The earthquake and the international community
of historical proportions THE EARTHQUAKE that South Central Turkey and parts of Syria have suffered earlier in the week has temporarily moved questions of foreign policy to the bottom of the national agenda. As the immediate effects of the calamity such as saving people from underneath the rubble or constructing temporary housing in order to protect people from freezing in cold temperatures are taken care of, the world will turn to paying attention to more ordinary developments in international relations.
An interesting quality of experiencing a natural disaster is that irrespective of the state of their relations with Turkey, countries have offered assistance. For example, Turkey has received offers of help from Armenia and Greece, two countries with whom Turkey has problematical relations. The offers such assistance may be looked upon as manifestation of human solidarity that does not bear political meaning. Yet there are examples when charitable gestures have helped open the way to improved relations between countries. For example, Greek assistance during the 1999 earthquake in the Marmara region provided an opportunity for the parties to improve their relations. Whether gestures on the part of Armenia and Greece will produce outcomes that will affect the bilateral relations remains to be seen. Nevertheless, they provide the Turkish government a symbolic resource that it may use for opening the way to improved relations.
The response of the international community to the emergency has so far been gratifying. One can only hope that it may be sustained since extensive reconstruction will be needed to restore the physical structure of towns and let life return to normal. Sustenance is usually not the strong characteristic of international emergency assistance. It will be incumbent on the Turkish government to develop comprehensive programs and persuade its friends that they should continue their generosities in the aftermath of the disaster. Persuading the potential donors that the money will be spent for the right purpose is of particular importance.
In addition to providing opportunities for all countries to show that being human surpasses any political differences and feelings of enmity they possess against others, national emergencies allow the international community to observe the capabilities of national governments to cope with them. Needless to say, the scope of emergencies may differ and there may be instances in which even the most powerful countries may find themselves faced with insurmountable tasks. But, even in those cases, one may find clues about the performance of national governments in coping with a natural disaster.
What can the outside observers note about Turkey’s capabilities when looking at the way the government has proceeded in meeting effects of the horrendous earthquake? We may begin by noting that Turkish society got exceptionally high marks for rushing to the help of their compatriots. From all corners of the country, people have immediately organized to send clothing, food, medicine and other necessities to the affected areas. Some have offered their homes.
Unfortunately, such enthusiasm has not been matched by the government in directing civil society and local government initiatives toward helping the victims. Rather, the government has tried to direct these activities so as to make them appear as if it were all government help. An outside observer might easily draw two references from such behavior: that the government is continuing efforts to monopolize power and that it is desperate to increase its support in view of the forthcoming elections in the late spring.
It has also become evident that the agencies of government in charge of coping with national emergencies are far from ready in meeting their responsibilities. Two types of problems appear to plague the system. First, the major agency for dealing with national emergencies, AFAD, is run by incompetent people with no training or expertise. Apparently, the government treated the agency as another instrument to reward loyalists. Second and in part related to the first point, the organization, serving the interests of the ruling party, had squandered funds in diverse activities bearing little relation to the purpose for which they were established. Finally, it seems that there was little pre-planned coordination among government agencies that are normally involved in emergency relief. This lack of coordination was further exacerbated by the fact that the organization was highly centralized, a characteristic, when coupled with failures in communication systems, stood in the way of providing immediate response to situations where initiatives taken by local officials could have saved lives.
Finally, it is evident that construction needs to be more closely monitored to ensure that contractors observe the rules and regulations for building structures that can stand a tremor like the one we have experienced. This requires a determination that has not so far been displayed by those in power, irrespective of party affiliation.
We have to thank the international community for responding immediately and generously to Turkey’s plight and express the hope that the Turkish government will use the occasion to identify and remedy the shortcomings that have contributed to the magnitude of the disaster.