Siting conflict and peace in post-tsunami Sri Lanka and Aceh, Indonesia

Abstract

The article aims to analyse two policy narratives that were politicised in the context of post-tsunami response in Eastern Sri Lanka and Aceh, Indonesia. These areas had been affected by war for several decades before the tsunami hit. The first narrative of public safety saw government imposition of post-tsunami buffer zones, ostensibly as measures to protect those affected, but they also incited tensions in both locations. The second relates to post-tsunami aid distribution. Developing policies and implementing bodies for tsunami aid has proven highly contentious, but uniquely so in each location. Whereas the tsunami in Sri Lanka has been followed by renewed fighting and the end of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement, the province of Aceh enjoys the fruits of the 2005 peace agreement that has created greater autonomy from central government and greater access to resources than ever before. Each conflict has historically and geopolitically distinct antecedents, resulting in very different post-disaster policy contexts and political challenges on the ground.

Keywords:

• Aceh
• aid
• conflict
• Sri Lanka
• tsunami

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for funding the research. Thanks are also due to Piers Blaikie for his insights and suggestions for improving this manuscript. Thanks are also due to Ragnhild Lund for the encouragement to write this paper, and to Sunil Bastian, Eva-Lotta Hedman and Mala de Alwis for their comments on earlier drafts. I owe much gratitude to Arno Waizenegger, who was a remarkable research assistant in Aceh in 2007 and 2008.

Notes

1. Interviews in Aceh were interpreted with assistance from Arno Waizenegger. The project, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), aimed to trace the different responses by aid agencies to the tsunami.

2. The entire length of the Sri Lankan coastline was affected. The World Bank estimated that 40% of damage was along the east coast, 30% along the southern coast, 20% in the north (another region seriously affected by conflict), and 10% along the west coast.

3. I thank Sunil Bastian for his astute observation on this point.