29 July 2020, NIICE Commentary 5738
Dr. Geeta
Disasters, whether it is natural or man-made severely affect economic and socio-political structure of a nation. It has decimated many civilizations in the past. Due to its unprecedented nature and large-scale impact on societies, disasters are also considered as humanitarian crisis. Historically, governments were primary responder, and plays major role in normalizing the livelihood of the effected nation. In addition to this, it also helps governments in gaining public support for establishing their regimes. Presently, along with government, other powerful state- actors and non-state actors also get involved in serving humanity across the world.
Natural disasters, a non-traditional security threat, received larger attention in iinternational politics when it started affecting domestic political stability and foreign policy strategies. Presently, disaster management institutions and its response to any humanitarian crisis including war induced conflicts, IDPs and refugee crisis that are largely controlled by national and local government as primary responsible actors. The affected state mostly decides the nature of humanitarian response. Either they choose to delay, refuse or create complications in taking help from externals; fearing it will undermine sovereignty, national interest and internal security. Thus, the humanitarian response activities are interconnected to politically motivated response.
Addressing humanitarian crisis response has drastically changed over the decades. Responses to crisis becomes more complex when international organisations like UN, Red Cross, EU, and NATO interventions started taking driving seats in different part of the world. Humanitarian organisations are predominantly apolitical and altruistic bodies which follows humanitarian ‘Response Law’ guidelines to serve ‘the purpose of protecting life, health and to ensure respect for human beings’. Their action is highly motivated to elevate human sufferings. However, till present, the activities are viewed with suspicion resultantly affected countries prohibits their involvement. The role of governments political interventions in determining policy formulations of humanitarians organisations and agencies on an affected country has been perpetually debatable. It is considerable that the regime change has a direct effect on the policies made for disaster affected people. It is notable that such organisations claim that they truly follow humanitarian principle–humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence, though, the question is if state provides enough humanitarian space?
Cases of Government Responses in South Asia
South Asia is a disaster-prone region, hence natural disasters are prevalent here. There are multiple instances of refusal by the governments of various states to accept disaster aid from neighbouring states owing to unpleasant relationships arising from historical political complexities; despite immediate requirement of relief materials for the victims. For instances – India during the initial period of response to Kashmir earthquake (2005), Tsunami (2004); Uttarakhand flood (2013), Kashmir flood (2014), and Kerala flood (2018) the then governments refused international disaster assistance including the SAARC countries, adamant to capacitate its own disaster mechanisms. The approach did not reflect the Indian governments status quo as a ‘self-reliant’ state, rather was deemed as ‘hostile state’ by international community.
The Pakistani government during the Kashmir earthquake (2005), Indus flood (2010), Pakistan-Afghanistan earthquake (2014), refused assistance from its neighbouring countries. President Musharraf invoked ‘last resort’ principle of the Oslo guidelines during the 2005 earthquake seeking NATO assistance without the consent of his federal parliament. This move sparked debate among UN agencies as well as drew criticism from the opposition parties. Therefore, it is believed that call for military assets should have been from humanitarian co-ordinators, not from political authorities. This clearly demonstrates the arbitrary nature of political authorities. The Nargis cyclone of Myanmar, in Southeast Asia (2008) is also an example of political interventions where government choose national pride over humanitarianism, when President General T. Shew refused to accept foreign aids in the country further complicating the situation.
The aftershock of 7.8 magnitudes mega earthquake that hit Nepal in 2015 was felt across the region. The international humanitarian response lent to Nepal is considered one of the biggest disaster responses of that year. The Indian government’s immediate rescue support marked a new juncture of humanitarian response in South Asia. In essence, it was an optimistic approach; the charm nonetheless soon dissipated due to unethical and irresponsible journalism that manifest a wrong image of India’s benignant initiative. Subsequently, it became ineffective. The Madheshi problem in the affected region escalated complexities and perceived India as a suspicious agent; leading to a de facto blockade in 2015. As an adverse effect of the blockade, Nepal was deprived of petroleum, medicines and other essential supplies. These unfortunate misapprehensions transmuted India-Nepal political relations creating a huge drift. The evident Nepal-India dissociation extended new diplomatic opportunities for China to manoeuvre against India by drawing Nepal closer.
It is also considerable that ‘small state concerns’ effect Nepal to a great extent. More so because of its geo-political location in the region that plays a strategic role between two great Asian powers, India and China. The anxieties are commonly manifested in its foreign policy and diplomatic practices. China got an opportunity to minimise India’s influence in South Asian region due to the humanitarian and political crisis in Nepal. It can be further argued that the geo-political security dimensions amongst neighbouring states have inter-related linkages with humanitarian responses. It can be further argued that if unprepared government does not respond in an effective and accountable manner during natural disasters, it can create major complexities in future leaving long-term impact on national, regional and international politics.
In Bangladesh during tropical cyclone Sidr (2007) and Alia (2009), both military and the elected government responded differently to the natural disaster. During this period, Bangladesh was also facing political crisis. The two cases exemplify how disasters affect foreign policy strategies and challenge the sustainability of domestic political legitimacy. Post disaster, immediate response from the elected government with relief material and empathy sans corruption is expected. Governmental failure to implement relief and rehabilitation programmes generates criticism from opposition parties and the public. Thus, natural disasters pressurize governments to be accountable during crisis situations.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a health disaster has taught us that under circumstances of unplanned emergencies, responses are related to high-level political interventions, in which inter-state and intra-state complex relations can stimulate situational conflicts. In other words, stronger powers can take an opportunity against weak states for its own political benefits. Presently, this can be learned from India-Nepal-China’s on-going border conflicts.
Conclusion
The above cases demonstrate that we have different forms of the governments worldwide; though the world is following similar humanitarian response law guidelines. Humanitarian organisations have to work under highly politicised environment in South Asia where the need is to strategically disintegrate government and humanitarian organisations response during disasters crisis. Because of this; SAARC Disaster Management Centre comes out as an ineffective body till now. It should be free from political interference, only then human sufferings can be reduced. There is a need of autonomous disaster management institutions for combating with disasters. International humanitarian bodies need to formulate separate humanitarian response law keeping in view the geographical, cultural, political and social environment of countries affected by disasters.
