Go Lean…Caribbean

Go Lean Commentary

A ‘Clear and Present Danger’ sounds ominous…

There should be no question as to intent or consequence if the situation goes unimpeded.

The ‘Clear and Present Danger’ doctrine is a concept in jurisprudence, which has bearing on everyday life for everybody. It refers to not just a potential danger but one that will likely cause a catastrophe if not immediately obstructed or neutralized.

This phrase was suggested as a test of harmful speech by the US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 case of Schenck v. United States. In delivering the court’s unanimous decision upholding the conviction of a Socialist Party Officer (who encouraged resistance to the World War 1 Draft) under the Espionage Act (which suppressed Free Speech), Justice Holmes noted that the “character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.” He went on to say that, “when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” (Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/clear-and-present-danger.html)

How would this concept in jurisprudence relate to the everyday life for the average person in the Caribbean?

This consideration is presented in conjunction to mitigations and remediation for protecting the Caribbean homeland. The assertion in the book Go Lean … Caribbean (Page 23) is that with the emergence of new economic engines, “bad actors” will also emerge thereafter to exploit the opportunities, with good, bad and evil intent. But the book warns against more than just bad people, rather “bad actors”; thusly referring to corporate entities, natural disasters (hurricanes are assigned people names) and other “random acts” (think “red tides”, pandemics, etc.). The book relates that this is a historical fact that is bound to be repeated … again and again.

This point is pronounced early in the book with the Declaration of Interdependence (Page 12) that claims:

i.     Whereas the earth’s climate has undeniably changed resulting in more severe tropical weather storms, it is necessary to prepare to insure the safety and security of life, property and systems of commerce in our geographical region. As nature recognizes no borders in the target of its destruction, we also must set aside border considerations in the preparation and response to these weather challenges.

ii.    Whereas the natural formation of the landmass for our lands constitutes some extreme seismic activity, it is our responsibility and ours alone to provide, protect and promote our society to coexist, prepare and recover from the realities of nature’s occurrences.

x.   Whereas we are surrounded and allied to nations of larger proportions in land mass, populations, and treasuries, elements in their societies may have ill-intent in their pursuits, at the expense of the safety and security of our citizens. We must therefore appoint “new guards” to ensure our public safety and threats against our society, both domestic and foreign. The Federation must employ the latest advances and best practices … to assuage continuous threats against public safety.

xii. Whereas the legacy in recent times in individual states may be that of ineffectual governance with no redress to higher authority, the accedence of this Federation will ensure accountability and escalation of the human and civil rights of the people for good governance, justice assurances, due process and the rule of law. As such, any threats of a “failed state” status for any member state must enact emergency measures on behalf of the Federation to protect the human, civil and property rights of the citizens, residents, allies, trading partners, and visitors of the affected member state and the Federation as a whole.

xvi. Whereas security of our homeland is inextricably linked to prosperity of the homeland, the economic and security interest of the region needs to be aligned under the same governance. Since economic crimes, including piracy and other forms of terrorism, can imperil the functioning of the wheels of commerce for all the citizenry, the accedence of this Federation must equip the security apparatus with the tools and techniques for predictive and proactive interdictions.

The Caribbean appointing “new guards”, or a security pact to ensure public safety includes many strategies, tactics and implementations considered “best-practices”. We must be on a constant vigil against these “bad actors”, man-made or natural. This necessitates being pro-active in monitoring, mitigating and managing risks. Then when “crap” does happen, the “new guards” will be prepared for any “Clear and Present Danger“. The Go Lean book describes an organization structure with Emergency Management functionality, including Unified Command-and-Control for Caribbean Disaster Response, Anti-crime and Military Preparedness.

Wait! Wasn’t this done before? Didn’t the Caribbean region member-states come together – September 1, 2005 – and establish a security apparatus so as to assuage public safety risks and threats?

Yes, this is part of the CariCom (Caribbean Community) effort. The Go Lean book and these blogs commentaries have consistency railed against the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of CariCom and its regional organs.

The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA)^[1] is an inter-regional supportive network of independent emergency units throughout the Caribbean region; see Appendix below. Originally formed as the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency (CDERA) it under-went the name change to CDEMA in September 2009.

See Photo below for a listing of the CDEMA functionality:

The participating member states and agencies of the CDEMA include:

What about regional defense?

There is a regional initiative branded the Regional Security System (RSS); it is an international agreement for the defense and security of the eastern Caribbean region. The Regional Security System was created out of a need for collective response to security threats, which were impacting on the stability of the region in the late 1970s and early 1980s. On 29 October 1982 four members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States—namely, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent & the Grenadines—signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Barbados to provide for “mutual assistance on request”. The signatories agreed to prepare contingency plans and assist one another, on request, in national emergencies, prevention of smuggling, search and rescue, immigration control, fishery protection, customs and excise control, maritime policing duties, protection of off-shore installations, pollution control, national and other disasters and threats to national security. Saint Kitts & Nevis joined following independence in 1983, and Grenada joined two years later.

