In the wake of the Asian tsunami, a recent letter to the SMH expressed a viewpoint quite the opposite of the wave of self-congratulatory backslapping and references to Aussie generosity perpetuated in the mainstream media by figures such as Ray Martin. To paraphrase the letter, Had the tsunami struck the USA or Australia, the response of the Islamic world would have been that it was an act of divine retribution for the infidels' crimes in Iraq. Instead, the response of the Christian West will be, "How can we help?" The writer proceeded to question the necessity of providing aid to - such as, I suppose, Indonesia and Malaysia - with whom we have enjoyed somewhat acrimonious relations in the past, nations some of whose nationals have conducted terrorist attacks on Australian citizens, and who we will perhaps come to blows with in the future. Why must we reach into our pockets to help those who are possibly unlikely to have helped us if the situation was reversed? Though unfeeling at best, and terribly cruel at worst, this makes at least some practical sense at first, and is perhaps particularly attractive to those more hawkish and intolerant members of our society. But further thought shows why such a policy is not just brutal but terribly short-sighted and ignorant, and why the charitable course of action we have adopted needs not reversing, but continuing and maybe even expanding.
To begin with, the position is founded on a number of mistaken assumptions. The first is that the entire Islamic world is comprised of unflinching religious fundamentalists. As always, the actions of the fanatical few distort external perceptions of the moderate many. The vast majority of Islamic people - like the adherents of any religion - are, I suspect, more concerned with their everyday wellbeing than with religious activities. If not - even if they are more religiously motivated than citizens of Western countries, it would be a mistake to assume that this translates into different perspectives on the world. Although I am obviously no student of Islamic law, Muslim precepts of charity and hospitality (such as the notion of offering your house to any stranger) appear to be at least as generous as those in the Christian creed. The suggestion that Islam is basically a hateful or vengeful religion, lacking in sympathy and keen for Allah-given victories, where Christianity is a caring and benevolent faith, is the second false assumption the letter-writer makes. Finally, he fails to consider the disparity between the economic conditions of the West and the Islamic world. Although some of the oil-producing nations of the Middle East are now undoubtedly wealthy, assuming that the historic lack of aid coming into Australia from Islamic nations can be attributed to their desire to deny assistance to 'the infidels' is ignoring the fact that on the whole, we are rich and they are poor. Had the tsunami struck Australia, countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia could not have afforded to donate large amounts of aid because they simply don't have the cash reserves to do so. It is also difficult to see how the writer could have made this suggestion considering Australia hasn't been affected by a major natural disaster event in some time (assuming the effects of drought, a less obvious and longer-term disaster, are ignored), so the proposed reactions of these countries are nothing more than speculation without a real historical precedent.
Whatever the mitigating factors, however, the fact remains that these nations would probably not have assisted us had the situation been reversed. Why, then, should we help them, and to such extent? Why shouldn't we just keep the Federal aid or the great amounts raised by the public for ourselves, to be spent in critical areas such as our education system, or our crisis-ridden hospitals? As I see it, there is both a moral 'intrinsic' motivation and more practical 'extrinsic' factors.
The intrinsic argument for donation is that we should not allow real-world political situations to override our moral precepts. To refuse aid to entire countries because they cannot afford to reciprocate, or because historically their leaders have been less than friendly towards us, or because certain tiny minorities from these countries have seen fit to ignore their own religion in conducting terrorist attacks on our citizens, is a corruption of our values which casts us unambiguously from whatever moral high ground we might pretend to occupy. As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." It is similar to the current developments in law enforcement. Although it might be more practical to allow intelligence agencies unrestricted surveillance and interrogation powers in their fight against terrorism, society has rejected these for fear that their provision and implementation will encroach inexorably on our own civil liberties, ultimately making us no better than the totalitarian, Husseinesque dictatorships we are seeking to topple. It's not about guaranteeing the rights of terrorists, just as in the intrinsic argument donation is not about ensuring the livelihood of possible enemies - it's about maintaining our own morality despite baser concerns. Failure to assist other countries in their time of need will compromise our moral identity and ability to retain respect on the world stage.
