The murder of Pakistan’s cricket coach, Bob Woolmer in Jamaica at the height of the Cricket World Cup Tournament in 2007 was the last time the Jamaican government has had to confront a massive (negative) global media attention. Remember that CNN and BBC are transmitted in over 600 countries and the internet is the only truly global medium used by millions in every country across the world. What did the world see and learn. It learned that a gunman had forced his way unto an aircraft in the resort town of Montego Bay (the hub of Jamaica’s tourism and one could say our tourism-dependent economy), and held some 160 passengers and 6 crew hostage. We learned that he had a gun and shots were fired which surely speaks to the traumatic conditions under which passengers were held as they possibly feared for their lives. We learned later that the gunman-hijacker was of unsound mind and that having released 160 hostages/passengers, he held six crew members hostage for a total of nine hours.

The suspense was chilling because one ever knows what a person of unsound mind with a gun will do in desperation or anger. That the airliner was not Air Jamaica, and the passengers were mostly foreigners; and it was CanJet (a Canadian Jet) and Canada’s PM was on the Caribbean on an official visit only compounded the magnitude of the crisis. That the story was broadcast continuously around the world during the 12 hour duration of this incident means that the world awaited for either the escalation of the crisis (possibly killing of passengers or crew) and Jamaica’s response to the crisis and how it may be contained and resolved.

Yet what is often not reported and what is not seen when the camera stops recording, the lights are out and the microphones and tape recorders put away is the fall-out for the country on whom the negative spotlight was shed. This was without a doubt a major crisis for the Government of Jamaica – the global notion banded about in recent years (and most recently manifestly so in Australia with the prime time airing of a rather scathing documentary on crime and corruption in Jamaica) that Jamaica is an unsafe place to visit/holiday- was compounded/ (possibly confirmed) on Sunday night (April 19). The idea that the airports are unsafe fosters images of ‘terrorist threat’ in Jamaica. That the incident occurred in the tourist capital and at the gateway for tourist visitors chips away at the already declining image of Montego Bay. Here, uncontrolled crime, an unplanned and undeveloped city, and a poorly run Parish Council create havoc on a city meant to be the country’s economic lifeline.

Yet, it is often at this point – after the fact/post incident- that we fail to undertake proper damage control and crisis management strategies. Sadly, we often allow it to blow over and carry on in a merry way, the consequence of which is Jamaica’s deteriorating international image without an effective counter response. Jamaica relies almost entirely on its ‘brand’ – its image and international perception – to claim its place in the world. It cannot afford to not protect its image, and its real public relations terms rebuild relationships with its various publics when they go awry. So what was the likely response the Government of Jamaica ought to have taken in this latest crisis and how did it fair?

CRISIS MANAGEMENT 101- WHAT WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN THE MONTEGO BAY HIJACKING.

Minutes after the news broke, (and there was absolutely no information on the Gleaner website except a breaking news headline), I posted a Facebook note in which I said damage control was immediately required. Here are the steps I proposed for the post hijacking crisis management response.

1. RESPOND IMMEDIATELY (Call press conference)

2. ACKNOWLEDGE THE INCIDENT

3. TAKE ACTION (Arrest; Prosecution)

4. APOLOGISE TO ALL CONCERNED

5. APPEASE PASSENGERS/CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

5. REITERATE THAT NO ONE WAS INJURED

6. THANK CREW FOR CALM RESPONSE

7. RECTIFY (institute new airport security measures now)

8. DECLARE INCIDENT UNPRECEDENTED/ONE-OFF

9. EMPHASIZE THAT JAMAICA IS SAFE FOR VISITORS
HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT FAIR?

I believe overall the Government of Jamaica faired well in its management of the disaster and its post incident crisis management response. The actions taken were for the most part appropriate. The acknowledgment of the incident and the actions taken to arrest the passenger has to be high on the list of effective responses. Indeed, the fact that the police and military which cordoned off the Sangster International Airport did not storm into the aircraft with guns blazing was quite frankly pleasantly surprising to me. With the world watching, this would have made us look like complete baboons – as we did during the Bob Woolmer saga.

