When news of the tsunami first traveled across its destructive wake, few imagined the magnitude of ruin, loss of human life and suffering that was to be unleashed. However, as the relentless hours toiled into days it became apparent that the scale of human suffering was unmatched by even the most vicious of wars and other natural disasters. Almost simultaneously, the calls for aid went out and were met with a trickle-turned-cascade of over $5 billion. Charitable agencies and individual governments rallied unhesitatingly to the humanitarian cause defying race, religion and ethnicity.
The world, it seems, has finally gotten its act together in striving to end human suffering. However, all is not well beneath the surface of humanity, brotherhood and generosity. Long-established ethos of self-interest, pride, suspicion and paranoia have subsequently broken through the relative façade and compounded the misery of the surviving victims.
International aid was the first to become embroiled in the ever-expanding list of controversies.
It started with a finger-pointing campaign of stinginess that embroiled the Gulf countries initially, but then went on to absorb even the Western world. The loudest complaints seem to have originated not in the affected nations themselves but within the narrow perception of the developed world and, quite refreshingly, within the wounded psyche of the Arab world. While the media and relief agencies struggled to report the extent of devastation, countries like the US and Australia had already taken the initiative and put their aid effort prominently on display.
Although Saudi Arabia was among the first to step forward with its aid offer, by and large, the subsequent bout of generosity advanced upon the nation at a somewhat later stage. By then the political damaged had already been done. The fact that Saudi Arabia has been consistently among the top donor nations of the world and averaging foreign aid around 4 percent of the GDP, which is well above the UN bottom limit of 0.7 percent, is somehow lost within the selectiveness of media reporting. Saudi Arabia’s per person donation toward the tsunami assistance was $5.4 while the aid per GDP ranks among the highest at present. The rationale behind seeking greater assistance from the Arab countries understandably stemmed from the fact that the majority of victims happen to be Muslims. Frankly, it would be hardly surprising if the same voices that scorned our stinginess then accused us of selective generosity had our donations been overly bighearted.
Additionally, aid is being manipulated to further diplomatic standing with recipient countries. For instance, we are aware of Australia’s scarred relations with Indonesia because of Canberra’s role in the creation of independent East Timor and its enthusiastic support for the Iraq war.
Australia became the largest tsunami per capita donor and received wide acclaim for its largesse that surpassed all reasonable expectations. However, the apathy of international politics is such that even a calamity of such magnitude is seen as an opportunity to advance national interests.
Furthering Indonesian popular perception of Australia was deemed legitimate to the extent “where philanthropy and self-interest [became] synonymous”.
Good-neighborly compassion has been willingly dispelled and instead one-upmanship to further international standing has become an accepted norm. Similarly, Washington used its own generosity of $350 million to polish its image within the Islamic world and US Secretary of State Colin Powell was candid enough to verbalize the same.
Meanwhile, there was more politics at play when India, US, Japan and Australia formed a coordinating group to effect disaster relief. This was a deliberate snub to regional power, China, and more pointedly aimed at the United Nations.
The proposal, arising within Washington, was largely aimed at sidelining the UN’s importance as a role-player in regional politics or to even allow it to articulate the humanitarian almanac. The Bush administration has perhaps endured the frostiest period of its country’s relationship with the UN. The fact that President Bush considered this an opportune moment to indulge in grandstanding is, quite frankly, in poor taste. India, of course, is a willing associate in any regional power play as it aspires to gain a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.
However, it would augur well for India if it refrained from actions that undermined the relevance of the UN.
More of India’s tsunami politics was on display when it refused to be a recipient of aid claiming that it had the potential to sustain its own relief efforts. India has had the third highest number of casualties and considerable economic and environmental damage.
While it is certainly commendable that India seeks to shed its begging-bowl image, it cannot do this at the expense of a genuine need for foreign aid. Images of the 2001 earthquake in Gujarat with its large-scale destruction and the challenge it posed to India’s capability to handle such emergencies, are as yet unfaded. Truly, the pride of a nation cannot be blinded to the exigencies of its people.
Lastly, the ruling classes of Sri Lanka and Indonesia to further their goals in their respective guerrilla wars have used the disaster. The potential for political legitimacy to separatist organizations in the face of international contacts, are viewed with deep suspicion in these countries.
After initial promises of unhindered access to separatist-dominated regions, the lingering mistrust returned and cooperation rapidly broke down, particularly in Sri Lanka. What could have served as a binding factor unfortunately fell victim to the constraints of pride and paranoia. It has also become painfully obvious that for these strife-torn regions national sovereignty is a greater aspiration than humanity and brotherhood.
Aid may have become deeply politicized but positive fallout of this has been the bigger bounty as a result of donation one-upmanship.
The “tsunami diplomacy” has hopefully taught us Arabs the ropes in advertising our generosity — in today’s world it is perhaps better for the left hand to know what the right is doing. And while the governments in Colombo and Jakarta have failed to capitalize on the immediate opportunity in brokering peace, it is too early to pronounce a verdict. With a bit of political lessons from the likes of Australia, they could yet negotiate a lasting peace.
