Order Code RL32715
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami:
Humanitarian Assistance and Relief Operations
Updated February 10, 2005
Rhoda Margesson, Coordinator
Foreign Affairs Analyst
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami:
Humanitarian Assistance and Relief Operations
Summary
On December 26, 2004, a magnitude 9.0 undersea earthquake off the west coast
of northern Sumatra, Indonesia, unleashed a tsunami that affected more than 12
countries throughout south and southeast Asia and stretched as far as the northeastern
African coast. Current official estimates indicate that more than 160,000 people are
dead and millions of others are affected, including those injured, missing, or
displaced, making this the deadliest tsunami on record. News reports suggest that the
death toll may be well above 200,000. Sections of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and
Thailand have suffered the worst devastation. Eighteen Americans are confirmed
dead, with another sixteen presumed dead, and 153 remain unaccounted for.
In response, the United Nations, the United States, and other donor nations have
organized what some have called the world’s largest relief and recovery operation to
date. President Bush pledged $350 million in aid and mobilized the U.S. military to
provide logistical and other assistance.
Funding the Indian Ocean tsunami relief and reconstruction effort is likely to be
a challenge faced by the 109th Congress. Even before the disaster struck, Congress
was expected to struggle to find the resources to sustain U.S. aid pledges amid efforts
to tackle rising budget deficits by, among other measures, slowing or reducing
discretionary spending. Congress also may wish to consider debt relief as a means
of helping those nations hit by the tsunami to recover economically. Additionally,
there have been calls to institute a tsunami detection and warning system in the
Atlantic and/or Indian Oceans, both of which would require allocations of funds.
The large-scale U.S. response to the tsunami is unlikely to reverse the decline
in the U.S. image abroad since the September 11 attacks, because this decline
primarily is due to American policies in the Middle East. However, the scale and
scope of U.S. assistance could provide a positive example of U.S. leadership and
military capabilities. Additionally, the disaster relief cooperation between the U.S.
and Indonesian militaries is likely to be mentioned during the annual congressional
deliberations over renewing restrictions on U.S.-Indonesian military-to-military
relations, which the Bush Administration has sought to restore since the September
11, 2001 attacks.
This report summarizes the extent of the disaster and relief effort and includes
descriptions of the U.S. and international assistance efforts. It also examines
protection mechanisms for children and separated orphans. A section is devoted to
the situation in each of the affected countries followed by an analysis of selected
issues for Congress. A Most Recent Developments section at the beginning of the
report is updated through February 10, 2005. The rest of the report is updated
through January 21, 2005. The report will be updated further as events warrant.

---

Contributing Authors and Subject Areas
Name
Telephone
Subject
Emma Chanlett-Avery
7-7748
Thailand
Nicolas Cook
7-0429
African Affairs
Alan Kronstadt
7-5415
Asian Affairs
Mark Manyin
7-7653
Asian Affairs
Rhoda Margesson
7-0425
Humanitarian Assistance
Child Protection
Wayne Morrissey
7-7072
Early Warning Systems
Larry Niksch
7-7680
Burma
Indonesia
Larry Nowels
7-7645
Budget and Policy Issues
Bruce Vaughn
7-3144
Indonesia
Sri Lanka

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Early Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Recent Developments on Selected Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Maldives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Comparisons to Past Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Relief Operations and Aid Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Protection for Children and Separated Orphans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Tsunami Orphans: The Tsunami Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Humanitarian Response: U.S. and International Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.S. Emergency Assistance to the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The U.S. Emergency Response Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
International Emergency Assistance to the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
International Donor Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Situation Report on Countries Affected by the Tsunami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Maldives
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Diego Garcia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Seychelles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Madagascar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Mauritius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Reunion (French Territory) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

---

South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Tsunami Aid and Reconstruction Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Burdensharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Competing Aid and Budget Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Debt Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Implications for Other U.S. Foreign Policy Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
The War on Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Countering Negative Images of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Early Warning Systems: International Scientific, Technological
and Other Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Aid to Indonesia and the Leahy Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix 1. U.S. Assistance to Selected Countries Affected by the Indian
Ocean Tsunami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
List of Aid-Related Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix 2. Child Protection Issues in Tsunami-Affected Countries . . . . . . . . 48
Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. Countries Affected by the Tsunami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 3. Regional Assistance and Food Aid Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
List of Tables
Table 1. International Governmental, Inter-Governmental, and Private
Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction Pledges and Contributions . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Deadliest Natural Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 3. U.S. Governmental Assistance after Hurricane Mitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. Estimated Number of Persons Affected by the Earthquake and
Tsunamis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to Indonesia, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 6. U.S. Assistance to Sri Lanka, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 7. U.S. Assistance to India, FY2001-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 8. U.S. Assistance to Thailand, FY2002-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 9. U.S. Assistance to Malaysia, 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 10. U.S. Assistance to Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

