Cooperation needed to overcome disasters

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.