The timely appeasement of the passengers, bussing them to the nearby Cornwall regional hospital for shock treatment; the establishment of a hotline for them to make contact with their relatives overseas were appropriate. I am not sure if an official apology was offered by the Government but I would hope so since this was a clear breach of security which ought to have been prevented. The fact that the crew endured nine hours of torture and did not further aggravate an unstable, anxious gunman was a blessing and ought to be recognised as part of the reasons for a less than dramatic ending to this disaster.

THINGS THAT BOTHERED ME

There are a few things which irked me while I watched the continuing reports of the crisis on CNN and BBC, and spoke to colleague journalists at home. I will outline them here:

Simply ordering an investigation will not do. Surely, it would be nice to find out what happened; what the procedures are for entry at the tail end of checking in as if a plane is getting ready for take off, unless you suited off in your Air Jamaica or Airports authority gear, then a simply ID on your neck cannot be sufficient to let you through. Yet, I would’ve liked to have heard about how the Government plans to rectify the situation. I would’ve preferred to hear something to the effect that ‘the security arrangements at airports will be revised in light of the incident’. Surely, this will not just blow over as the next incident will not end this happily. This is not usual for us….

Another issue which concerns me is the seemingly strategic response by Government officials to turn up at the scene of disasters. I know we are a small country but I don’t get it. Why was Bruce on the tarmac? Why isn’t the Security Minister, Dwight Nelson and Information Minister, Daryl Vaz sufficient a presence – if there needs to be such official presence outside the police. Is Bruce the police? Is he a disaster management expert? Is he a hostage negotiator? Is he a reporter? Is he a priest? Is he a doctor? Someone please tell me what the role of the Prime Minister is under these circumstances. Like the disaster in December of 2008 when 14 persons lost their lives when the market truck overturned in Portland, the PM wants to show/lend his support to the victims. In my view, lend your support elsewhere – allow the police and the relevant persons to do their job! The presence of the PM is a disruptive force- he will have to be factored into all discussions and cannot give expert advice so should not be there. The representative officials are sufficient to provide him with updates on what is happening and perhaps away from the disaster he has a clearer head as to how to respond overall when the incident is resolved. God forbid another incident should occur and he is busy on the tarmac in Mobay mini-managing! This pandering in the spotlight is more disguised vote-buying than actual leadership or genuine care.

Finally, what is with the government’s deference for the international press? Is it that we wish to be on international news or shall our Ministers learn to navigate media interviews no matter who is asking the questions? Who are the real spokespersons? This is a decision that cannot be taken on the tarmac during a disaster. In the first place, a disaster plan must be in place that factors in all possible incidents in your country. This is the reason the Metropolitan Police in London were so excellent in their response to the London Bombings. Nothing was taken for granted and Scotland Yard was working from a script. I was fortunate to have been one of the journalists trained by their Public Affairs team to handle crises during the preparatory phase of the Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007. A spokesperson must be nominated so that one information is coming through. The press must not be chasing up individual persons for an interview. You may contradict each other and your reports of the facts may not be so or you may divulge something that may be inappropriate to say at that stage this brings me back to Bruce on the tarmac.

THE TRIED AND TESTED “WIGGLE UP” APPROACH

I have learned that the best response is a ‘wiggle-up’ approach. This means that in a disaster, you may want to use your lower level spokesman to do the talking (Govt Media Liaison). If needs be, you ‘wiggle up’ to a Minister of Security, and if the situation warrants, we move to the Prime Minister. The idea is that you never know when/if the crisis will escalate – in this case – the gunman killing a hostage, killing himself, killing the crew and/or the police storming in and making a bad situation worse. In this sense, it is best to hear from the Minister of National Security. If the Minister’s credibility is shot because he promised the safe return of passengers and this does not eventuate, then we would now – mandatorily – hear from the Prime Minister. Now if the PM is already on the tarmac, his presence alone overshadows the proceedings; his Ministers would be press corps gleeful and forget all the universal globally-recognised tenets of effective crisis management.

PS: Jamaica is a brand, but the brand is not only positive. A brand is, for all intents and purposes, dynamic – it continually changes and variable factors often impact on it. This means that we are obliged to respond effectively and urgently and continually to events and circumstances which alters people’s perception and opinion of that brand. Enough said.