---

Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami:
Humanitarian Assistance and Relief
Operations
Most Recent Developments
This section provides a brief summary of the most recent developments on the
status of humanitarian assistance and relief operations for the tsunami disaster. It
builds on the information provided in the body of this report, beginning on page 8,
which is updated only through January 21, 2005.
The Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami created a natural disaster of historic
proportion. It is estimated that more than 160,000 lives were lost and possibly
140,000 remain missing. The massive relief and reconstruction effort underway also
departs from previous emergency operations in its scope and scale. The initial
objectives of the relief operation involving search and rescue, treatment and survival
are thought to have been met: in the immediate post-tsunami period, basic needs were
addressed and further deaths were prevented. Although it is early to determine
“lessons learned,” the assessment of the response to the tsunami disaster so far has
been positive on many levels — from meeting basic humanitarian needs, to civil-
military coordination, information sharing, and working with national governments
and indigenous organizations. The operation has not been without its challenges,
such as bottlenecks in aid delivery, but all things considered, it is currently viewed
by many as largely successful.
In addition to working closely with the national governments of the countries
affected by the disaster, The United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) has been the lead agency working with actors on
the ground, coordinating with the military, and enlisting donor support. As the
immediate humanitarian requirements of the operation have been fulfilled, a
transition to recovery and reconstruction is now taking place and the operation is
shifting from using military to civilian capacity for delivery of assistance. For the
foreseeable future, UNOCHA will continue as the lead agency.
The transition phase of the post-tsunami period will be challenging. While
emergency assistance and the need to guard against the outbreak of disease will
continue for some time, there is a new emphasis on conducting assessments and
planning for long-term reconstruction, and with that, priorities and funding are
beginning to shift.1 Initial assessments focused mainly on basic assistance needs;
now long-term challenges, such as creating jobs and housing, are become more
1 See USAID, “Indian Ocean — Earthquake and Tsunamis,” Fact Sheet #32, February 8,
2005.

---

CRS-2
pressing. Host governments are also taking more of a lead in determining the
outcome of this next phase.
And with this transition, there are other issues to consider such as security and
political tensions, access for aid workers, and the return of displaced populations.
Within the relief operation, transparency and accountability at the United Nations,
but also with any organization receiving funds, remains a point of focus.
Coordinating the assessments, projects, and capabilities of numerous actors with host
governments will become more difficult as the complicated task of reconstruction
takes hold.
It is well known that in previous disasters, pledges made by governments have
not always resulted in actual contributions. Billions of dollars have been pledged to
help the victims of the tsunami disaster. Reconstruction will be costly and take time.
Maintaining enough pressure on donors to honor their pledges while securing funds
needed for other disaster areas requires a delicate balance, particularly if donor
fatigue is to be avoided.2
The table below reflects the most recent data available on relief and
reconstruction pledges and contributions.
Table 1. International Governmental, Inter-Governmental, and
Private Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction Pledges and
Contributions
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Country/Agency Donor
Governments*
Private**
Australia
815.50
177
Germany
664.47
619.8
Japan
500.55
-NA-
France
442.77
90
United States
362.09
700
Canada
350.68
122
Netherlands
266.45
150
Norway
170.48
61
Saudi Arabia (Kingdom of)
163.50
101
Italy
113.27
20
Kuwait
100.00
-NA-
United Kingdom
95.69
375
2 Information for this section was drawn from interviews, the USAID fact sheets, reports by
various U.N. agencies, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations
available at [http://www.reliefweb.org].

---

CRS-3
Country/Agency Donor
Governments*
Private**
Denmark
77.10
35
Sweden
74.68
75
Spain
71.65
-NA-
Finland
69.20
28
Austria
69.17
26
China
64.25
1.8
Korea (Republic of)
50.60
13
Switzerland
50.26
110
Taiwan
50.00
-NA-
New Zealand
45.50
7
Greece
25.96
22.5
Qatar
25.00
-NA-
India
23.00
-NA-
Russian Federation
22.00
-NA-
Portugal
16.22
5
Belgium
16.13
40
Singapore
13.66
-NA-
Ireland
13.32
67
Malta
10.85
-NA-
Czech Republic
10.53
8
Other Countries; National contributions and
48.65
4.05
pledges of less than $10 million each.†
National Totals
4,893.16
2858.15
International Financial Institutions (IFIs)
IFI Pledges and
Contributions*
European Investment Bank
1,275.94
-
(prospective pledge)
International Monetary Fund
1,000
-
(prospective pledge)
Asian Development Bank (initial support)
675
-
World Bank (first phase support)
672
-
IFI Totals
3,622.94
-

---

CRS-4
Country/Agency Donor
Governments*
Private**
International Intergovernmental Pledges Intergovernmental
and Contributions
Organization
Pledges and
Contributions*
U.N. and U.N.-Affiliated Organization
205.65
-
Allocations
European Commission
645.34
-
Arab Gulf Fund
0.1
-
Intergovernmental Organization Totals
851.09
-
Total Pledges and Commitments by
9,367.19
2858.15
Category
Total Pledges and Commitments
12,225.34
Note: Some pledges are conditional or prospective, and data on both pledges and commitments is
currently subject to change on a daily basis. In addition to the pledges noted above, numerous
countries, including the United States, have made in-kind and other contributions for which no value
is specified in available reporting data. The value of the resources that affected countries are devoting
to their own tsunami relief and reconstruction are not included above.
Compiled by Nicolas Cook, African Affairs Specialist, Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division.
Data Sources:
*UN OCHA, “Table VII: Total Humanitarian Assistance for Indian Ocean Earthquake-Tsunami
2005,” Indian Ocean Earthquake-Tsunami 2005 [financial tracking tables], February 7, 2005,
[http://www.reliefweb.int/fts]; international organization data; and supplementary national government
information. Totals shown may differ from the sum of individual entries, due to rounding. A Reuters
news report (Reuters, “Nations Pledge Aid after Tsunami Disaster,” Jan. 28, 2005) indicates that some
countries may have pledged different amounts than those reported by UN OCHA, the source of the
national data reported above. If all higher pledge figures reported by Reuters are taken into account,
the aggregate country governmental pledge level would be $174.18 million higher than that noted
above.
** Except as noted, the source for all private donation figures is Reuters, “Nations Pledge Aid...,” Jan.
28, 2005. Source for U.S. entry is InterAction, “Disaster Response Relief Barometer,” Feb. 4, 2005,
[http://www.interaction.org/disaster/relief_barometer.html], which is currently being updated weekly.
Source of entries for Italy, Sweden, France, China, and South Korea is BBC News, “Tsunami aid:
Who’s giving what,” Jan. 27, 2005; source for Germany is Reuters, “German Private Tsunami Aid
Exceeds 475 Mln Euros,” Jan. 25, 2005.
†Countries contributing $10 million or less as of Feb. 7, 2005, in rank order are: Luxembourg; Turkey;
Iran; Brunei Darussalam; Iceland; Poland; Macedonia, Republic of; Algeria; Libya; Trinidad and
Tobago; Hungary; Israel; Brazil; Malaysia; Thailand; Slovakia; Azerbaijan; Nigeria; Papua New
Guinea; Romania; Liechtenstein; Estonia; Lithuania; Monaco; Niger; Jamaica; Equatorial Guinea;
Bulgaria; Senegal; Latvia; Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; Belarus; LAO PDR; Madagascar;
Mauritania; Mexico; Mozambique; Nepal; Slovenia; South Africa; Georgia; Guyana; Palau; Timor
Leste; and Kazakhstan.

