Can the Asian tsunami generate a movement of global solidarity powerful enough to overshadow the present preponderance of hatred and terror? asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed Last Thursday, Professor Rushdi Said published an article in Al-Musawwar on the killer waves that struck the coastal regions of several Asian countries. An internationally renowned geologist, Dr Said is certainly better placed than I am to analyse the reasons behind last month's disaster, which I tried to do in Al-Ahram on the same day. His thesis differs from the one I advanced in last week's column in that it does not touch on whether human behaviour could have been a factor in precipitating the disaster. Dr Said described earthquakes as a natural phenomenon which has nothing to do with the deeds of human beings, while I questioned whether they were not Nature's reaction to the abuse it is suffering at the hands of the human race, its revenge on us for challenging its laws beyond acceptable limits. Of course I agree with Dr Said that earthquakes are natural phenomena, but I do not believe that humans have nothing to do with them. On 30 December 2004, the French Le Monde presented an explanation of what had happened which seemed to confirm Dr Said's viewpoint: "The Indonesian earthquake", it asserted, "is the result of a process that has been underway for the last 85 million years. At that time, which followed the emergence of the Indian Ocean, the Indo-Australian tectonic plate, which carries India crossed the ocean towards the North at a velocity of 10cms a year, and, 50 million years ago, collided with the Euro-Asian plate as it moved towards the 17 thousand Indo- Chinese islands (most of which are volcanic) in a southeasterly direction at a velocity of 6cms a year. The titanic clash produced the Himalayan mountain range, the highest in the world. As I mentioned, this seems to confirm Dr Said's thesis that earthquakes existed long before the human species and, therefore, before Man's ability to trigger geological upheavals. But the question I am trying to answer is: Did the appearance of Man on the surface of the globe have an effect in triggering earthquakes followed by tidal waves that can reach a height of 50 metres? We all know that these phenomena existed since the earth was formed billions of years ago. So the question boils down to whether the presence of the human species and its interaction with its environment could have influenced Nature's very attributes. In other words, has our planet been exposed to changes affecting its physical characteristics since Man appeared on earth? Have the huge advances in science and technology exposed the globe to annihilation? For example, it is now established that global warming and environmental pollution are a direct by- product of irresponsibly used technology as well as of such profit-motivated human activities as deforestation and over-industrialisation. These developments have adversely affected the quality of life even as new discoveries create opportunities to improve living conditions. The contemporary world can in no way claim that positive developments have the upper hand over negative developments that are hard to subject to Man's control. Indeed, it would be safe to say that human civilisation has created conditions more likely to expose our planet to self-destruction than would have been the case if humankind had not existed, more specifically, if it had not attained such an extraordinary level of technological progress. Until recently, the assumption was that Earth, which had existed for billions of years in the past, would continue to exist for billions of years in the future. If it is true that human behaviour is threatening to cut that "normal" life span short, drastic action is needed to ensure that the threat never materialises. It is not enough merely to repair the damage wrought by the Asian tsunamis on 26 December 2004. We need to adopt a holistic approach to the problem and to end practices that can, if not cause at least compound the effects of natural disasters. It is time to move beyond dealing with natural disasters on a case by case basis, to see the globe as one integrated whole where a minute change at one point can touch off massive consequences elsewhere. The problem requires more than deploying all available resources to deal with what is seen only as a contingency. It is not enough to mount the world's highest relief operation to date, or to recruit former US presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush senior as fund-raisers. What is required in the wake of the tsunami is to make the Earth's continued survival the first item on the global agenda, a position currently occupied by the issue of terrorism. Immediate steps should be taken to avoid similar scenarios from unfolding in future. An hour's advance notice of the tsunami, which took more than two hours to reach Sri Lanka and some four hours to reach India, could have saved thousands of lives, but no tsunami warning centres exists for the Indian Ocean. A network of early-warning stations must be established to cover the globe in its entirety, with no loopholes whatever. The tragedy in Asia brought out the best in humanity, which rose to the occasion with an outpouring of donations from individuals and organisations in every part of the world. What is now required is to go beyond looking at what happened as a random event. There should be long-term planning to avoid, or at least to mitigate the effects of, similar events in future. The quartet brought together to face the tragedy, and which includes the United States, Japan, India and Australia, should become a permanent body with global jurisdiction led by the United Nations. Enormous sums have been collected at an awesome speed to aid victims of the disaster. The unprecedented show of support is due to a number of reasons. First, the victim of an earthquake followed by a tsunami, is an absolute victim who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. He bears no responsibility for the disaster that befell him and was helpless to avert it. His fate evokes the atavistic fear of Nature's fury that has been with us since the dawn of history. Then there was the media, which immediately beamed horrific pictures of the mass deaths into living rooms all over the world. There was also the Internet which facilitated donations, and, finally, Christmas, a holiday season when many tourists from northern countries were enjoying the sun on the beaches hit by the tsunamis. TV images of shocked vacationers running from the tsunami and interviews with survivors recounting their ordeal added to the horror of the situation. So massive has the outpouring of donations been in the most publicised natural disaster in history (eight billion dollars), that one of the relief organisations, Medicins Sans Frontières announced that it would not accept any more donations until the 40 million euros it has already received were made use of. This was probably the first time in history that a relief organisation actually called a moratorium on donations. Short-term priorities differ from long-term priorities. What is required in the immediate is to save the lives of as many people as possible from hunger, thirst and epidemics. What is required in the long run is to use the disaster as a springboard to a better future, by establishing gigantic development projects making optimal use of the money collected through worldwide solidarity. Raising funds for long-term development differs qualitatively from raising funds to meet a state of emergency. The latter is assistance usually assumed by states, by the World Bank and by the IMF, which Citizens shoulder its cost through the taxes they pay. They should not be required to pay for such deductions twice. There has been quite a bit of confusion concerning distribution of functions. Should the donors of the EU, for instance, offer their donations through the state to which they belong or through an authority representing the EU as one entity? This is an issue that has to be settled. President Chirac proposed the creation of a Rapid Humanitarian Intervention. Authority. That would mean restructuring the world system along a more coherent line. It might even answer the question: Has technology acquired a role in exposing our planet to destruction, or are we still facing types of destruction that humans can do nothing about?
