Invasion of Grenada

Press, 10 November 1983, Page 20

Invasion of Grenada

Sir,—Are the apologists for the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea prepared to concede the following: That the United States forces are in the process of being withdrawn from Grenada? That Grenada’s equally vulnerable neighbours welcomed the United States intervention? That the “communisation” of Grenada would not pose any threat to the sovereignty of the small neighbouring Caribbean countries? That the large caches of communist weaponry and ammunition had not been stockpiled for the purpose of celebrating Guy Fawkes’ Day? That by turning aside and by ignoring Sir Paul Scoon’s pleas for help, the United States would have contributed to another Munich-type situation? Hands up, our potential quislings, all those who would dearly love to see New Zealand transformed into a South Pacific Poland. — Yours, etc.,

LES BOGREN. November 6, 1983.

Sir,—Our Right-wing news services tell us that some Grenadans, like the airport gift shop woman on page 6, November 4, are welcoming the Americans. They do not tell us the views of the landless unemployed whose fortunes and hopes blossomed under the New Jewel movement. (Jewel stands for the socialist principles of joint endeavour for welfare, education and liberty—all of which were conspicuously absent in pro-American Gairy’s Grenada.) They do not tell Us what the average Grenadan felt about Gairy and his murderers, the Mongoose Gang. They do not tell us the views of families who obtained better diets, free medicine and free education under Bishop. They are as selective and biased as communist sources. Integrity requires differing perspectives.—Yours, etc., SUSAN TAYLOR. November 6, 1983.

Sir,—H. F. Newman needs to realise that the predictability of the .surge of horror over the United States invasion of Grenada does not reduce the soundness of the reasons for this surge. Among these reasons is the increasing recognition of the falsity and arrogance of the Reagan Administration’s claim to be world protector of peace and democratic purity. H. F. Newman’s reluctance to share this recognition is what led to the predictability of his letter which is an attempt to whitewash the so-called peace-keeping force. Variations of this “peace-keeping force” big lie resulted in more deaths and destruction in Vietnam and Korea than leaving the people of those countries to settle their own problems would have done. A United States puppet government in Grenada would, if allowed to happen, rapidly show up as a legaliser of. Reagan’s planned intervention in Nicaragua. — Yours, etc., R. TATE. November 8, 1983.

Sir,—Your editorial of October 31, on the United States intervention in Grenada, deserves praise rather than criticism. John O’Sullivan’s article of November 7 explains rationally the United States actions. Notwithstanding that, the rush of anti-Americanism has been incredible. Ignorance of the state of affairs in Grenada has not deterred the critics, proving that some people willJielieve only what they want to lAieve. Apart from the obvious dfeferences between the

Afghan occupation and Grenada, the American troops are already withdrawing, and helping in the establishment of a democratic system. The Russian troops have been in Afghanistan since 1979, still killing and still there. — Yours, etc., BILL BARRY. November 8, 1983.