Hope Amid the Ruins by Fareed Zakaria

January 10, 2005 U.S. Edition

Hope Amid the Ruins
Many people here live on less than $2 a day. This is the war Asia is waging
By Fareed Zakaria

In poor countries, natural disasters are not earth-shattering news. It's not that people there don't value life deeply. But they have accustomed themselves to tragedy, and to facing tragedy with limited media attention, cash-strapped governments, few local charities and almost no insurance. But traveling in India last week I was struck by how different it is this time. The interest, attention and coverage of the tsunami have been all-consuming. The scale of this calamity has shocked even those who are hard to shock.

Thank goodness President Bush has now said the right things and promised that the United States would lead in the relief efforts. Whatever the reasons for his early silence and the initial offers of paltry aid, they were received here as part of the Bush administration's general arrogance. "They don't care about what the world says or what happens here," an Indian businessman said to me. A couple of newspapers have pointed out that the number who died on one day last week dwarfed the number who died on September 11, 2001.

Now there are many possible responses. The United States actually has a defensible record on disaster relief (as opposed to aid for development). And an earthquake or tidal wave is quite different from a terror attack and ongoing threat from a global network. But I hope the Bush administration rises above these arguments and recognizes it has a great opportunity here.

The United States may be consumed by the war on terror, but development is Asia's daily fight. The tsunami hits it at this very basic level‹nature striking in places that cannot just rebuild and rebound. (U.S. federal aid to Florida last year for its comparatively minor hurricanes totaled $13 billion.) In local media, the tragedy is being reported entirely through this lens. Will the demands of relief and recovery overwhelm governments? Will a public-health crisis erupt? Can the hundreds of thousands of homeless rebuild? In other words, how does this crisis affect the effort to move people out of poverty and disease, which is the ever-present task of most governments in the region?

For its first term the Bush administration has been somewhat blind to this reality. I remember touring Asia right after Bush had attended an economic summit of Asian and Pacific states in 2003. I was struck by how his entire focus was on the threat of terrorism to the region, post 9/11‹and how completely he misread his audience.

Take the three countries most strongly affected by the tsunami: Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India. It's not that they don't understand the problem of terrorism. They have all dealt with it for decades. It's not that they don't have big political problems. They do. In fact, interestingly, the tsunami's greatest impact has been in three areas that have had secessionist movements against their countries: Aceh in Indonesia, the eastern parts of Sri Lanka and (a much smaller force) in Tamil Nadu in India.

This is not, however, the big picture for these countries. The big picture is that large numbers of people here still live on less than $2 a day, that infant mortality and malnutrition are still at unconscionably high levels, that for large parts of the population, life is not that different than it was 200 years ago. This is the big picture. This is the war they are waging.

And it is a big opportunity for President Bush. Even before the tsunami, most governments in the region had been trying to do something about these enormous difficulties, and had rid themselves of old dogmas—socialism, protectionism—that were crippling their chances. A practical attitude of problem-solving pervades Asia these days, and that makes it possible to look at these dismal conditions and believe that they can be overcome.

They could also use this tragedy to bring themselves closer. Asian countries have few sturdy mechanisms for joint action, compared with Europe and North America, with their alphabet soup of transnational institutions from the EU to NATO to the OSCE. This is not ideal for a continent filled with rising economic powers that have historical animosities and border disputes. Last week's events could be a spur toward greater regional cooperation. The United States, and all outside countries, should try to encourage aid through coordinated action both by donors and recipients, not least because it will make relief efforts more effective.

Washington will end up spending a great deal of money—billions, says Colin Powell—and making huge efforts. It should spend the money, make the efforts, but it should also recognize how to frame its involvement. Instead of squabbling with international organizations, disputing statistics and being dragged to the table, it should use this terrible tragedy as a way to signal to an ever-more important part of the world that it understands what's going on here. If it can let countries know that on the challenge that obsesses them, the U.S. is fully engaged, perhaps they will be more likely to return the favor.