---

CRS-5
Legislation3
Several bills pertaining to the Indian Ocean tsunamis and their after-effects have
been introduced in the 109th Congress.4 One of these bills, H.R. 241 (Thomas),
entitled To Accelerate the Income Tax Benefits for Charitable Cash Contributions
for the Relief of Victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, was the first legislative
measure passed by the 109th Congress to be signed into law; it became P.L. 109-1.
As of February 8, 2005, other pending bills included the following:
! H.Res. 12 (Hyde). Introduced and passed by the House on January
4, 2005; entitled Expressing condolences and support for assistance
to the victims of the earthquake and tsunamis that occurred on
December 26, 2004, in South and Southeast Asia.
! H.R. 60 (Jackson-Lee). Introduced and referred to the House
Committee on the Judiciary on January 4, 2005; entitled To
designate Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Somalia, Myanmar,
Malaysia, Maldives, Tanzania, Seychelles, Bangladesh, and Kenya
under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order
to render nationals of such foreign states eligible for temporary
protected status under such section.
! H.R. 397 (Menendez). Introduced and referred to the House
Committee on International Relations on January 26, 2005; entitled
To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide assistance
to children who are orphaned or unaccompanied as a result of the
tsunamis that occurred on December 26, 2004, in the Indian Ocean.
! H.R. 465 (Faleomavaega). Introduced and referred to the House
Committee on Resources on February 1, 2005; entitled To provide
for the establishment of a tsunami hazard mitigation program for all
United States insular areas.
! H.R. 499 (Shays). Introduced and referred to the Committee on
International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on
Resources on February 1, 2005; entitled To provide for the
development of a global tsunami detection and warning system, to
improve existing communication of tsunami warnings to all
potentially affected nations, and for other purposes.
! S.Res. 4 (Frist). Introduced and passed in the Senate on January 4,
2005; entitled A resolution expressing the sympathy and pledging
the support of the United States Senate and the people of the United
States for the victims of the powerful earthquake and devastating
3 Prepared by Nicolas Cook, African Affairs Specialist.
4 To assist the reader, this section repeats some legislation mentioned in the January 21,
2005 version of this report.

---

CRS-6
tsunami that struck Bangladesh, Burma, India, Indonesia, Kenya,
Malaysia, the Maldives, the Seychelles, Somalia, Sri Lanka,
Tanzania, Thailand, and other areas of South Asia, Southeast Asia,
and Africa, on December 26, 2004.
! S. 34 (Lieberman). Introduced and referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation on January 24, 2005;
entitled A bill to provide for the development of a global tsunami
detection and warning system, to improve existing communication
of tsunami warnings to all potentially affected nations, and for other
purposes.
! S. 50 (Inouye). Introduced on January 24, 2005; ordered to be
reported an original measure by the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on February 2, 2005; entitled A bill to
authorize and strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s tsunami detection, forecast, warning, and
mitigation program, and for other purposes.
In addition, on February 9, 2005, President Bush announced plans to request
$950 million as part of a supplemental request to support the countries affected by
the tsunami. This request includes the commitment of $350 million and adds $600
million as follows5:
! $339 million: large-scale reconstruction projects (rebuilding
infrastructure such as roads and bridges)
! $168 million: shelter and food aid, rebuilding housing, schools and
clinics, developing livelihood programs
! $35 million: early warning systems
! $62 million: capacity building and reconstruction planning
assistance
! $346 million: replenish costs incurred by USAID ($120 million) and
by DOD ($226 million)
Early Warning
International science ministers will finalize plans for a global observing system
in Brussels, Belgium February 14-16, 2004. That system would be the backbone on
which a regional tsunami early warning system for the Indian Ocean would be built.
The United States is not expected to provide details of its commitment to the
5 See “Bush Seeks Additional $600 Million for Tsunami Relief: Aid to fund infrastructure
projects, early warning systems,” February 10, 2005 at [http://www.usinfo.state.gov].

