Archives
Questions &Answers
Claude E. Welch Jr. is SUNY Distinguished Service Professor and director of the Program in International and Comparative Law in the Department of Political Science, College of Arts and Sciences.
I understand you were in India during the tsunami. What was that
like?
My wife, Jeannette Ludwig (associate professor, Department
of Romance Languages and Literatures), and I were in India over break,
doing research on Dalits ("Untouchables"). Following lunch on Dec. 26,
we walked up to the breakwater in Fort Cochin, where hundreds of people,
perhaps a thousand or more, were gathered, looking out to sea. At a
self-styled "tourist information center," we learned of the tsunami,
where one person even showed us the video he had taken of the
wave—probably not much more than a meter high there, but
sufficiently strong to wreck some of the famed fishing nets and drown a
few hundred people elsewhere on the west coast. We had left Chennai just
24 hours before the massive wave hit there. The hotel where we stayed
suffered damage to its basement restaurant. When we returned to the east
coast, we saw many temporary refugee camps: people were frightened, not
wishing to return to their coastal villages lest another tsunami strike.
The damage—physical, psychological—was enormous.
India did not seek international assistance after the tsunami hit.
Why was that?
India has a long, proud tradition of
self-sufficiency. Perhaps it draws from Gandhi's emphasis on weaving
one's own cloth, rather than using imports, or the major role the state
took in economic planning and industrial development for the initial
decades of independence. More important, India is a very large country
with multiple resources (technological, administrative and
organizational, medical). Tamil Nadu and, to a much less extent, Kerala
were essentially the only of India's 28 states, plus the Andaman and
Nicobar islands, to be affected. Proportionally, the scope of damage was
far, far below that sustained in Banda Aceh (the westernmost part of
Indonesia) and Sri Lanka.
What is the role of the United Nations in events such as the
tsunami? Where do national and international NGOs fit in?
The UN
has several specialized agencies with long experience, notably the High
Commission for Refugees, the World Health Organization, the UN
Development Program or the International Migration Organization. Some
degree of cooperation has emerged between them and NGOs. All efforts
have been hampered, however, by bureaucratic turf battles, by price wars
(international reporters for a while cornered helicopters in
tsunami-ravaged areas, slowing the flow of food and medicine) and the
like.
Is it imperative to have an organization such as the UN coordinate
relief efforts in cases like the tsunami that have such far-reaching,
global implications?
With a disaster of this magnitude, an
immense variety of groups want to "get into the act." Aid givers,
whether governments or organizations, will trip over themselves, often
sending the wrong sorts of aid or not directing it to places of greatest
need. However, coordination is voluntary and must be guided by local
efforts and knowledge to obtain maximum efficiency.
How well do you think the UN has handled tsunami-relief efforts?
Together with other donors—be they governments or private
organizations outside India—the UN must depend on local efforts and
knowledge to serve the neediest best, as I just noted. It's too early to
tell about the overall effectiveness of the UN's efforts, but recall
that three steps—relief, recovery and reconstruction—follow in
sequence. The task is not one of months, but of years. Indeed, special
assistance will be needed for perhaps a decade, given the scale of the
disaster and the political issues involved in such areas as Banda Aceh
and parts of Sri Lanka, where significant insurgencies have raged for
several years.
What is the significance of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan naming
Bill Clinton his special envoy for tsunami-affected countries?
Obviously, the former president is a man of great energy, political
dexterity and good will. If he stays with the task over the long haul,
he will be able to raise awareness and funds for needed long-term
reconstruction projects. Clinton brings quick international recognition
and may be able to jawbone public and private sources for additional
assistance. On the other hand, his relationships with Jan Egeland, the
UN's chief coordinator, remain to be worked out clearly.
What have we learned from this disaster?
First, the need
to use global positioning system (GPS) and other warning systems similar
to those around the Pacific (for example, simple sirens mounted in
village squares) to alert communities around the Indian Ocean of
impending danger. Second, the continued importance of fundamental
research on plate tectonics, in which we at UB, through our globally
recognized earthquake center, play a basic role. Third, recognition that
private support by Americans for tsunami relief has been major: people
abroad hear only about government contributions, but little or nothing
about the outpouring of other funds coming from individuals and through
charitable and religious groups. Fourth, and specifically for the U.S.
government, the need for us to be much more sensitive in offering aid:
to have started with a ridiculously low figure of $15 million meant an
immense amount of bad publicity that our subsequent government
generosity—up to $950 million may be allocated—cannot
overcome. Finally, the importance of adding to our store of knowledge
about ready response and using local knowledge at first, as people move
through relief toward recovery and reconstruction.
What question do you wish I had asked, and how would you have
answered it?
How was aid distributed to affected communities?
Unfortunately, numerous examples exist of long-standing discrimination
against the Dalits in India, meaning their communities came last, or
certainly very low, in the allocation of assistance. Caste
discrimination represents a fundamental human rights issue that India
must address seriously. Dalits have tried to deal with this in
collective and individual ways (e.g., religious conversion, movement to
cities), but habits of thought established over thousands of years
cannot be rapidly changed.