The Future of Kingston Harbour in 21st Century Global Maritime Trade

The decision facing Jamaica and China in determining the location of the proposed "Very Large Ships Port" is one that will set the foundations of relationships between the two countries in years to come. So it would be prudent not to rush such a decision and look carefully at worthwhile alternatives.

So far we have only heard of one option being seriously considered- that of the Goat Islands. One can see some of the initial attractions of this location. It is a "green-field" site (not so good if you are a concerned environmentalist) which means it will be easy to clear the land and erect the buildings without having to consider any resident  people and associated issues.

If China wants to embark on an all-inclusive / exclusive arrangement this is a good option. It would be free, ostensibly, to do as and what it wants to do in a secure, ring-fenced setting. It could almost "sanitise" itself from direct unwanted attention from, and engagement with, the wider Jamaican society.

However this is a short term view with limited positive upsides and risks of major failings in future years. We are already witnessing the fallout between parts of the local Jamaican society and the Chinese with regards to a lack of environmental sensitivity and consideration about Goat Island. Furthermore if the Chinese are providing, deliberately or unintentionally, a competing system to traditional world maritime trade then there is a risk that a Goat Island venture could become a failed white elephant in the not too distant future.

So let us consider an alternative - building the proposed port WITHIN the Kingston Harbour. Use the opportunity to economically  regenerate vast sections of downtown Kingston - that should appeal to politicians with constituencies located there!! Utilise the existing abandoned tracts of land and clear some with derelict buildings to place this new port on the water front west of the existing New Ports East and West. Engage the local downtown Kingston communities in the construction of the port initially and subsequently in as many aspects of its operations as feasible. 

Make the benefits of this infrastructural development REAL to Kingston and its population. In locating this new port close to existing ports it gives the Kingston ports "twin" operations more flexibility whatever the future of maritime trade structure and hubs. There will be multiplier effects too with the downtown economy as port and other workers earning money will spend that income in their adjoining communities. Crime and violence will diminish as unemployment will be substantially reduced. Affiliated industries - many also maritime related - will more likely take root in the waterfront areas and downtown communities who will have a tangible stake in the success of this initiative. This could contribute to a much needed revival of the entire water-front area and poorer communities of downtown Kingston. It will have benefits that extend to the tourism, cruise ships, leisure, heritage and other sectors.        

 The message to the Chinese is - do they want to collaborate with us in Jamaica in real and meaningful partnership on this project? There is so much we can all benefit from with the successful implementation of an appropriate operational model. Yes the Kingston Downtown Revival Model initially it will appear more challenging and have more complexities than a Goat Island Green-Field site. But the synergies and benefits of the former option far exceeds the latter and is certainly more sustainable in the long run.

The Chinese have a long history of their peoples enjoying successful relationships in collaborating with, and integrating into Jamaican society.

This was epitomised in Tessanne Chin's successful rendition on the USA TV show "The Voice" last week - personifying what is possible when diverse communities work in harmony.

So, as she sang in that song, we too say to the Chinese and Jamaican parties in this matter - "YOU GOT TO GET UP AND TRY AND TRY AND TRY" 

 

THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL MARITIME TRADE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE - Negotiating for Jamaica's Future

From the UK, I read with growing interest the development of "negotiations" between the Government of Jamaica and the Chinese representatives of CHEC. Of course we are not hearing the full details yet. But with all due respect to the relevant officials, I am not imbued with any confidence for an optimal outcome for the country of Jamaica.

 
I am reminded of the sell-out of Air Jamaica London Heathrow landing slots for pittance by a previous Government Administration. But these discussions are of a different order of magnitude. What is being played out here - regarding Goat Island, an International Logistics Hub etc. - is hugely important, strategically and commercially, for Jamaica's future economy and position in the world.

You see, you  will only get in life what you can NEGOTIATE. So what are those representing Jamaica doing in this regard?  When one negotiates its best to know both your own position (know thyself - your PEOPLE, your STAKEHOLDERS, your ENVIRONMENT, your strengths and weaknesses etc.) AND know the position of the other party (their motivating factors, circumstances, short and long term objectives etc.).