---

CRS-7
internationally sponsored global tsunami early warning network prior to the
convening of the G-8 summit in July 2005.
Recent Developments on Selected Countries
Indonesia. The U.S. military is lowering its role in humanitarian aid and a
U.S. aircraft carrier has withdrawn, replaced by a Navy hospital ship. The Singapore
and Australian militaries also are also withdrawing. None have objected to
Indonesia’s March 26 deadline for ending foreign military activities in Aceh. The
latest toll: 115,000 dead; over 100,000 missing.
Foreign donor countries have pledged billions for tsunami reconstruction to the
region in 2005. This is on top of $3.4 billion in development aid to Indonesia.
Indonesia’s plans to establish relocation centers to initially house 30,000 Acehnese
tsunami refugees, then an additional 60,000, remains controversial. The military will
have a role in operating the centers. In the past, the military has practiced forced
relocation of Acehnese as a counter-insurgency tool. Foreign NGOs are reluctant to
be involved in this program. There are an estimated 380,000 refugees in Aceh. The
military has admitted that it has continued to carry out operations against Free Aceh
insurgents, despite the military’s self-proclaimed cease-fire after December 26. The
Indonesian government and the Free Aceh (GAM) political organization have begun
peace talks in Helsinki, Finland.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice reportedly plans to certify that Indonesia is
cooperating in investigating the killings and woundings of an American teacher in
Papua in August 2002. This will end the congressional restriction on Indonesian
participation in the IMET program. The Bush Administration has viewed military-
to-military cooperation in tsunami relief as an opportunity to restore full military-to-
military relations with Indonesia.
Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government has issued guidelines for construction
near the coast. Residential and commercial construction must be at least 100 meters
from the coast in the western and southern coastal zones. In the north and east it must
be 200 meters from the coast. The LTTE have established a buffer of between 300
and 500 meters in areas under their control.
The U.S. Government has provided $62 million in “emergency food assistance,
relief supplies, shelter, water and sanitation, health, livelihoods recovery,
psychological and social support, protection and anti-trafficking, logistics and
coordination, and cleanup and rehabilitation activities” in Sri Lanka.6 An estimated
30,974 are dead, 4,698 are missing and a further 553,287 persons have been
6 “Indian Ocean-Earthquake and Tsunamis,” Agency for International Development,
February 8, 2005.

---

CRS-8
displaced in Sri Lanka.7 Of the 33 Americans thought killed by the tsunami, 9 are
thought to have died in Sri Lanka.8
Maldives. An estimated 82 are dead, 26 are missing and a further 12,558
persons have been displaced in the Maldives. It is thought that reconstruction will
take two to three years.9 The USAID/DART Field Officer closed operation in the
Maldives on January 28. The U.S. government has provided $1.36 million in
assistance to the Maldives.10
Malaysia. In Malaysia 68 are dead, 6 missing and 8,000 have been displaced
due to the tsunami.
India. Indian administrators continue to receive harsh criticism for perceived
interference with relief efforts in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, interference that
allegedly has caused considerable and unnecessary suffering for tsunami victims
there.11
Thailand. The United States military has begun to wind down its relief efforts
in Thailand and Sri Lanka and is likely to wrap up its operations in Indonesia by the
end of February.
On February 7, 2005, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was elected to
a second term. Despite pubic criticism in 2004 over his handling of sectarian
violence in the country’s Muslim-dominated south, Thaksin popularity surged after
he rushed to Tsunami disaster areas and provided hands-on leadership, delegating
authority and consoling survivors.
Background12

Introduction
On December 26, 2004, a magnitude 9.0 undersea earthquake off the west coast
of northern Sumatra, Indonesia, unleashed a tsunami that affected more than 12
countries throughout south and southeast Asia and stretched as far as the northeastern
African coast. Within six hours the deadly waves traveled more than 3,000 miles and
carved a trail of death and destruction as they arrived on land. Current official
7 “Indian Ocean-Earthquake and Tsunamis,” Agency for International Development,
February 8, 2005.
8 “US Estimates Tsunami Killed 33 Americans,” Washington Post, February 9, 2005.
9 “In Asia Trying to Look Ahead,” The New York Times, January 14, 2005.
10 “Indian Ocean-Earthquake and Tsunamis,” Agency for International Development,
February 8, 2005.
11 Colin Gonsalves, “The Deadly Bureaucracy in the Andamans,” Indian Express (Bombay),
January 26, 2005.
12 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Foreign Affairs Analyst.

---

CRS-9
estimates indicate that more than 160,000 people are dead, and millions of others are
affected, including the injured, missing, or displaced.13 Recent news reports suggest
that the death toll may be well above 200,000. The World Health Organization
(WHO) indicates that an estimated three to five million people lack the basic
necessities for survival; between one and two million people may be displaced. In
many places the physical environment is badly damaged or destroyed, including
entire communities, homes, businesses, tourist areas, and infrastructure (roads,
bridges, power and telephone systems, and public buildings). For many their means
of livelihood and way of life has been wiped out. In the hardest hit areas, social
services are severely compromised or nonexistent. Experts have said this is the most
powerful earthquake in 40 years and the fourth (and perhaps the second) most deadly
in the last century. Estimates of the dead make it the worst tsunami disaster on
record.
A massive, global relief and recovery operation is underway. According to the
United Nations, the relief operation is the largest ever undertaken. Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, India, and Thailand have suffered some of the worst devastation. Within a
day, all were declared a disaster by their respective U.S. ambassador, which allowed
U.S. aid to be immediately released through the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
(OFDA). For information on current conditions and latest developments, view the
reports of governments, private voluntary agencies, and U.N. agencies on the web at
[http://www.reliefweb.int.]
13 Early estimates of deaths from natural disasters are difficult to calculate and usually quite
different from the final count. In this disaster the final number likely will never be known
with any accuracy given the number of countries involved, the long, populous coastlines
that were struck by the tsunamis, and the number of villages completely destroyed.
Numbers fluctuate. See Donald G. McNeil, Jr., “Experts Say Accurate Toll is Hard to
Calculate,” New York Times, December 29, 2004.