These two initiatives CDEMA and RSS constitutes the regional security solutions for the Caribbean. “Our thimble runneth over!”

What is the problem with CDEMA, RSS and CariCom? For starters these regional efforts, the Caribbean Community, does not represent the full community of the Caribbean; not even half of the Caribbean. Consider here:

CU Member states not included or participating in CDEMA, RSS or CariCom:

• Cuba
• Dominican Republic
• US Territories (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands)
• Dutch Territories (ABC Islands: Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao; SSS Islands: Saba, Saint Marteen; Saint Eustatius)
• French Territories (Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Barthélemy, St. Martin)

Secondly, CariCom has extreme funding challenges; the regional construct depends on income derived almost exclusively from grants from the American federal government (US-AID), Canadian agencies and the EU’s Development Fund (EDF). After 40 years of CariCom, it can be concluded that the CariCom Secretariat and regional organs fail to meet the needs of the Caribbean people, even for the people in its participating member-states. They are a great “talking head”; nothing more. The Go Lean book quotes an internal report (Page 92) complaining of the severe weaknesses of the regional construct, stating their tendency to announce decisions over new initiatives as if full implementation were imminent, resulting in a so-called “implementation deficit”.

Obviously, the established security solution is not fully established and does not really solve any threats; therefore the region is not secured.

This reality is pronounced early in the Go Lean book (Page 8) with this declaration regarding the promoters of the Go Lean movement, that they are …

… not affiliated with the CariCom or any of its agencies or institutions. This movement is not an attempt to re-boot the CariCom, but rather a plan to re-boot the Caribbean… This movement was bred from the frustrations of the Diaspora, longing to go home, to lands of opportunities. But this is not a call for a revolt against the governments, agencies or institutions of the Caribbean region, but rather a petition for a peaceful transition and optimization of the economic, security and governing engines in the region.

The Go Lean book is a petition for change and optimization, serving as a roadmap for the introduction and implementation of the technocratic Caribbean Union Trade Federation (CU). The CU would roll the charters of CDEMA, RSS and CariCom into one consolidated, integrated and collaborated effort. The CU is set to optimize Caribbean society through economic empowerment, and also homeland security in the region, since these are inextricably linked to this same endeavor.

Therefore the Go Lean roadmap has 3 prime directives:

• Optimization of the economic engines in order to grow the regional economy to $800 Billion & create 2.2 million new jobs.
• Establishment of a security apparatus to protect the resultant economic engines and theCaribbean homeland.
• Improvement of Caribbean governance to support these engines.

The CU Homeland Security forces have to always be “on guard”, on alert for real or perceived threats. The legal concept is one of being deputized by the sovereign authority for a role/responsibility in a member-state. So when “crap” happens these CU forces are expected to aid, assist, and support local resources in these member-states when called on. But, when a member-state is the problem, in terms of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance, the “Clear and Present Danger” mandate should be invoked. As a security apparatus, there should also be certain defined threats that would be designated as primarily assigned to the CU; this would apply in a Declaration of War against a known state-sponsored enemy.

But the world has now changed; there is the new threat of an unknown, non-state-sponsored enemy: the scourge of terrorism. Consider the situation in the United States, we all know of the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001, but since then terrorist attacks have actually been a constant threat in the US. In a recent blog/commentary, it was reported that there were 17  terrorist attacks against the American homeland in this decade alone, since 2010. Surely the threat of terrorism is a “clear and present danger” in the US.

The CU treaty calls for the mitigation of terrorism to be a constant charter for the CU Homeland Security forces.

For most of the Caribbean, we are allied with the US; we even have two US Territories “smack-dab” in the middle of our archipelago. So the American terrorist-enemies are very much our enemies. Therefore the CU/Go Lean roadmap posits that the region must prepare an optimized security apparatus for its own security needs. This time for real!

The request is that all Caribbean member-states empower a security force to execute a limited scope on their sovereign territories. The legal basis for this empowerment is a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), embedded at the CU treaty initiation, thereby authorizing the CU Homeland Security Department for its role and responsibility for all the “crap” that could happen to the peace and prosperity of the Caribbean people. The CU Trade Federation would lead, fund and facilitate a security force, even encapsulating existing armed forces (full-time or part-time/reserves) as needed, at the discretion of the CU Commander-in-Chief.

The existing Caribbean Security initiatives have failed the region. Despite the existence of agencies like the CDEMA and RSS, the CariCom has not ascended to prominence in local communities. Most people do not even know these agencies exist. It is not seen, heard or felt. This is not the level of governance the Caribbean region needs; we need more; we need better. Previous Go Lean commentaries have meticulously detailed the overall failure of CariCom.

Perhaps the problem is economics (funding)? Or perhaps the security enablement (legal authorization to act)? Or perhaps, its the governance and administration? There are many questions; the only answer that matters is the solutions must address the Clear and Present Dangers.

Consider these monumental episodes and events in the Caribbean region that have occurred in the recent past; the expectation is that they would have invoked the “Clear and Present Danger” clause for engagement from the CDEMA entity. The following list is the Top 20 disasters in CDERA member states, according to the CDEMA published database and sorted by total losses:

Was there a noticeable Caribbean-Regional presence in response to these disastrous events?

