenada from the regional organization.”

Subsequently, he says, “conservative and rightwing CARICOM leaders aligned with the US to invade the island in 1983.”

Dr. Clement says the surge of progressive regionalism gained momentum in 1979 when Maurice Bishop and the PRG staged a revolution in Grenada, aligning themselves with Cuba, the Soviet Union, and leftist ideology.

He says the crisis and eventual collapse of the Grenada Revolution and the roles undertaken by the “revolutionaries” were heavily intertwined with “an ingrained authoritarian political culture inherited over time.”

Professor Clement says while analyses regarding the demise of the Grenada Revolution offer valuable frameworks for understanding its collapse, “the critical factor that led to the implosion of the revolution was the PRG’s leaders’ failure to fully grasp the connection between Maurice Bishop and the Grenadian populace.”

He says the government ignored the domestic realities of implementing and enforcing a wholesale Marxist-Leninist model in a “small, closely-knit Caribbean island.

“The PRG ignored the community’s antagonistic response to its violation of civil liberties, unjustified imprisonment, and alienation of the Rastafarian Community,“ Professor Clement says. 

Ultimately, he says a tipping point came with the proposition for joint leadership.

He says Archie Singham’s research (1968) on Grenada “proved accurate, namely that political interests find expression not within the confines of a political party framework, but from the bond between a charismatic leader and the general populace.“

Nevertheless, Dr. Clement says the first months of the Revolution were accompanied by a degree of flexibility, stating that the Grenada Governor General was retained as head of state, maintaining the traditional link between Great Britain and the Commonwealth.

He says the PRG was forced to do so “because the British, US, and some Caribbean governments would have otherwise conspired against Grenada.“

However, he says, according to Hilbourne A. Watson, writing in “Grenada: Non-capitalist path and the derailment of a social democratic revolution,“ (2015), “the attempt by Bishop, (Bernard) Coard and the PRG to maintain the delicate balance of protecting capitalist private property, while embracing revolutionary ideals, proved fatal in the long run.“

Dr. Clement writes that the PRG’s Marxist–Leninist program “threatened the US’s economic and political interests and challenged the ideological dominance of capitalist institutions in the region.”

He says this challenge to US ideological supremacy gave rise to “political complexities for both Grenada and CARICOM, which were intertwined with the Cold War dynamics and the prevailing dueling doctrines of Carter-Reagan versus Brezhnev.”

Dr. Clement notes that the Soviet foreign policy advanced by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1968 advocated for Soviet military intervention in nations where socialist governments were in jeopardy, and that Grenada’s endorsement of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, via its United Nations vote, “only added to the tensions.”

The Caribbean academic says the 1979 Grenada Revolution “notably amplified the escalation of ideological conflicts within the Caribbean region.”

In contrast to Barbados’ and Trinidad and Tobago’s more conservative orientations, Dr. Clement notes that socialist experiments emerged in Guyana, Grenada, and Jamaica.

He says Guyana’s Forbes Burnham adopted democratic socialism as his political-economic strategy, Jamaica’s Michael Manley pursued a democratic socialist path, and Bishop undertook a Marxist-Leninist course in Grenada.

In the face of these developments, Dr. Clement says the US moved to curtail financial assistance to the three socialist-oriented CARICOM member states.

He says the financial constraints the US imposed on these Caribbean nations “exacerbated the economic challenges within the region, further fostering the sense of insularity.“

Dr. Clement says the 1979 Grenada Revolution marked “a pivotal juncture in Caribbean history,“ stating that “it stood as the inaugural Revolution within the English-speaking Caribbean and marked the commencement of a Marxist-Leninist developmental trajectory.

“The PRG in Grenada played a central role in fostering a progressive regionalism with socialist principles, which resonated throughout the Caribbean,“ Dr. Clement says. “Moreover, the left-leaning foreign policies adopted by some CARICOM members and their strong support for the PRG in Grenada gave credence to the progressive regionalism engulfing the region.

“At the same time, US President Ronald Reagan was uniting regional and international conservative forces against Soviet expansion in the West,“ he adds. “These developments promised to set off an ideological storm in the Caribbean.“

Dr. Clement notes that, from the second CARICOM Heads of Government conference held in December 1975 in St. Kitts and Nevis to the following summit in November 1982 in Jamaica, an almost seven-year gap transpired during which the CARICOM Heads of Government did not meet.

He says this break aligned with the escalating ideological tensions within CARICOM, adding that, in 1979, left-leaning political parties came into power in Grenada, St. Lucia, and Dominica.

Dr. Clement says this brought the number of CARICOM governments endorsing socialist-oriented principles to five, including Jamaica and Guyana.

He notes that Christoph Müllerleile (1996) pointed out that the differing ideological positions among CARICOM member states hindered the movement for regional integration.

Dr. Clement says the Brezhnev Doctrine added to the tension, calling for all socialist nations, including Cuba, to support and protect socialist achievements.

“This further contributed to the contentious atmosphere, setting the stage for a confrontation among the CARICOM Heads of Government,“ he writes. “The coup d’état executed by Bishop in Grenada garnered swift approval from numerous CARICOM leaders (Müllerleile, 1996).”

Professor Clement says the history of “authoritarian rule“ under the Sir Eric Matthew Gairy Government in Grenada lent itself to a favorable reception of the change in government.“

He says Guyana’s Burnham and Jamaica’s Manley were the first leaders to recognize the PRG. 

By April 1979, Dr. Clement said that Cuba had extended assistance to Grenada and established a Cuban Embassy on the island.

But he says Grenada exhibited “a marked departure from other Caribbean states,“ standing as “the first English-speaking Caribbean nation to bring about a revolution and adopt Marxist-Leninist ideology.”

He notes that the PRG’s swift initiation of diplomatic ties with Cuba, the Soviet Union, and other socialist nations shortly after the revolution “raised questions about any pre-existing relationships that might have been in place.”

Following rejections from Canada, the US, and the United Kingdom, Dr. Clement says Bishop turned to Cuba and the Soviet Union for assistance (Müllerleile, 1996).

Dr. Clement says the ideological clash between the CARICOM leaders supporting Bishop’s Marxist-Leninist government and the conservative Caribbean leaders vowing to expel Bishop from CARICOM “hindered the progress of regional integration and regionalism.”

In addition, he says the lack of “supranational powers“ within the Heads of Government Conference complicated the political impasse.

However, encouraged by the support of several leaders within CARICOM and the progressive atmosphere in the Caribbean, Dr. Clement says, “the PRG’s anti-imperialist foreign policy declaration defined its position in the context of the Cold War.”

He says the St. George’s Declaration, signed in September 1979 by government leaders of Grenada (Bishop), Dominica (Oliver Seraphine), and St. Lucia (Allan Louisy), “embraced a socialist-oriented path and left-leaning ideology.”

Dr. Clement says this Declaration contributed to the US’s hostility towards Grenada.

He says that following the US invasion of Grenada, the future of CARICOM was at risk.

Professor Clement says the participation of specific CARICOM member nations in the invasion gave rise to conversations about the fragmentation of CARICOM and the formation of a distinct entity known as CARICOM II, which would exclude governments with left-leaning ideologies.

“Nevertheless, CARICOM demonstrated its strength as an organization, overcoming the hurdles presented by the Grenada crisis and making advancements by endorsing the Grand Anse Declaration in July 1989,“ he says.