---

CRS-10
Figure 1. Map of the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami
Comparisons to Past Disasters14
In terms of estimated fatalities, the Indian Ocean tsunami ranks among the
world’s worst natural disasters, though it falls below other events. (See Table 2) The
unique feature of this tsunami is the extent of the damage and the number of
countries affected. Unlike the damage caused by other disasters, which tended to be
highly localized, the Indian Ocean tsunami struck thousands of miles of populous
coastline in nearly a dozen countries, affecting millions of people. The devastation
was particularly acute in several island areas, where at times, entire land masses were
flooded. The very nature of the tidal waves, combined with the lack of warning,
made women, children, the elderly and others unable to swim particularly vulnerable.
Also, the potential deaths of thousands of tourists from the industrialized world
vacationing in southern Thailand and Sri Lanka — mostly Europeans but also many
Americans and Japanese — has given the Indian Ocean tsunami a higher profile than
previous disasters.
14 Prepared by Mark Manyin, Specialist in Asian Affairs.

---

CRS-11
Table 2. Deadliest Natural Disasters
Year
Location
Event
Estimated Death Toll
1931
Huang He River, China
flood
3.7 million
1970
Bangladesh
cyclone
300,000
1976
Tangshan, China
earthquake
255,000*
(magnitude 7.5)
1920
Ningxia-Kansu, China
earthquake (8.6)
200,000
1927
Tsinghai, China
earthquake (7.9)
200,000
2004
Indian Ocean
earthquake (9.0) and
150,000+
tsunami
1923
Kanto region, Japan
earthquake (7.9)
143,000
1991
Bangladesh
cyclone
139,000
1948
Turkmenistan, USSR
earthquake (7.3)
110,000
1908 Messina,
Italy
earthquake (7.2)
70,000-100,000
Sources: Washington Post, December 30, 2004; U.S. Geological Survey.
* Official death toll. Unofficial estimates range as high as 655,000.
No natural disasters in recent memory compare with the magnitude and scope
of this earthquake and tsunami. Table 3 provides context, detailing the large-scale
U.S. assistance that followed after a previous natural disaster, the October 1998
Hurricane Mitch, which inflicted severe destruction upon several countries in central
America.
Table 3. U.S. Governmental Assistance after Hurricane Mitch
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Country Assisted
Existing U.S.
(Estimated Death
Resources and
Supplemental
Total
Toll)
Debt Relief at
Appropriation
Time of Disaster
Honduras (14,000)
238.3
324.9
563.2
Nicaragua (3,500)
57.4
113.0
170.4
Guatemala (440)
42.5
35.9
78.4
El Salvador (370)
19.4
35.1
54.5
Costa Rica (6)
-
9.0
9.0
Central America
-
27.3
27.3
Regional
Total
357.6
545.2
902.8

---

CRS-12
Even as the emergency response gains momentum, discussion of the medium
and long-term reconstruction of the area has begun and will likely continue at
international meetings and within the U.S. government. Preliminary damage
assessments are underway in the affected countries. Experts had already estimated
the total damage to the region in the billions of dollars. In Indonesia, a joint report
issued by the government of Indonesia and the international donor community
estimates that the total cost of damages and losses is $4.45 billion.15 Secretary-
General Kofi Annan said it could take ten years to bring parts of the region back to
full capacity.
The reconstruction effort will likely attempt to reduce the vulnerability of these
countries to similar disasters in the future. Although countries in the Pacific region
have a warning system for tsunamis (which are a relatively frequent occurrence), the
countries in the Indian Ocean lack such a coordinated response. In an effort to
improve disaster preparedness a review of the response to the earthquake and tsunami
may include an examination of the dissemination of information by national
governments to other governments and to their populace, communication between
regional governments about the course and damage of the storm, and local
governmental disaster response plans and procedures. See the section on early
warning systems later in this report.
15 “Indonesia: Preliminary Damage and Loss Assessment: The December 26, 2004 Natural
Disaster,” The Consultative Group on Indonesia, Government of Indonesia (State Minister
for National Planning Development Agency/BAPPENAS) and World Bank (for the
international donor community), January 19-20, 2005.

---

CRS-13
Current Situation16
Table 4. Estimated Number of Persons Affected by
the Earthquake and Tsunamis
Death toll
Missing
Displaced
Country
(estimated)
(estimated)
(estimated)
Indonesia
114,978
12,070
555,156
Sri Lanka
30,922
5,565
437,482
India
10,749
5,640
112,558
Thailand
5,318
3,199
Burma (Myanmar)
60-80
The Maldives
81
26
21,633
300,000 affected
Malaysia
68
6
8,000
Tanzania
10
Bangladesh
2
Somalia
150-298
5,000 displaced
102,000 affected
Kenya
1
Seychelles
3
40 households
displaced
Sources: Statistical data provided by USAID Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunamis Report, and
BBC News online, January 19, 2005.
As the disaster unfolded, the dilemma involved in prioritizing resource
allocations began to take shape: on the one hand, to try to save as many lives as
possible and on the other, to identify and dispose of bodies as death tolls continued
to rise. Multiple challenges have arisen because of the large number of countries
affected across a wide geographic area. Moreover, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Somalia
have been in conflicts that are as yet unresolved and present potential difficulties in
the distribution of aid. And there are millions of people displaced, separated from
their families and left with nothing. Critical problems vary by country, including the
condition of the infrastructure and response system, the scope of destruction, and
degree of access. The situation in each country is discussed later in the report. Initial
assessments indicated that the most urgent priorities in the affected areas were for
potable water, sanitation (and waste disposal), food, and shelter.
16 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Foreign Affairs Analyst.

