Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami

¶ … International Disaster:

The Indian Ocean 2004 Tsunami and Earthquake

The International Response to the Indian Ocean Disaster of 2004

The National Geographic has called the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Earthquake of 2004 the deadliest disaster in history. The disaster itself killed well above 200,000 individuals from over five different countries. The magnitude of the earthquake was above 9.0, and there were no ways in which to let the individuals in these five countries know what was coming. The death toll was high, the destruction even more massive. The power of the earthquake-generated tsunami rivaled that of all weapons (including nuclear devices) utilized in the Second World War. The international community thus had one of the shortest time frames to respond to the largest documented disaster in human history. With many villages destroyed or isolated, as well as less than utilizable roadways and runways for supplies to flow in, the international community found itself in a precarious position to respond. The following paragraphs will analyze how this community finally banded together to help those in need, and will place this disaster side by side with other, potentially larger and more devastating, future disasters.

First, it is important to analyze the way in which the international community responded to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. As aforementioned, the National Geographic called this an incredible disaster, stating, "The earthquake that generated the great Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 is estimated to have released the energy of 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)."

The source further states that this particular earthquake, especially given its high rating on the Richter scale, was the result of several subduction processes underneath the seabed. This meant that a plate had slid under a portion of the Earth's crust and had thereby caused a shock, which further cause the earthquake, then the tsunami. The rupture caused by this sliding, which was about 10 meters led "trillions of tons of rock, that were moved along hundreds of miles, […] to shudder with the largest magnitude earthquake…"

Though many disasters, especially in developed countries, never reach the kind of life loss seen in the aftermath of this disaster, and despite geologists' knowledge of the events taking place, there was no network of communication that could warn the people of Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, etc. that a tsunami would follow the earthquake they had all felt. Because of this, many people in these countries were taken by the surprise and entire cities, such as Aceh in Indonesia, were completely wiped out.

The international response was quick, in this case, but ineffective due to the circumstances mentioned above. There was much criticism, because of this fact, that developed countries, especially the United States and those in Western Europe, could have done much more to help. NGOs such as Direct Relief International state that they have done a lot in the past few years to ensure that the survivors of the tsunami have the proper means with which to move forwards. This website states that the Direct Relief program raised more than $13 million in cash grants, and over $40 million in medicines, supplies, and equipment, supplies which "have been deployed for tsunami relief to nearly 90 local partners in India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia."

The initiatives of this particular organization focused on seven aftermath responses, including: disease prevention, health facility construction and rehabilitation, medical and technical equipment assistance, health and medical services, psycho-social services, shelter, and water and sanitation.

While organization such as Direct Relief performed many social services and helped rebuild entire villages, as well as ensure proper sanitation procedures in various countries affected by the disaster, many state, again, that this has not been enough. According to one website, "The disaster relief that was offered just did not seem to be what others would have expected them to contribute in correspondence to the tsunami relief that the nations that were affected by the disaster had needed. The disaster relief that was offered was believed to not offer the amount of resources that they could have in order to help with the recovery. It has even been said by several sources that the United Nations did not exactly favor the disaster relief that the United States and Europe had offered, as well."

Such concerns, of others not helping as much as the can or should, are expressed in relation to other potential disasters. The NIMS framework, for instance, provides "a systematic, proactive approach guiding departments and agencies at all levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations to work seamlessly to prepare for, prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life, property, and harm to the environment."

Yet, again, could such a framework work in a less developed country where organization do not necessarily work seamlessly, nor would they have the proper equipment and response framework in place. Such a frame work is useful for the United States, yet it could not be feasible in a disaster such as that described above.

The circumstances for man-made and natural disasters, however, do dictate that such a framework must exist. Despite evidence to the contrary, the FEMA framework presented above has to be implemented, in some aspect, in every country, so as to prevent CBRNE (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) incidents from shutting a country down, for instance. Though natural disasters still pose a great threat to every nation in the world, man made disasters such as those described here, are perhaps even greater in magnitude, should they strike, and much more devastating potentially.