There are also examples of Industrial Incidents – Chemical Spills – not on the CDEMA list; (the exclusion is inexcusably surprising). These would have gotten the attention of CU Emergency Management agencies, as these also pose a “Clear and Present Danger”. This sample list is just for Jamaica:

The presence of this regional construct has not been felt in most of the Caribbean member-states. They have emerged more as an after-the-fact data collector. The burden of direct remediation, beyond the direct member-state, is elusive in the Caribbean homeland. Consider this short-list of emphatic disasters that, to date, have remained unmanaged and unresolved, despite the  “Clear and Present Dangers”:

There is a difference between effectiveness and efficiency. It is easy for an individual or small group to simply deliver on a plan; that is efficiency. Effectiveness would be to get the buy-in from all stakeholders, so as to complete the needed collaboration, consensus-building and compromise. That is heavy-lifting.

All in all, the failures of CariCom, CDEMA and RSS are attributable to this one premise: “Too little, too late”.

It is time for more and better. By contrast, the CU‘s requirement for the SOFA is “Step One, Day One” in the Go Lean roadmap. The CU organization must be empowered for proactive and reactive management of natural disasters, industrial accidents, bacterial & viral pandemics and terrorism-related events. The Go Lean book details the series of community ethos, strategies, tactics, implementations and advocacies to provide the proactive and reactive public safety/security in the Caribbean region:

Other subjects related to security and governing empowerments for the region have been blogged in other Go Lean…Caribbean commentary, as sampled here:

The concept of “Clear and Present Danger” is conveyed in the following VIDEO, a “trailer” for a movie of the same name. This is art imitating life:

Title: Clear and Present Danger – Movie Trailer  – https://youtu.be/900kPg1lomU

Published on Jun 19, 2012 – This is the third film based on Tom Clancy’s high-tech espionage potboilers starring CIA deputy director Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford, returning to the Ryan role after his first go-round in 1992’s Patriot Games, is assigned to a delicate anti-drug investigation after a close friend of the President (a Reaganesque Donald Moffat) is murdered by a Colombian drug cartel. When Ryan discovers that the President’s wealthy friend was in league with the cartel, the President’s devious national security adviser (Harris Yulin) and an ambitious CIA deputy director (Henry Czerny) send a secret paramilitary force into Colombia to wipe out the drug lords. The force is captured and then abandoned by the President’s lackeys. It falls to Ryan to enter Colombia and rescue them, aided only by a renegade operative named Clark (Willem Dafoe), with both his life and career on the line.

The adoption of a “Clear and Present Danger” mandate is reflective of a technocratic work edict and community ethos. We can and must do better!

The advocacy to adopt the structure of a technocracy is reflective of this commitment to do better. The term technocracy is used to designate the application of the scientific method to solving social and economic problems. The CU must start as a technocracy, not grow into a technocracy – too much is at stake – lives are involved; see Appendix B below of Haiti’s Earthquake Photos.

All of the Caribbean is hereby urged to lean-in to this roadmap, to make the Caribbean safer and make the region a better destination to live, work and play.

🙂

Download the book Go Lean … Caribbean – now!

————

Appendix – CDEMA Role / Responsibilities:

Specific Roles and Responsibilities of the CDM Coordination and Harmonization Council:

• Contribute to and provide recommendations for the development and implementation of a CDM monitoring and evaluation framework.
• To consider reports on CDM implementation and provide guidance towards sustainability.
• Identify and Provide recommendations for the integration of ongoing initiatives as well as planned initiatives that will support the achievement of the outcomes enshrined in the enhanced CDM Strategy
• Discuss and address issues and opportunities to further good governance of the CDM
• Nurture opportunities for synergies between development partners, participating states, representatives of the private sector, civil society and other relevant stakeholders responsible for the mainstreaming of the CDM strategy in development planning.
• Provide policy guidance for the maintenance of the CDM database to ensure effective sharing of CDM knowledge.
• Share annually  with the CDM Programming Consultation meeting, progress on CDM implementation
• Identify a technical committee to support the planning process for the CDM Conference

The CDM Coordination and Harmonization Council comprise development partner representatives, sector leaders, participating states and private sector. The group includes:

1. Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (Chair),
2. Caribbean Development Bank (CDB),
3. Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA),
4. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
5. United States Agency for International Development (Development Arm and OFDA),
6. United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID),
7. European Union (EU),
8. CARICOM Secretariat,
9. Organization of American States (OAS),
10. Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS),
11. University of the West Indies (UWI),
12. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
13. Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO),
14. Pan American Health organization (PAHO),
15. Caribbean Electric Utility Services Cooperation (CARILEC),
16. Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC),
17. United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM),
18. Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC),
19. Caribbean Association of Industry and Commerce (CAIC),
20. Four representatives of CDERA Participating States – one representative from each sub-region.

—————-

Appendix B – Haiti Earthquake Photos – Evidence of a Clear and Present Danger