---

CRS-14
Health
The World Health Organization (WHO), which is the lead agency for the
coordination of international public health response to disasters such as the tsunami,
and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), along with international
organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are all working to meet
the public health needs of the affected region. In the first week after the disaster,
WHO warned that the death toll could double if clean water, sanitation, medical
treatment, and relief supplies were not provided to the affected areas.17
WHO continues to stress the need to guard against the risk of disease and further
deaths through surveillance and early warning systems. WHO remains particularly
concerned about disease outbreaks among the many vulnerable populations from
contaminated water sources and crowded, unsanitary living conditions, including
cholera, dysentery, malaria, and dengue fever. The numbers of injured are estimated
to be twice or three times the death toll. So far there do not appear to be any signs
of epidemics. WHO has also identified the need to address mental health issues and
rebuild the capacity of health systems as critical to recovery.18
Relief Operations and Aid Delivery
Experts break relief operations into several phases: search and rescue; treatment
and survival; relocation and rehabilitation; and long-term reconstruction.19 As with
any massive undertaking that has many moving parts, it can take days to get a relief
effort underway. Delays in transportation and congestion, lack of transportation
infrastructure, bureaucratic problems, lack of access, all can cause bottlenecks at key
points in the system. While timing is critical to save lives, to enable a network of this
size to function efficiently requires the coordination of assessments and appropriate
responses with local governments, communities, and the international community.
In general, the relief effort has been viewed positively and the convening
authority of the United Nations has been well received. The sheer scale of this relief
effort has brought together tremendous capacity and willingness to help, but experts
generally caution that an ongoing effort and strategic planning is required at each
phase to work out coordination and logistics issues. The relief effort is now
beginning to focus primarily on recovery and rehabilitation.20
Three weeks after the tsunami hit the region, more detailed interagency
assessments are underway, the information from which will be critical for planning
recovery and reconstruction initiatives, developing strategies for the use of funding,
and determining whether personnel are in place with adequate resources. In certain
17 “Response to Enormity,” The Washington Post, December 29, 2004.
18 See “Questions and Answers: South Asia Earthquake and Tsunami,” World Health
Organization, January 14, 2005.
19 “Relief: Massive Effort, Massive Need,” Christian Science Monitor, January 3, 2005.
20 See maps in Figures 2 and 3 at the end of this report for a regional overview of affected
countries and assistance requirements.

---

CRS-15
areas, particularly in Indonesia, access and logistics problems continue. There are
logistical bottlenecks, and the lack of transportation and adequate infrastructure
remain a challenge. Concerns about disease and the need for sanitation and medical
capacity are still critical.
Impediments to aid in Indonesia appear to be particularly challenging for several
reasons. There are the obvious logistical difficulties. The destruction of transportation
infrastructure has made it difficult to extend assistance to all of the affected areas.21
The coordination of national and local level government with the military and over
50 relief groups presents problems. The conflict between secessionists and the
government has also complicated the relief effort. The Indonesian military feels it has
to look to both relief and counter-insurgency operations. There is also the issue of
national pride. Indonesia was, like India, a leading member of the non-aligned
movement. This may be, in part, a reason for Indonesia’s decision to ask providers
of foreign military assistance to leave the country by March.
Protection for Children and Separated Orphans22
Background. Trafficking in children goes on worldwide and may even be
increasing. Statistics on child trafficking, however, are very unreliable and official
estimates may reflect only a part of its actual extent. The Department of State’s 2004
Trafficking in Persons Report says that of the 600,000 - 800,000 persons trafficked
across international borders each year, 70% are female and 50% are children. In
addition, according to that report, many more people (probably millions) are
trafficked within countries. The International Labor Organization (ILO) puts the
number of children trafficked both internally and across borders annually at 1.2
million. All these numbers are estimates and no country is immune from trafficking,
including the United States.23
According to the United Nations, human trafficking is a highly lucrative global
industry controlled by powerful criminal organizations from which they derive many
billions in revenues annually. This places human trafficking just behind drug and
arms trafficking in terms of illicit revenues.
Global experience in addressing child
trafficking, and distinct focus on the problem separate from the overall human
trafficking issue, is relatively new. The problem is huge in scope, multifaceted and
sensitive, both culturally and politically.
21 For example, according to USAID, a road north of Meulaboh, Indonesia is open to trucks
and passable for 67 kilometres, but the journey now takes 12 hours instead of the 2 it used
to take prior to the tsunami.
22 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Foreign Affairs Analyst.
23 “Anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 people are trafficked into the United States each
year, depending on the source. In addition, there are around 200,000 young people in
America who may be victims of trafficking within the United States.” Remarks of Under
Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky, in Helsinki, Finland on June 3,
2003 at [http://www.usembassy.fi/servlet/PageServer?Page=trafficking/dobriansky.html]
For background see also CRS Report RL30545 Trafficking in Persons: The U.S. and
International Response by Francis T. Miko.

