Depoliticising Disasters is a Disaster: The (Dis)Allowance of “Disrupting the Functioning of a Community or a Society”

[Fia Hamid-Walker is a PhD candidate in disaster jurisprudence and postcolonial theory at Melbourne Law School and human rights lawyer]

Disaster means a calamitous event or series of events resulting in widespread loss of life, great human suffering and distress, mass displacement, or large-scale material or environmental damage, thereby seriously disrupting the functioning of society

Article 3(b) of the Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters

Introduction

December 2024 marked the 20th anniversary of the devastating Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004. This disaster prompted significant international and regional solidarity regarding responses to future calamities. It reignited the challenging political negotiations at the International Law Commission’s office concerning the importance of the Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters as an international treaty. The 2004 tsunami also spurred the idea of implementing a tsunami early warning system in vulnerable areas, which has since become more of a technocratic issue than an issue of human protection. The way we perceive a calamity influences our response to it and, most importantly, how international law views such events, as it seeks an authority to mobilise a multilateral humanitarian response. Focusing on past disaster events in Indonesia and how the government reacted to them, this article demonstrates the limit of the “universally” accepted definition of disaster that may hinder the effort of disaster prevention.  

The Unnaturalness of the “Natural” Disaster

Many of us quickly categorize earthquakes and tsunamis as “natural” disasters. In comparison to the annual forest fires, people swiftly engage in the blame game regarding responsibility.  The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a recent and clear illustration of why separating natural and human-made causes is unproductive when assessing whether an event qualifies as a disaster. Throughout the pandemic, various conspiracy theories arose to (un)justify its natural origins. Amid the ongoing dis/misinformation, the most well-regarded law database in Indonesia, HukumOnline documented at least 13 civil claims in Indonesia brought by employees against their employers between 2020 and 2022. These claims all pertained to compensation related to industrial relations stemming from Presidential Decree No. 11/2019 on the Public Health Emergency Declaration.

In these 13 civil claims cases, companies cited Article 1(1) of the Disaster Management Act (UUPB) as one of the defences to evade paying compensation or salaries to employees. The courts supported their claims. Of the 13 civil claims, 11 were dismissed by District Courts, one case was partially accepted, and only one was entirely upheld. The Presidential Decree and the central government’s response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic received substantial criticism from legal scholars and human rights advocates in Indonesia, who viewed it as a temporary fix that disregarded other legislation possibly conflicting with the government’s reactive measures. Article 1(1) UUPB incorporates the definition of “disaster” from the Sendai Framework 2015-2030, which characterises it as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society.” While the Sendai Framework does not clearly define.

While it can be argued that natural hazards lead to tsunamis, pandemics, and forest fires, the legal and political responses from the international community to assist the affected governments are not. These disasters reveal the existing inequalities in the society where they occur. Consequently, describing disaster merely as a significant event that “disrupts the functioning of a community or society” is somewhat misleading. This current definition is rooted in a particular epistemology that UUPB has uncritically accepted, thereby allowing systemic injustices to persist. The prevailing notion suggests that disasters should be managed in a way that prevents disruption to this injustice, thereby enabling business as usual. In a sense, disaster management, as it’s understood today, focuses on maintaining injustices during disasters rather than addressing them.

Disruption of the Functioning of a Community or a Society

A community or society may operate within a culture of normalised injustice and impunity, but this does not necessarily indicate it is a just society. The functioning of society may have already been disrupted prior to the 2004 tsunami or the 2016 forest fire. For instance, the armed conflict between the Indonesian government and GAM in Aceh, as well as the destruction of indigenous livelihoods and knowledge in Kalimantan, do not demonstrate that they have normal societal functioning before such disaster events. These calamitous occurrences highlight the socially catastrophic consequences of depoliticising disasters when we reduce the culture of impunity to a mere humanitarian issue. The complainants in those 13 industrial relations cases exposed the injustices within Indonesia’s industrial relations system and the exploitation of workers prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses are allowed to conceal their responsibilities under UUPB and find justification in the legal system. A peace deal was reached between the Indonesian government and GAM after the 2004 tsunami. The ongoing transboundary haze and forest fires indicate that we must view disasters as political consequences for those in power. There are disasters caused or permitted by those in power—whether our government or the international community—and there are disasters that must be prevented. Ultimately, it revolves around a single narrative: the (dis)allowance of “disrupting the functioning of a community or a society.” 

UUPB stands out as one of ASEAN’s most extensive disaster management laws. Enacted in response to the Aceh tsunami, it includes vital provisions for disaster risk reduction, such as early warning systems, emergency response planning, and resilience-building initiatives to mitigate the effects of both natural and human-induced hazards. Nevertheless, UUPB is also among the most challenging laws to apply, carrying numerous implementation issues. The Community Legal Aid of Jakarta has pinpointed at least seven significant challenges related to UUPB. First, the government often attributes disaster events caused by natural hazards, such as flooding, primarily to natural causes. Second, there is a consistent passing of responsibility in disaster management responsibilities between the central and the regional governments. Both levels must improve coordination to ensure flood disaster management is more effective than deflecting accountability. Third, the River Management Strategic Agenda in big cities such as Jakarta is frequently misapplied, relying heavily on concrete constructions that can displace vulnerable communities. Fourth, there is a noticeable lack of dedication to prevention and recovery initiatives. Fifth, no assessment of development policies’ impacts leads to misalignment with environmental capacities. Sixth, government interventions are mainly focused on technical elements, as they function primarily as reactive “firefighters,” limiting their efforts to emergency response. Finally, there is very little involvement from the community across various sectors.

It should be noted that the Indonesian government is inundated with disaster management responsibilities. However, the country’s lack of resources, internal coordination, and finances hinders its ability to prepare for impending calamities. Even 20 years after the Indian Ocean tsunami, Indonesia still lacks an effective early warning system for tsunamis despite an extensive international campaign to assist them in establishing one.

Disaster is Political 

Viewing a disaster through a political lens encourages us to critically mitigate its risks to prevent future disasters, regardless of whether they will disrupt society’s normal functioning, especially when international law has defined a disaster in political terms that need a political response. A society with a normalised culture of impunity sometimes requires disruption, but this is not how international disaster law currently interprets it.  

Photo attribution: “The Burning of Rome” by J. M. W. Turner is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0