The effects of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita will be felt long after New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast are restored to their former conditions.
The suffering of victims will surely linger, reconstruction costs will be felt for years and, as is the aftermath of all disasters whether man-made or natural, the government will enact long-term legislation -- and pour in billions of dollar -- aimed at deterring similar catastrophes in the future.
In our efforts to improve what has been, by all admissions, an "inexcusable" disaster response capacity, we Americans would be wise to reexamine our foreign policy agenda as well. For as complacent and unprepared as we have been nationally for natural disasters of this magnitude, the domestic front only tells half the story. U.S. policy on global warming, our over-reliance on unilateral action and our porous commitment towards combating international poverty will all play significant roles in our efforts to avert another Katrina.
One of the main criticisms lobbed at the Bush Administration since Katrina made landfall along the Gulf Coast has been that the President's myopic stance on global warming has come home to roost.
As noted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under President Bush's watch the average temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean have steadily increased every year since 2000. These higher ocean temperatures, which are the result of increased carbon dioxide in the air, are engine fuel for hurricanes. As storms move along the ocean's surface their vortex rotation feeds off of the evaporating water, in essence becoming a self-perpetuating whirlwind. Thus, as the atmosphere becomes warmer, the ocean also becomes warmer. This means that hurricanes like Katrina and Rita are more likely to pick up speed and ferocity.
Thus, the implication follows that climate change was responsible for exacerbating these storms and that the Bush Administration is responsible for exacerbating climate change. However, such charges are too over-simplistic to be considered scientifically accurate. Nevertheless, the connection between higher temperatures and more intense storms is sound enough to call on the President to rethink his stance on global warming. In the end, if it is inevitable that America err in its stance on the environment, it must err on the side of caution.
Rewriting our country's approach to global environmental policy is only the start of preventing another natural catastrophe. America must also incorporate a more drastically multilateral approach to its foreign policy in order to free up the institutions and resources needed for disaster response and prevention.
Much has been made of the fact that America's over-extension in the Middle East has left us dangerously over-exposed at home, and rightfully so. The Bush Administration was forced to divert millions in hurricane and flood funds in order to finance operations in Iraq and meet the budgetary needs of the Homeland Security department. Between 2001 and 2005, federal flood control spending for southeastern Louisiana was chopped from $69 to $36.5 million.
Likewise, National Guard numbers had taken a severe toll due to overuse and over-deployment abroad, and consequently were not as effective as they could have been in responding to the looting and chaos.
Where Rita is concerned, the Guard is suffering from a lack of effective radio equipment due to its use overseas, creating communication difficulties for our troops on U.S. soil.
In the future, the government must find ways to share more of the costs and burdens with its allies. America must have the resources and capacity to respond effectively to disasters both abroad and at home.
Finally, the United States of America must rethink and restructure its relationship with developing nations if it is to avert another tragedy on the scale of Katrina. A disproportionate amount of the victims of natural disasters -- whether of tsunamis in Southeast Asia, of droughts in central Africa or of hurricanes along the Gulf Coast -- are poor and underprivileged. As government officials from both sides of the aisle now contest, those in poverty must be given the resources, health and education to survive and prepare for future calamities.
Unfortunately at a time when America should be creating a more farsighted policy on global warming, working with others to share its foreign policy burdens, and standing by its historical commitment towards economic development, the Bush Administration is taking steps backwards.
This past September, John Bolton, the new United States Ambassador to the United Nations, launched a campaign to remove all reference to global warming and the Millennium Development Goals from the U.N. Summit Outcome Document. Bolton's hatchet work to the document, which is to serve as a blueprint for bringing the United Nations up to standard for the twenty-first century, resulted in tepid commitments to global economic development and environmental stewardship. Equally significant, the United States once again found itself alienating others because of its incessant obfuscation.
The legacy of these hurricanes must be more than a simple restructuring of our nation's disaster response capacity. Americans must come to the realization that in today's interconnected world the U.S. is not alone in its efforts to solve global problems.
More than 100 countries came to our aid in the wake of Katrinas. These nations include many that had little to spare, such as Sri Lanka, only months removed from its own terrible disaster. In response, America must show a renewed commitment towards working with these countries, toward fighting global warming and toward alleviating global poverty. Most importantly, we must look not only at what went wrong in the past, but what is needed to prevent catastrophes in the future.
