Cooperation needed to overcome disasters

Bantarto Bandoro, Jakarta

o one wishes for a disaster. But when disaster strikes, attempts should be made to extract as many positives as possible from the event. The global response to the Indian Ocean tsunami, for example, prompted the region and the world to consider its implications for regional and global relations. The idea that ASEAN should have its own regional center for humanitarian assistance (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 27) should be seen against such a background. It is a clear reflection of the need for a much more permanent and effective mechanism to manage disasters.

The center would hopefully not only improve the capacity of ASEAN members countries to provide quick-response humanitarian assistance in case of natural disaster, but also change their mind-set as to how they should manage their relations, particularly when faced with disaster.

Natural disasters present an unusual laboratory for the study of change and the process of change, particularly in state relations.

The world has seen several countries hit by natural disasters over the last several years: the Gujarat earthquake (2001), the earthquake in the southern Iranian city of Bam (2003), the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004) and the recent devastating earthquake in South Asia. The disasters injured and killed people and damaged property. But the disasters also created opportunities to facilitate better cooperation and relations, particularly among states in conflict, by fostering linkages that otherwise might not have existed.

The cooperative spirit generated from the common effort to deal with disasters possibly overrides preexisting prejudices, breaking down barriers that otherwise might never have been broken down. Pakistan and India can be seen in such a situation. The 7.6-magnitude quake that devastated Pakistani-controlled Kashmir led India to offer food and medical supplies. India and Pakistan later reportedly signed an agreement to open their border to allow relief to pass through unimpeded (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 31).

The devastating human impact of the tsunami is assumed to have transformed quite significantly the relationship between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the central government of Indonesia. The signing of an agreement between GAM and the government might have been dictated by the fact that both parties wished to lessen, if not eliminate, the burden on the Acehnese particularly after they were hit by the tsunami. GAM and the government both made the safety of the people, as well as the stability of Aceh itself, their core values.

Regarding Pakistan and India, we see that changes at the highest level of bilateral or regional relations were caused by a devastating earthquake. The disaster has, at least and for the time being, changed the public perception that India and Pakistan are enemies. As a result of this process and for the longer term, the conflict between India and Pakistan will gradually, hopefully, be superseded by cooperative structures and mechanisms. Concerns over the human impact of the disaster was the prime motive for this change.

The earthquake served as a catalyst for bringing the two neighbors closer. One would then believe the earthquake was a catalyst, not a creator, of diplomacy. Meaning that it could yield a significant transformation in the relations between India and Pakistan

The complex relationship between political and natural processes is actually linked to South Asian political and regional stability. The whole idea is that earthquake diplomacy could open up a new era in India-Pakistan relations, one that will lead to the elimination of sources of vulnerability. But this new era could come to an end if the feeling grows on the side of India, for example, that whatever it does Pakistan does not respond by taking some form of action but instead demands more. Such scenarios would lead to a false assumption that diplomatic efforts should be casually linked with the occurrence of disasters.

The point here is that there is a high degrees of complexity in an actual disaster, as is the case of South Asia, which is often presented as only a process of transition that changes relations among states. This does not guarantee disaster will open an opportunity to increase cooperation among rival states, let alone perpetuate this cooperation. Instead, disaster may have a multiplying and legitimizing effect in diplomatic rapprochement.

On the ASEAN regional disaster center issue, one would think that it would be the best way to achieve the goals of ASEAN cooperation in the event of disaster, provided that ASEAN involves other non-formal institutions in such a project and implements the plans effectively. So this will be a joint undertaking between the members states of ASEAN and their peoples. Cooperation between different types of institutions within ASEAN members countries is healthy in general and can have particular benefits for regional disaster preparedness.

Cooperation based on geographic proximity is probably the most common form of cooperation. This is why the idea for a disaster center came up, one that reflects a systematic attempt by ASEAN to face future natural disasters. This in turn would result in more intensive diplomatic activities among the members of ASEAN in the field of disaster management.

But ASEAN must remember that cooperation can be very time- consuming, given the fact that ASEAN does not have extensive experience in disaster management. It is important therefore that cooperation not be attempted when the difficulties outweigh the benefits. ASEAN must also keep in mind that it is more important to have a simple plan in place, at least at the outset, than to have the perfect plan ready. If necessary, implement a simple plan while working on a more elaborate one.

So, what has changed as a result of disaster, is ASEAN's view of the complexity of disaster itself as well as its response to the impacts of a disaster on ASEAN communities. The realization of a regional disaster center would mean a significant change at the level of scientific understanding of shared risk by ASEAN.

Thus, shared risk leads to shared responsibility among all members of ASEAN exposed to the threat of disaster. An ASEAN disaster center is not a bad idea at all. Disasters provide conditions and processes that promote constructive change in relations among nations during and after the events.

The writer is director of Scientific Infrastructure and Publication; chief editor of The Indonesian Quarterly, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta, and a lecturer in the International Relations Postgraduate Studies Program at the School of Social and Political Sciences, the University of Indonesia. He can be reached at bandoro@csis.or.id.