Preventing natural and man-made disasters

Preventing natural and man-made disasters

Erik Friberg, Jakarta

In addition to the crucial immediate relief and sustained
reconstruction efforts following the tragic Dec. 26 quake and
tsunami, public and policy attention has, importantly, also been
immediately directed toward prevention: How can a regional "early
warning system" prevent future natural disasters? While the
recent tsunami originated from an earthquake off the coast of
Sumatra, the waves that followed affected the shores of at least
12 states, and caused casualties among families and communities
from literally the other side of the world.

The effects of various human security threats pay no respect
to national borders, proving the necessity for effective inter-
state cooperation in preventing and effectively addressing them.
This is certainly no less true for man-made disasters.

For example, while the origin of trafficking, illegal
migration, environmental haze and violent communal conflicts may
stem from one country, the effects can be felt in the wider
region and beyond.

The human and economic costs of leaving root and proximate
causes threatening human security unattended are well documented.
However, while many talk about preventive action, very few
international mechanisms have been developed with such a mandate.

The early warning system in the Pacific Rim has been reported
as a system which will provide some inspiration for the states
surrounding the Indian Ocean, when the latter develop their
tsunami early warning system which will be operational by mid
2006. Similarly, regional early warning systems also for man-made
threats exist in other regions, including Africa and Europe.

Whether the data to be collected stem from indictors of
natural causes or human behavior, there must be a capacity to
promptly analyze the information with timely suggestions for
effective policy responses.

This function is best performed by impartial, professional
experts, mandated to warn about potential threats -- whether
natural or man-made -- and to assist governments, in a
cooperative manner, in responding to them. Such mechanisms must
be mandated to take effective action, even if the measures might
be uncomfortale for some in the short-run.

The actual risk must triumph over other considerations. For
example, a travel warning due to infectious diseases must be
issued if necessary, even if this could temporarily hamper local
tourism. Direct access to the highest levels of governments could
be granted for such an early-warning mechanism, in return for
applying a fundamentally assistance-oriented, non-confrontational
and problem-solving approach.

Both South Asia and Southeast Asia have sub-regional inter-
governmental organizations that could be further developed to
regionally address human security threats comprehensively. The
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have indeed taken
some steps toward cooperation beyond the economic sphere.

In November 2004, a Plan of Action toward an ASEAN Security
Community (ASC) was adopted, envisioning preventive diplomatic
mechanisms to be developed, including an early warning system.
With an expanded ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to now include also
Pakistan (and already previously India), maybe the time is ripe
to build upon the ARF confidence-building measures developed over
the past decade, and strengthen effective preventive diplomacy
mechanisms within the ARF?

While the UN should coordinate and cooperate systematically
with sub-regional cooperation such as SAARC, ASC and ARF, it is
apparent that in-regional solutions are often better suited to
effectively deal with in-regional threats and problems -- and
more likely to be accepted and implemented.

The challenge is to reconcile the approach of prospective
regional mechanisms with the principle of non-interference and
respect for state sovereignty in the region. The principle of
non-interference should not be equated with a policy of non-
cooperation and non-involvement. When mechanisms apply a
cooperative, quiet, diplomatic, problem-solving approach,
effectively assisting governments in responding to emerging
threats, this methodology would ensure warranted inter-
governmental cooperation and engagement. Indeed, on the basis of
state consent, sovereignty would be fully respected.

The response to the tsunami should go beyond an early warning
system for Indian Ocean states. A more effective response could
be to revisit the idea and create a comprehensive regional risk
reduction center within the ASEAN Secretariat, possibly under the
recently established ARF Unit.

Examples of such dedicated early warning systems elsewhere
include the comprehensive approach taken within the Economic
Community of Western African States (ECOWAS), which has
information bureaus with officials assessing political, economic,
social, security as well as environmental indicators on a daily
basis.

Other examples exist in the context of the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe. An ASEAN Regional Risk
Reduction Desk, staffed with seconded government officials from
ASEAN states, could assist the ASEAN Secretary-General, the
ASEAN/ARF Chair and the ARF Group of Eminent and Expert Persons
by providing comprehensive on-going analysis for their early
action.

This capacity at the regional level, would enhance, rather
than threaten, the role of the participating states in addressing
both natural and man-made threats. Which government in the region
could possibly not have wanted the friendly, timely advice -- and
effective assistance -- in advance of the deadly tsunami?

The writer, a Swedish national, is Research Fellow at the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta,
Indonesia. He can be reached at erik.friberg@csis.or.id.