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.