---

CRS-16
Both boys and girls are trafficked, as are children of all ages — some very
young children and some nearly adults. Trafficking in children is directly linked to
their subsequent exploitation. The forms of exploitation vary including commercial
sexual exploitation (for prostitution or pornography), use as domestic servants, as
bonded laborers, as beggars, in other illicit activities from drug running to burglaries,
as well as child soldiers. In addition, babies may be trafficked for adoption, and
older teens for marriage. In all cases constraints are put on the movement of the
children involved who are virtually enslaved. Girls are the chief victims of
trafficking for sexual exploitation, domestic work and marriage. Boys and girls,
however, are subjected to trafficking and most forms of exploitation.24
The root causes of sale and trafficking of children are complex, and include
conditions of conflict and population movements, poverty, lack of employment
opportunities, low social status of the girl child, impunity from prosecution, and a
general lack of education and awareness. Children from minority groups, or those
who are undocumented, are particularly vulnerable to being trafficked.25 Situations
of massive dislocation due to natural disasters, like the recent tsunami in the Indian
Ocean, provide opportunities for syndicates to take advantage of the chaos and
breakdown of protection mechanisms that leave orphans and children separated from
their parents particularly vulnerable.
Tsunami Orphans: The Tsunami Generation. UNICEF, and other
organizations focused on the fate of children orphaned or separated from their
families amid the chaos of a disaster, acknowledge it is a multifaceted problem that
will take time to resolve. The scope of the problem in the tsunami-affected countries
is not fully known, although some believe the reports of child exploitation have been
exaggerated. There are only estimates of the number of children orphaned or
separated from their parents. UNICEF refers to these children as the Tsunami
Generation.
The United Nations, international organizations and NGOs have issued
warnings of the risks to children left unprotected in the aftermath of the tsunami.
They are working on high-alert prevention mechanisms, including raising awareness
at camps, providing guidelines to officials and volunteers, urging governments in
affected countries to act, and identifying police and community officials to be of
assistance. International adoptions are considered very premature and are not
considered the best option for the child. Governments of affected countries are
working with UNICEF to prevent illegal adoptions and trafficking.
UNICEF has developed five key steps to protect children from exploitation,
including identification and registration; provision of immediate, safe care; tracing
and reunification with extended family members; alerting police and community
authorities; and working with governments of the affected countries to monitor the
24 Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes: an Analytical Review, p. 17 at
[http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yokohama/Background_reading/Theme_pa
pers/ThemepaperTrafficking] in Children.pdf
25 A Child-Rights Approach on International Migration and Child Trafficking: a UNICEF
Perspective U.N. document: UN/POP/MIG/2004/9, October 18, 2004.

---

CRS-17
problem. UNICEF is also encouraging children to go back to school as soon as
possible as a way of creating a more normal environment and beginning to deal with
the mental trauma of the disaster.
Humanitarian Response:
U.S. and International Assistance26
U.S. Emergency Assistance to the Region
Offers of assistance have greatly increased since December 26, 2004, as the
international community has come to realize the growing scale of the disaster. In the
case of the United States, American Ambassadors responsible for Sri Lanka, the
Maldives, India and Indonesia provided $400,000 in immediate assistance in the
wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami. The United States Government then provided $4
million in additional assistance to the Red Cross. The United States Agency for
International Development (USAID)’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)
immediately sent Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DARTs) to the region to
assess needs in the areas of sanitation, health, and other kinds of relief supplies.
On December 28, $10 million was allocated for the relief effort for a total
estimated initial contribution by the United States of around $15 million.27 As reports
of the growing scale of the disaster came in, the United States raised its pledge to $35
million.28 By December 31, this number had increased to $350 million. Of this
amount, as of January 19, 2005, USAID reports that close to $100 million has been
committed.29 For the latest breakdown of U.S. government assistance to the region,
see [http://www.usaid.gov].
Military assistance to the region, in coordination with international
organizations and NGOs, includes flights with relief aid, medical supplies, personnel,
and equipment to affected areas.30 Initially, the U.S. Navy dispatched P-3 patrol
aircraft and an aircraft carrier to assist with relief operations. Since then, helicopters
have been used to deliver relief supplies and evacuate the injured. In addition,
surface ships, landing crafts and inflatable boats were positioned to provide relief
supplies, including the capacity to produce potable water, transport vehicles,
generators and other equipment. Military forensic teams are in Thailand and
preventive medicine units are conducting assessments in Indonesia. As of January
26 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Foreign Affairs Analyst.
27 Secretary Colin Powell, Briefing with Assistant Administrator for United States Agency
for International Development Ed Fox,” U.S. Department of State, December 27, 2004.
28 John Harris and Robin Wright, “Aid Grows Amid Remarks About President’s Absence,”
The Washington Post, December 29, 2004.
29 Also see CRS Report RS22027 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunamis: Food Aid Needs
and the U.S. Response by Charles Hanrahan.
30 Additional information is available on a U.S. Pacific Command Fact Sheet at
[http://www.pacom.mil].

