Editorial: US deserves praise for aid response

There were unedifying moments in the lead-up to this week's tsunami summit in Jakarta as some of the world's richest nations scrambled to outdo each others' aid pledges. Hearteningly, however, this spectacle did not spill over into the conference, which delivered a resounding unity and commitment.

Most significantly, the United States, a nation not accustomed to acquiescing to international opinion, ceded the lead role in relief co-ordination to the United Nations. President George W. Bush's "core group" of countries, established for that very purpose, was quietly dissolved, doubtless to the chagrin of Australia's John Howard, a man who arrived in Jakarta bristling with money and a desire to sidestep the world body.

Cynics claimed America's change of heart owed more to prudence than principle. The White House, fearful that such a mammoth relief effort might break down, no longer wished to be identified as its leader. But such comments are churlish. They overlook the size of the US commitment to date. And they disregard the fact that the core group had served its purpose, and that the US decision was precisely the right one.

In the aftermath of the tsunami, the immediate priority was to deliver desperately needed food, water and medicine to the worst-affected areas. America's arsenal of helicopters and other military hardware achieved that.

Now, the emphasis is turning to a more methodical distribution of the aid that is pouring into Indonesia and Sri Lanka. This is far more an area of UN experience.
It seems, in fact, that the Jakarta consensus arrived just in time. In Aceh, tension was building between the US military and UN officials, who want to use American equipment in a more structured way. The agreement on UN hegemony should sponsor co-operation. But with leadership will come considerable challenge.

The UN's reputation suffered when it was sidelined by the Bush Administration over Iraq. Its record in co-ordinating relief operations is also far from unblemished. This is a major test of its substance and sway.

Often, UN efforts have been hampered by the failure of pledges to materialise. As the images of a disaster fade, so does donor interest. Aid agencies cite a long list of tragedies where as little as a third of promised money turned up. Much of what did arrive was funding originally destined for other crises.

The UN must pressure Governments to ensure that does not happen this time, and that pledges materialise quickly. The enormity of this disaster gives the leverage to achieve that, as does worldwide public interest in, and recognition of, the vast reconstruction task.

Prime Minister Helen Clark has acknowledged that the recovery process must be regarded as a long-term proposition. She also strongly backed the UN's role as co-ordinator of the international response. Yet despite this rectitude, and a doubling of the country's aid package, there is a sense that New Zealand remains a tad out of step with world sentiment. The Prime Minister continues to ponder a national day of mourning; Australia and many other countries have already declared one.

Further pondering is unnecessary. The enormity of this disaster has prompted a dramatic switch in US policy. The international reaction has been unprecedented. New Zealand must surely align itself fully with that response.