Hassan Nafaa* finds little cause for optimism in the international response to the devastation wreaked around the coasts of the Indian Ocean On the day after Western Christmas a tremendous earthquake erupted off the coast of Sumatra, beneath the Indian Ocean, precipitating a gigantic wave travelling at speeds of up to 600kph. The devastation it wrought was unlike anything experienced for at least a century. Although the final figures are far from complete, the current toll is sufficient to move the hardest of hearts. At least 160,000 have died, thousands remain missing and more than five million have been made homeless, deprived of food and shelter and now increasingly vulnerable to disease. Clearly the world was not prepared for a disaster of this scale. Indeed, the initial response was sufficiently slow as to suggest indifference. Then, as the news began to hit home, the world seemed as though rudely awoken from the deepest slumber, yawning and rubbing its eyes in disbelief -- and wishing it could go back to sleep again. Washington, which pours more than $400 million a day into its illegal war in Iraq, had little to say other than it was ready to provide assistance to stricken countries up to the grand sum of $150 million. Other wealthy nations, including some of the oil-rich Arab nations, were no better, phlegmatically reaching for the loose change in their purses. This initial indifference was nothing less than scandalous. Who would have expected that nations with vast resources at their disposal could be so selfish and insensitive? Certainly the phenomenon should have set off some alarm bells, especially among those who trumpet the moral superiority and humanitarianism of contemporary civilisation. Nor could one help but notice that wealthy nations began to up their donations only when they realised that the moral lassitude they evinced in the face of this catastrophe was a political blunder for which they would have to pay a heavy price in the long term. Yet even then their pitiful attempts to redress their initial lack of compassion served only to underscore the structural flaws in an international order, the institutions of which appear totally incapable of performing ordinary functions, let alone adjusting to the profound changes undergone since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US stirred into action only after it realised that the rest of the world was staring at it agape, shocked at the moral ambiguity of a nation that could lavish such exorbitant sums on an unjust and illegal war yet find it difficult to make more than a token donation to the millions of victims of the flood. Only then -- and only in order to offset the potential political fallout of its indifference -- did Washington begin to raise the level of financial relief until it reached $350 million. And only then did US warships head to the shores of the afflicted countries, not, this time, to kill and destroy, as they do in Iraq, but to save and assist. This set into motion a race among the wealthy nations to win laurels for humanitarian relief efforts. Japan had already pledged $500 million. Then Germany followed suit, upping its donations, as did other European nations and some Arab oil exporting states. But no one was fooled by their motives. These nations were not intent upon stimulating a collective international relief endeavour but upon serving their own narrow political ends. The US, as usual, was keen to go it alone, independent of the UN, while German and Japanese generosity thinly veiled their campaigns to obtain permanent seats on the Security Council. Perhaps because of this many were pleasantly surprised at the frankness with which Kofi Annan reminded international leaders that the proof of the pudding resided not in the amounts they pledged but in their actually coming up with the cash, pointing out that they had failed to come through on similar pledges in the wake of the earthquake that struck the Iranian city of Bam last year. Nevertheless, in spite of the gravity of the situation, the UN secretary-general was careful not to cross any red lines, particularly vis-à-vis the US. In a situation as compelling as this, one would have hoped that Annan would have had the courage to tell the world that the international infrastructure for handling humanitarian crises had crumbled and that the world's wealthy nations, and the US in particular, were the main obstacles in the way of rebuilding these institutions on new and more solid foundations so that they could play the role expected of them in a globalised world. If the Tsunami disaster tells us anything it is that the power of a superpower, no matter how mighty, pales to insignificance against the power of nature. God has blessed mankind with an intellect which He has ordained us to use towards the betterment of man and his environment. In keeping with this divine command, mankind should work together not only to curb the evils human beings inflict upon one another by, for example, restricting the use of force in international relations, but also to confront the common peril presented by the forces of nature and to minimise potential losses. Since organising themselves into the political entities known as nation-states human beings have formulated numerous modes for limiting the use of force -- balances of power, military alliances and collective defence pacts -- in international relations. These concepts are founded upon the premise that military aggression presents the most dangerous threat to the international community, and it was on the basis of this premise and the sense that the international community had to work together to contain military aggression that the UN Charter was constructed. Unfortunately this system for collective security was never fully implemented. And now its relatively recent institutional framework is no longer feasible given the new types of threats and challenges that face the world. A report submitted by a high level UN committee formed by the secretary- general concluded that economic and social plights (which include poverty, contagious diseases and environmental deterioration) now pose the greatest risk to world peace and security. The report, which also listed armed conflict (between nations and within nations), acts of genocide and other types of mass murder, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and organised crime, focussed exclusively on the evils man perpetrates against man; it made no mention of natural disasters. To many, the recent tsunami catastrophe has driven home the need for what global think tank agencies have termed "humanitarian security". It is a notion based on the belief that the security of all human beings, regardless of their place of abode, their national or ethnic origins or their religious or ideological affiliations, has become a collective responsibility to be assumed by all political entities active in the international arena, whether governmental-based or civilian organisations. This concept represents a qualitative leap forward in the field of international relations. However, any international order capable of safeguarding humanitarian security demands an organisational framework markedly different from that established under the UN. Specifically, it will require agencies capable of intervening speedily and effectively anywhere on the planet in order to confront grave threats to human life regardless of whether they are manmade or due to natural upheavals. It will also require a new attitude, one that regards humanitarian deeds not as voluntary acts of charity but as a collective duty incumbent upon all mankind on the grounds that "humanitarian security" is in the common interest of all peoples. I have no doubt that the world's rich nations, especially those with ambitions for global or regional domination, pose the most formidable obstacle to humanitarian security. Certainly the world has sufficient resources to offset all threats and challenges. But to do so it must institute a truly democratic global order. Such a task may be feasible technically, but it would be riddled with political booby traps as long as the great powers remain bent on turning the forces of globalisation to their own narrow interests and projects for hegemony. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
