No one can possibly be impressed by the explanation the US administration has offered for its invasion of the tiny island republic of Grenada in the Caribbeans (population 115,000). No American there was known to have been killed before the marines landed. If there was a breakdown of law and order following the coup last week, it could not possibly be said to constitute a threat to the security of either the United States or its Eastern Caribbean supporters – Barbados, Antigua, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent – which have joined it in this invasion. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a good reason which could justify this blatant aggression. Even so staunch an ally of the US as the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, has said that she had serious reservations about the US action and that she had communicated those reservations to Washington. President Reagan has spoken of “leftist thugs” having seized power in Grenada last week. But the deposed Maurice Bishop was also a self-proclaimed Marxist and the US and the Caribbean regimes in question had been hostile to his government as well. So what is the justification? None whatsoever.
And what happens to the US condemnation of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan? If the occupation of Grenada can be justified on the ground that it is located in what the US regards as its backyard, why not the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan which borders on the Soviet Union? American and allied propaganda has made much of the fact that Afghanistan was a non-aligned country. But so was Grenada. The island incidentally is also a member of the Commonwealth. Thus even by the old imperialist logic, it should have been regarded as Britain’s “responsibility”. Mr. Reagan would, of course, have been glad if Mrs. Thatcher had accepted this “responsibility”. Unfortunately for him, she refused to oblige.
Or is it his good fortune that she refused? Grenada is a victory on the cheap. It can make Mr. Reagan feel great. It can improve his election prospects. It can even boost the morale of those Americans who have been wanting to demonstrate their power but have not had the courage to ask for direct military intervention in El Salvador and Nicaragua. This is the first time since the invasion of Santa Domingo (also in Central America) in 1965 that US combat troops have directly intervened in another country. This does not quite mean that the Americans have got over the “Vietnam syndrome” – opposition to direct military intervention abroad. But it does speak of a new mood in the country. This mood has in fact been in evidence since Mr. Reagan came to occupy the White House. It does not follow, however, that the stage has been set for an invasion of Nicaragua or for a commitment of American combat troops in El Salvador. But it is bound to make the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, FMLN rebels in El Salvador and the Cubans more anxious about America’s next move or moves. Like the Vietnamese, they can refuse to knuckle under and thus pose a serious challenge to the United States. But that is in the future.
Right now President Reagan has at one stroke diverted attention from America’s political embarrassment over the death of its marines in Lebanon. He has signalled to Iran America’s determination to keep the straits of Hormuz open. And to cap it all, he has exposed the weakness of Soviet power in that part of the world. The setback in Grenada cannot be compared with the Soviet retreat over Cuba in 1962. Moscow had not committed its prestige in Grenada the way it had in Cuba. Even so, it will be a humiliation for it that the movement of its advisers (30 in number) are now subject to the control of US marines. This is likely to complicate further Soviet-US relations. But Washington under Mr. Reagan could not care less. This can, however, also create fresh problems between the US and its European allies and moderate Latin American regimes, especially Mexico. Thus in the long run Grenada might turn out to be pyrrhic victory for the Reagan administration. In any case it raises a lot of issues which it is obviously too early to discuss.