Even were there no ethical compulsion to give aid to the afflicted countries, the 'extrinsic' reasons for donation justify it as a beneficial course of action in more practical terms. Giving substantial monetary aid will help firstly to raise living standards in the region, and secondly to improve Australia's regional image. Thankfully, this aid has materialised in the form of John Howard's billion-dollar, five-year commitment to Aceh and the more than $150 million (AU) of immediate private and corporate donations. Such a decent commitment is likely to pressure the USA, Japan and other rich nations into boosting their contributions also. The United Nations recently reported it has received at least 75% of the $977 million (US) it requested for relief efforts. This influx of cash cannot bring back the thousands of victims but it is a major step towards guaranteeing the restoration of civilisation in the affected regions, rebuilding their infrastructure and thus enabling the revival of local economies. If such aid is denied, the people are likely to find themselves in a rut from which violence may be seen as the only escape. See things from an Acehnese's point of view: everything you own is destroyed, through no fault of your own. Your neighbour country, Australia, is undoubtedly rich but refuses to give substantive help. With no town left, there is nowhere to work. You cannot feed yourself or what is left of your family. Your family and the community at large disintegrate. You rightfully feel angry, and where will this anger be directed? The wealthy but greedy nation who didn't come to your aid, and who is thus seen as the cause of the present situation.
In general, increased economic prosperity raises educational standards within the community and replaces bitterness at one's poverty with contentment at one's comfort. As one prominent author wrote, "Prosperity is the handmaiden of peace, and the assassin of discontent". Where the people are happy with their lives, firebrand religious leaders have much less ability to stir up hatred and discontent. Already it is evident that the richer Arab states - the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar - are less fundamentalist, have more open access to the media and do not generate terrorist activity in the same way as poorer peoples like the Palestinians or Indonesians. In suggesting that most Muslims would have ascribed a hypothetical tsunami affecting Australia to an act of Allah against the infidels, the writer forgets that the Christian world would once have done the same. In medieval times - during the Crusades - religious fundamentalism prevailed in Europe, and the hand of the Almighty was seen in everything. Unsurprisingly enough, feudalism meant that the common citizen during this time was both extremely poor and completely illiterate. As the West has become more industrialised and richer, the standard of living has increased, the influence of religion has generally decreased (particularly as a driving force in political and military decision-making) and better education means we no longer point to the will of God as the explanation for everything. If we can start the devastated regions on the path to economic prosperity, rather than abandoning them to languish in poverty, we will likely save ourselves a great deal of pain in the long term.
Apart from attempting to induce sufficient prosperity in these regions to prevent them carrying out terrorist acts - undoubtedly a lengthy undertaking - donating aid helps to improve Australia's image within the region in the short term. Perhaps a key reason for the hostility of past leaders of southeast Asian countries, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, is a perception of Australia as a decadent nation more committed to Europe and the USA than the future of Asia and the South Pacific. Australia's history of racist immigration policies exaggerate these racial tensions and cement a Eurocentric image. A recent propensity for conducting forceful military operations in locations such as East Timor and the Solomon Islands is also unlikely to help, whether or not these deployments were justified. Australia has often been confronted with challenging situations necessitating such intervention by the presence of corrupt leaders such as President Suharto, who embezzled billions from Indonesia's coffers during his 25-year ascendancy. However, Indonesia's new President Yudhoyono is the country's first democratically-elected leader in history. He appears quite pro-Australian, having a son studying in Western Australia, and thus presents a fairly unprecedented opportunity for co-operation between the two countries. A sensible, peaceful policy from the Federal Government now can heal many old wounds; unnecessary belligerence such as an inadequate aid contribution will ensure nothing more than another era of hostility which will damage both sides.
Removing the forces of terrorism and religious fundamentalism from our world, or at least the region, is certain to be a long and arduous task in any case, but one which will be impossible if we attempt to eradicate it by applying military force or intruding where we are not wanted. Eliminating access to weapons or other instruments of terror is an infeasible task - what is possible is removing the motivation for people to conduct attacks on Australia, by assisting the poor of southeast Asia to rebuild and develop more productive economies so that they do not feel oppressed or forgotten, and so that they do not perceive us as a misplaced colony of the Western hemisphere who cares little for the plight of Asia. The next few years are likely to be a critical juncture in Australia's foreign relations with our own backyard - and perhaps this alone justified the re-election of the Federal Government in October. Let us hope John Howard is up to the task.
