beauty, its bauxite and for the violent destabilisation paign organised by Central Intelligence which led to the decisive electoral defeat of prime minister Michael Manley and People's National Party in late _ Michael Manley recently in Britain promoting What is the most important message of this book The most important thing is trying to explain some of the difficulties of trying to change a country that has come through a long colonial history that is there very close to the United States and its power. How to change it and make it a more viable place and perhaps a more just place.
I think that manv things came together to defeat us for the time being, to set us back, but I remain convinced that the way that we saw was a possible way.
It is important to see how far we can learn from the fact of our defeat not learn from the point of view of changing what we're trying to do but from the point of view of doing it better next time.
In the long run of history I don't have the slightest doubt that the Third World is going to be compelled by the logic of its circumstances to respond to what it needs to do, to find leaders who are beginning to try to do it, political systems that are trying to do You document the role of the US Central Intelligence Agency and the International Monetary Fund in the Caribbean and in your country in particular. Yet you still call for a 'third road' separate from the examples of the colony of Puerto Rico and revolutionary Cuba.
For exactly the same reason that Nicaragua and Grenada do. trying to pursue a third road. In our case we do so with even more reason in that objectively we are a constitutional country, that's our tradition. Our institutions have evolved that way and although it is very difficult to make serious change within that context nonetheless that is our context.
I think the question is not what we call for, because that isn't particularly relevant. The question is what is our response to the objective reality which we find ourselves.
I would question that Nicaragua and Grenada have the same attitude to the capitalist class that you express ...
You're completely wrong. They have absolutely the same Nicaragua is trying to keep its private sector alive, has millions of dollars of foreign change into the attempt to get its private sector to play a dynamic role Nicaragua has pledged itself to free plural elections in 1985.
The difference is mainly a matter of emphasis, but in the commitment to try to put together an economic mix in which the private sector has a role there really isn't a fundamental difference. In fact I've just been speaking to Grenadians who are very proud of the fact their their private gle in the periphery and TONI GORTON spoke to him about the US a number of issues including Agency his view on Britain's claim to the Malvinas;
his prime minister Seaga; and what he sees as the 'third road' for Third World countries different from colwas revolutionary Cuba.
sector is now beginning to respond in a very positive way and to produce.
Yes but initially in Cuba there was an attempt to keep a private sec tor and imperialism didn't allow that situation perialism wouldn't revolutionary government to nationalise major parts of the private so economy in the interests of the workers and peasants.
So what's your conclusion?
The conclusion is that imperialism is likely to do the same thing in Nicaragua and Grenada.
Well let's wait to see whether that happens. I know that one view is that they will fail. I'm only saying that what they're attempting is strikingly simiar to what other aspect is that we are trying to operate in a situation where we are a political party that alliance of forces, we operate within a because a Batista left us no choice but a revolution or a Somoza left us no choice but a revolution or a Gairy left us no choice but a revolution. I'm struck that despite this they are attempting you'd Delays criticism of them?
They're No, I think they have a firm comdifferent speed aren't the keynote of it.
Cuba regards the holding of elections in which anyone could oppose the revolution as a contradiction in terms. The revolution expresses the dictatorship of the proletariat in classic Marxist/Leninist terms.
talking to an rael is my ment attitude.
put which 1S a perfectly •CA- dealing with a revolution.
It is luteresting that either truth hypocrisy. sincere when they say that.
what has been Edward Puerto Rico and from continue. Imallow the TO control we attempted. The 1C COCHS an We came to power electorally; not But regard that But in mitment to go along the road that Cuba has gone along. They have a and ticipation. ing.
Thạt is why - and observe you're anti-communist, great friend and I'm a great admirer of the Cuban experi- but to them the revolution does not admit of the possibility of anybody entering an election to oppose them or to offer an alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat, logical thing granted the premises and that we are For as an act of says that as soon as they have stabilised the country that they will have elections on the basis that if people want to oppose the revolution they can. That is completely different from anything that Cuba did. They may not mean it but i think they mean it and I prefer to assume that they're On Gold Street in Kingston, hear Cuba forms democracy have been instituted Elections of the type you describ do not guarantee democratic par Nobody knows that better than m I'm very familiar with Cuban dire democracy and their local gover ment system. I've been through it ver carefully with them and I understan it. But that's not the point I'm mal Edward Seaga Edward Seago, the present prim minister of Jamaica was electe on pro-US platform. What has th meant for Jamaica?