Are we doing well on either account? Do we in Jamaica know what we want as priorities and how to achieve it? What is sacrosanct to us? What is our quid pro quo we would ask of the other party? 

Do we have a number of options to bring into play? Negotiations are strengthened when you have more than one suitor for example. Even if there is only one suitor, can we propose several counter-offers which, yes, sell desired benefits the other party wants yet has also benefits to our advantage. Have we done our homework and got the vision or  imagination to operate in this manner. As the good book says "Without a Vision the people perish".

And do we know with whom we are negotiating? What is their experience in other places of the world where they have operated, or continue to operate? What is the broader context of their purpose? How important is the Jamaican option to them?  Who is their competition? How do they view success? What are their values?

I suspect we under-estimate our position of strength in this ongoing transaction. What is occurring now is part of a bigger geo-political restructuring and the beginnings of an economic seismic shift in maritime trade and logistics sector. This sector is in for dramatic transformation in the Western Hemisphere in the coming decade and Jamaica is well positioned GEOGRAPHICALLY to benefit from it.

But is Jamaica well positioned OTHERWISE to capitalise on it?  Time will tell.

In the meantime try to negotiate from a position of strength. Have a united team, be creative, seek alliances, understand cross-cultural issues, gather market intelligence, build trusting and respectful relationships etc. etc.

In the ends it is all about relating to people - your own and others.    

Gun Control in the USA and beyond

GUN CONTROL IN THE AMERICAS -

YOUR SECURITY (USA) IS OUR SECURITY (CARIBBEAN)

Tragically, it happened again in the US of A.

An angry young male took up some high powered gun weapons, went to a school and shot dead a lot of innocent people in an evil rampage. The usual predictable responses ensue - Why did he do it? What was the background? How can this be allowed to happen? Can't we do something about it?

This is an opportune time for leaders EVERYWHERE to step forward - especially in the US of A. and from its well-wishers in the Caribbean, Mexico, Canada (its closest neighbours) - to ACT NOW and implement practical solutions to this growing problem in society.

Although these media-frothing events unfortunately happen from time to time (usually in the USA) they provide a focal point for what happens on a DAILY SCALE - smaller, but cumulatively FAR MORE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGING - in Caribbean countries touched by the plague of the hand gun culture and lawlessness mentality.

That is to say, EVERYDAY in the Caribbean, someone, somewhere, takes a gun out and kills someone else.

CONTEXT

Since on such heart-wrenching occasions it is always invoked and referred to I thought I would look at the American Constitution, which states in its Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

First up, I see no connection between loners firing off weapons at random domestically and "militia"

Nor is there any connection between "security of a free state" and individuals living in fear because their fellow citizen may have a gun.

In truth the Constitution literally doesn't even tally up to support what some people says it does - that anyone in American can get and carry arms as a RIGHT - period!!

No, there is a context and a rationale which people have lost perspective on.

So let's go back to basics and the spirit and OBJECTIVE of what the Constitution in saying in this matter. The principle is surely about citizens in that country being safe and secure and about protecting oneself. And we need to revisit this principle with reference to how Americans now live in the 21st Century, not in some pioneering western days on some frontier-land.

The Security of a Free State

The clear objective of the Constitution is that of security in a free state. Ergo, people should be able to go about their day to day living without fearing that those around them may decide to go on a random shooting spree at any time. So here are some principles to make this more likely to happen - firstly for those citizens who choose NOT to bear arms and then for those citizens who DO choose to bear arms:

The Rights of those choosing NOT to Bear Arms

The personal security of the citizen is equally important should they chose to bear arms or not.

Detectability

I would like to have the right to know if people have weapons in their possession and who they are so I can act to defend myself if necessary. Be they my community neighbour or the person who just walked into the bank or cinema where I am at.

Fore-warned is Fore-armed.

I understand that to some extent this is already required whereby weapons cannot be concealed in public places in some states. The need is there to extend this visibility principle and modern technology makes it possible in so many practical ways.

All guns will be required to have a chip embedded in them, at point of manufacture, identifying them and allowing them to be detectable from say a mobile or cell phone within a certain radius. These chips should not be able to be disarmed or dismantled without rendering the gun useless. Principle here is like a smoke alarm in the toilets on board passenger airliners.

