Keith Suter: Out of disaster perhaps a chance for peacemaking

Opinion

The tsunami might be an act of nature but humans are complicating the relief effort. Many of the countries affected have their own internal armed conflicts, and this will hamper relief.

There is a new warfare state. International conventional warfare is uncommon and it is now rare for one country to invade another.

Countries can get far more from international trade with each other than they can from invasion. International warfare is a bad investment.

Warfare is now increasingly internal and guerrilla. There are probably as many conflicts under way today as at the height of the Cold War. But they are mostly internal, with rival ethnic groups trying to gain control of the country, or fighting to obtain independence from their central governments.

Indonesia's province of Aceh has been conducting its struggle for independence for several decades and thousands of people have died. The province has been off-limits to international human rights observers and so the true state of the conflict is difficult to gauge.

Similarly, some of the Tamils in northern Sri Lanka have sought their own independence, or at least a high degree of self-rule, from Colombo. The latest round of the Norwegian-brokered peace initiative collapsed just before Christmas.

Meanwhile, the undemocratic Burmese Government is playing down the number of deaths. It is internationally unpopular and the subject of economic sanctions. Its tally of less than 100 victims is probably untrue. But it is a closed country so it will be difficult to get at the true figure.

The tsunami took 8 1/2 hours to cross the Indian Ocean and hit Somalia in east Africa, killing at least 100 people. Somalia is the only country in the world without a government. Kenya has been trying to broker a deal and Somalia's new President is still unable to live in the national capital.

The country is a complete free market: no government, no system of security, with individuals relying on their own guns to protect themselves in the clan warfare. One of the world's poorest countries has suffered another calamity.

Delivering emergency relief is difficult at the best times. Delivering it in a situation of an armed conflict is even more difficult. Here is a checklist of the flashpoints to watch out for in today's crisis.

First, there is a temptation by governments and their opponents to try to exploit a natural disaster for their own political purposes. They may try to restrict relief aid from going to areas controlled by their opponents to help to starve them into submission.

Secondly, relief operations run by the military carry the risk that they become a ruse to conduct military operations under the guise of supposedly providing assistance. Military personnel are employed to conduct military operations. They may be deployed temporarily on relief operations but their main purpose is warfare and they will not want to miss an opportunity to continue their core business if the targets should appear.

Thirdly, there is a new danger arising out of the blurring of the traditional distinction between military personnel and relief personnel. Traditionally, both groups of personnel were separate. In recent years, however, defence forces have been encouraged to provide their equipment to assist the transfer of relief supplies.

For example, relief convoys in the new warfare state are themselves now targets for warlords and bandits. Some relief organisations have had to resort to armed guards to protect the convoys.

The problem with this new level of co-operation is that warlords have been less careful about their targeting. The experience in Chechnya, for example, showed that relief workers themselves were regarded as targets by warlords. In the previous era of international conventional warfare, relief workers may have been killed accidentally but rarely deliberately. But now some are being targeted deliberately.

Finally, there is the problem of unexploded ordnance. During the Vietnam War three decades ago, I noticed that the downpour of monsoonal rains meant that previously "cleared" areas ran the risk of landmines and other unexploded ordnance being moved from one rice field to another. It remains to be seen how the tsunami may have shifted unexploded ordnance from one area to another. All of the conflicts in the countries affected by the tsunami have seen the use of landmines.

Are there any good developments to watch out for? One might be the scope for earthquake diplomacy. Some years ago, Greece provided assistance to its traditional rival Turkey when it suffered an earthquake. This helped to improve relations between the countries.

There is a hope that opposing sides to an internal conflict may be drawn together to deal with the common problem of the tsunami. Having then seen how much they can gain from co-operation, this may provide an opportunity for a new level of political progress.

All the conflicts in the area affected by the tsunami are long-term and intractable. The tsunami could then be a circuit-breaker and so provide a new opportunity for peace-building.

* Keith Suter is the president of the Sydney chapter of the Society for International Development.