It is unnecessary to write of the horrific damage to life, housing and infrastructure caused by the Boxing day tsunami as it has received blanket coverage in the mass media for more than two weeks. The media coverage has been a response to 1. the enormity of the event; 2. that it effected many countries; 3. that it was a natural disaster rather than man made; 4. and a large number of the casualties amongst holiday makers were from western nations. The generous response of citizens around the world in contributing aid and assistance has been remarkable and in many cases they have shamed their less than generous governments. Some have disputed that the event was natural but since much of the topography of the earth has been formed by the movement of tectonic plates it seems by far and away the most likely cause. (Bill Bryson in his A Short History of Nearly Everything noted that without tectonic plates the earth would be uniformly covered with water 1 m deep) One interesting, but exceedingly tenuous, case has been made in the letter columns of the Age(30/12) that the earthquake, and the following tsunami, was the result of global warming - a phenomenon widely believed to be caused by human activity. The line of argument ran thus: (1) global warming has reduced the amounts of ice in parts of the Antarctic redistributing the load in the planet´s crust (2) that this caused an earthquake near MacQuarie Island on the 24/12 which in turn (3) caused the North Sumatra earthquake on the same tectonic plate boundary. As far as I am aware there is no statistical evidence available to support any of these statements individually, or the causal links between them. On the other hand there is a certain logic to the argument. With statement number (1) I believe the evidence at the moment supports a redistribution of ice in Antarctica, rather than a diminution, but it sounds feasible that if the weight shifted then the equilibrium of the tectonic plate might well be upset. Another even less likely claim, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, is that the earthquake was caused by nuclear testing. On the other hand it has been stated with some certainty that the places where mangroves had not been cleared were less affected by the waves. It is these same locations that were badly effected by the tsunami that are thought most vulnerable to the effects of global warming. Man has lived on and by the oceans since time immemorial but slowly rising sea levels caused by global warming will eventually cause further damage to coastal facilities in storm surges and flooding and make much of this area, such as the Maldives, uninhabitable. It has also been suggested that a warning may have been given if the once popular Radio Australia had still been functioning.
The destruction caused by the tsunami invites a comparison with the Iraq war. Firstly the latter disaster has been caused by man, and in particular a small number of powerful men (with one exception) in the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. It was commenced, and is still prosecuted, only with the assistance of a compliant and obsequious media. On the role of the media I have written elsewhere: "But similar unhindered reporting would surely have prevented the Iraq war from occurring and from this we may conclude that the ´free press´ is not really free. It can examine every nook and cranny of a natural disaster in repetitious detail but ignore, or cover lightly, the man made disaster of the Iraq war. Now in Iraq journalists have been unable or unwilling to freely report on the death and suffering of civilians there either because of danger to their person, or because their organisations would ignore or censor their stories anyway."
Secondly the damage caused by both events is similar, especially if the results of the two Iraq wars and the intervening sanction/blockade are included. The death tolls are similar and the demolished infrastructure of many towns, but especially Falluja, is comparable. The continuing problems including the treating the wounded, the opening up communications, the supplying of food and water to displaced persons and the endeavour to re-establish facilities are all comparable. But in Iraq where the war is entering its third year the water supply for many is inadequate, sewage disposal fails to function in many places and consequently disease is rife where the latter fails. Communications, like electricity supply, are haphazard and motorists have to queue for a day to fill their tanks with fuel in the second most oil-rich nation on earth. The US government has so far only spent $US 2 billion of a budgeted $US 18 billion in reconstruction primarily because it is not safe for any of these programs to be carried out.
Thirdly the response of governments to the tsunami has been miserly and tardy. The US response has been to offer $US10 m, then $US 35 m and finally $US 350 m. It will spend $US 40 m on Bush's inauguration ceremony. Its final offer is the equivalent of one and a half days expenses in the Iraq war. The promises of governments may also be treated with some cynicism and careful scrutiny. In some previous natural disasters, such as the Bam earthquake in Iran the year before, aid promised by the US has as yet to materialise. One wonders also how much of the aid is inclusive of wages and costs of the various groups of the armed forces? Employment of locals at a fraction of the cost and where it is most necessary to help restore damaged and destroyed infrastructure is surely the best way to go - at least where circumstances permit. As an aside the morale of the 1400 US troops diverted from the Iraq war to help in Aceh has risen considerably.
Jonathan Schell (Nation 9/1) compares the effects of nuclear war and the tsunami. Although comparable with the latter there is no radioactivity, poisoning or pollution of this kind. A tsunami probably has more survivors and less injured. The casualties would be equally devastating depending on the number of weapons deployed and their targets. This illustrates the absolute madness of pouring billions into weapons of such ultimate destruction that has been going on for more than 50 years. Schell concludes that it is our task to protect mankind from natural disasters not kill them with man made ones. I heartedly concur.