Manufacturers should be required to incorporate these into their manufacturing process.

If the chips are not passive but require an energy source then the functioning of the gun should also be contingent on said energy source.

One should look to see if existing guns could be retrofitted with such traceable chip technology. If not then perhaps obsolete-rendering measures should be imposed to  gradually phase out the functionality of such guns already in circulation. e.g. by fiat, order the cessation of bullet manufacture specific for such existing weapons etc.

Liability

The principle of compensation and restitution needs to be applicable so that if, unfortunately, I fall victim to use of a gun by a third party, someone needs to be held liable for such a scenario. And I don't  mean just the gunman - who is usually insane anyways at these mass shootings.

This liability should be able to be extended all the way back to source of supply - directors of gun manufacturing companies should not be excluded. The principle here is similar to that applied to  cigarette manufacturing companies and resultant deaths from smoking. You make things that kill people and this needs due care and attention.

The penalty of the liability needs to be meaningful, financially punitive so as to be transformational to the whole supply chain of gun manufacture, gun ownership, the marketing, sales and distribution of such arms.

Accessibility

One could argue this horse has long bolted from the stables on this matter. And it is impossible to reign in the gun access now in the USA. But I believe we should still try and reduce the degree of accessibility of most guns to all and sundry in the population.  

To choke off those out there already one could start by requiring manufacturers to stop producing bullets for the destructive guns we wish to phase out and limit public use of. Or at the very least restrict the public distribution of bullets for such weapons - semi-automatics and automatics known to be popular with gun enthusiasts. Ownership of such weapons will now be enforced as illegal and future sales banned, preceded by an amnesty announced for calling them in.

The Rights of those Bearing Arms

A right is not a license and neither does not come free from responsibilities.

The responsibilities that come with bearing arms need to be properly defined and implemented.

Traceability

Since we are dealing with a potentially lethal instrument that can be used to kill another person the principle of licensing guns has been well argued and understood. However it is not fully implemented and today's technologies allows for so much more to be done in this area.

Already items in the food chain are more traceable, and are being more enforced as traceable, than weapons!! And that includes food originating from "Third World" countries!! 

Look to the food supply chain and adopt best practices of being able to trace ALL GUNS from their point of manufacture ALL along the supply chain to those who buy and trade in them. (Ergo, guns should not be able to be pawned).

So at any point in time the authorities responsible for "the security of the free state" will know, from a database, who has which guns - or should have each gun - and be able to trace where it got "lost" in the supply chain, if that happens.

This traceability can be implemented by spot checks and/or requiring regular roll calls of the owners. 

Such spot checks can be made through assignation of priorities and intelligence gathering.

And the loss of a gun somewhere in the supply chain should have meaningful and commensurate consequences for those involved.

Accountability

Those who bear arms also have a responsibility. To show others in the society that they are taking care of them safely. They should be required by law to report to the authorities and show them, at the owner's expense, that they still retain the guns in their possession and to the specification imposed by law. e.g. ID and tracking chip installed at manufacture is still there and working.

The owner of the gun is accountable for its whereabouts and proper functioning at ALL times.

Failure to report loss or theft promptly - within 24 hours - will be charged as a felony.

Those who "lose" a gun in the above supply chain should be held responsible for the ensuring consequences resulting from that gun's use - civil lawsuits for example. The  "It's your property" principle.

Responsibility

The right to bear arms comes with a responsibility to use it safely and appropriately. So since the initial context was a "militia" they should be sent to an appropriate training facility to ensure they are adequately educated and trained - at their expense.

Also the one-off expenditure of buying a gun should extend to a recurring expense of owning it responsibly - such a cost reflects the true nature of the responsibility. This includes need to keep it secure, proof of keeping it safely, proof of still possessing it, operating with detectable function, etc

If the gun owner loses a gun they should be black-listed from owning further guns as this is a clear sign of an irresponsible person.

So there you have it USA - re-visit your Constitution.

You don't even need to change it but you do need to re-visit what it was meant to achieve and re-interpret how that can be done in the 21st Century. 

This home grown terrorism is as important to Homeland Security as the external threats of foreign agents.

Remember the upholding of the Constitution is against ALL enemies - foreign AND DOMESTIC