In view of the division among members of the Commonwealth on the Grenada issue, it is doubtful if the New Delhi summit will be able to criticize the US invasion in clear enough terms. But this need not be regarded as a disaster for the Commonwealth or the world. The Caribbean governments, which are supporting the US action, do not have a case in terms of the universally accepted principle of sovereignty. The Americans have violated Grenada’s sovereignty. There can be no dispute about it. The US intervention cannot be justified in terms of that country’s own security either. Grenada is farther from the US shores than Belfast from the Soviet border. But there are some other points which should be taken note of in a sober assessment of what has happened in Grenada.
If the texts of various agreements between Moscow and the deposed rulers of Grenada regarding the supply of Soviet military equipment to them as published by the Americans are accurate, which there is no good reason to doubt, it is obvious that someone in the Kremlin has blundered in a big way. The Russians should have known that the military supplies could not be kept secret, that the Americans would regard that as a provocation and that if President Reagan decided to send in the marines there was precious little they would be able to do about it. The Soviets, it should be emphasized, did not break any rule of international relations. But they acted indiscreetly. The issue in such cases is not just what is legal but what is feasible. The Kremlin should have known that in the eyes of the American people military intervention by their government in Grenada would become justified once the fact of Soviet arms supplies on the proposed scale became known. This is exactly what has happened. President Reagan would have run into opposition from his own people if he had not discovered evidence of substantial Soviet interest in the island. Also, it cannot be seriously denied that some adventurers had seized power in Grenada and that the people on the island have welcomed the end of that regime. They certainly regard the US action as a “rescue operation.”
Some of the African members of the Commonwealth in the neighbourhood of South Africa have reason to be concerned lest Pretoria is encouraged by Grenada’s example to attack them. From their point of view, it will be a help if the New Delhi summit condemns the US action in unequivocal terms. But they must know as well as anyone else that the answer to their problem lies partly in their own strength and unity and partly in their ability to convince Washington that the consequences of military action against them by South Africa would be disastrous. They have to pursue a two-track approach towards the United States – criticize it for its ham-handed and arbitrary actions and keep a line of communication open with it. In her inaugural address, Mrs Gandhi deplored the excessive reliance on military might by the great powers. On Thursday, she took pains to explain that despite the gravest provocation – the presence of 10 million refugees on its soil – India went to war with Pakistan in 1971 only when its cities were first bombed by the latter. But power is a fact of life in international relations. World opinion can help to restrain its use but not to cancel it. This awareness informs her approach to Afghanistan. It should be reflected in respect of Grenada as well.