---

CRS-18
19, 2005, more than 11,600 military personnel are involved in the relief operation
with 17 ships and 75 aircraft. The cost of total military spending to date is not yet
available, although it is estimated that the U.S. military contribution is more than $5
million a day with a cost to date of $165 million. It is expected that an additional
$175 million may be required to cover costs through the end of February.31 It
remains to be seen what military costs are included in the $350 million pledge.
On December 29, 1004, President Bush announced the formation of a donor
group consisting of the United States, Australia, India and Japan to coordinate relief
and military capabilities in the region in the first weeks of the crisis. On January 6,
the Core Group joined the efforts of the United Nations Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) as the lead agency on the relief effort.
Two interagency task forces have been established — one to coordinate U.S.
government relief efforts and the other to assist in tracking missing Americans.
Eighteen Americans are confirmed dead, with another sixteen presumed dead, and
153 remain unaccounted for.
Private sector assistance has already been substantial and is expected to continue
to grow.32 On January 3, President Bush announced that former Presidents George
H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton would lead a fundraising effort in the U.S. private sector
in support of the tsunami crisis. Cash donations are being encouraged. It is too soon
to estimate the value of private relief supplies, which will be transported by DOD
under the Denton program.33
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and USAID
Administrator Andrew Natsios visited the affected region in early January 2005 to
assess the situation and whether the response is sufficient to meet the needs on the
ground. Several U.S. Congressional delegations also traveled to the region over the
past few weeks.
31 “U.S. International Leaders Work to Coordinate Tsunami Relief,” January 11, 2005 at
[http://usinfo.state.gov]
32 See also CRS Report RL32738 Charitable Contributions for Tsunami Relief: P.L. 109-1
by Pamela L. Jackson.
33 The Denton program, named after former Member of Congress Jeremiah Denton,
authorizes shipment of privately donated humanitarian goods on U.S. military aircraft on a
space-available basis. The donated goods must be certified as appropriate for the disaster
by USAID’s OFDA and can be bumped from the transport if other U.S. government aid
must be transported.

---

CRS-19
The U.S. Emergency Response Mechanism
The United States is generally a leader and major contributor to relief efforts in
humanitarian disasters.34 In 2004 the United States contributed more than 2.4 billion
to disaster relief worldwide. In the case of the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami,
it is clear that the response will require a major long-term effort beyond the relief and
recovery operation currently underway.35
The President has broad authority to provide emergency assistance for foreign
disasters and the United States government provides disaster assistance through
several U.S. agencies. The very nature of humanitarian disasters — the need to
respond quickly in order to save lives and provide relief — has resulted in an
unrestricted definition of what this type of assistance consists of on both a policy and
operational level. While humanitarian assistance is assumed to provide for urgent
food, shelter, and medical needs, the agencies within the U.S. Government providing
this support expand or contract the definition in response to circumstances. Funds
may be used for U.S. agencies to deliver the services required or to provide grants to
international organizations (IOs), international governmental and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), and private or religious voluntary organizations (PVOs.)
USAID is the U.S. agency charged with coordinating U.S. government and private
sector assistance.36 It also coordinates with international organizations, the
governments of countries suffering disasters, and other governments.
OFDA in USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Response can respond immediately
with relief materials and personnel including personnel and materiel already located
in various countries around the world.37 It is responsible for the provision of non-
food humanitarian assistance and has disaster response teams (DARTS) which can
be assembled quickly to conduct assessments of the situation. OFDA has wide
authority to borrow funds, equipment and personnel from other parts of USAID and
other federal agencies. USAID has two other offices that administer U.S.
humanitarian aid: Food For Peace (FFP) and the Office of Transition Initiatives
(OTI). USAID administers Title II of the FFP under P.L. 480 and provides relief and
34 For background information see CRS Report RL32714, International Disasters and
Humanitarian Assistance: U.S. Governmental Response, by Rhoda Margesson.
35 There are a number of variables that make reading the United States government numbers
and drawing accurate conclusions problematic. Questions about authority, definitions and
categories of services make up part of the reason it is a challenge to grasp the concept and
function of humanitarian assistance. Another factor has to do with how the numbers are
generated in budgets within the U.S. government. Each agency has its own budget, with
its own criteria, accounting detail and regional specificity. The fact that an urgent response
to humanitarian crises is often required only compounds the problem. Budgets may reflect
regional support, a certain area, specific countries, or a combination thereof over time and
with changing events. Particularly in comparing assistance levels with other countries,
financial sources may be compared against other forms of assistance (blankets, etc.) or they
may reflect commitments of support rather than overall obligations.
36 Private donations may be made to the private agencies working the area which are listed
on the internet at [http://www.interaction.org.]
37 Authorized in Sec. 491-493 of P.L. 87-195, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

---

CRS-20
development food aid that does not have to be repaid. OTI provides post-disaster
transition assistance, which includes mainly short-term peace and democratization
projects with some attention to humanitarian elements but not emergency relief.
The Department of Defense (DOD) Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic
Aid (OHDACA) appropriation funds three DOD humanitarian programs: the
Humanitarian Assistance Program (HAP), the Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA)
Program, and Foreign Disaster Relief and Emergency Response (FDR/ER). The
office provides humanitarian support to stabilize emergency situations and deals with
a range of tasks including the provision of food, shelter and supplies, and medical
evacuations. In addition the President has the authority to draw down defense
equipment and direct military personnel to respond to disasters. The President may
also use the Denton program to provide space available transportation on military
aircraft and ships to private donors who wish to transport humanitarian goods and
equipment in response to a disaster.
Generally, OFDA provides emergency aid which lasts 30-90 days. The same
is true for Department of Defense humanitarian assistance. Aft the initial emergency
is over, assistance is provided through other channels, such as the regular country
development programs of USAID.
The State Department also administers programs for humanitarian relief with
a focus on refugees and the displaced. Emergency Refugee and Migration Account
(ERMA) is a fund available until spent38 and provides wide latitude to the President
in responding to refugee emergencies. Emergencies lasting more than a year come
out of the regular Migration and Refugee Account (MRA) through the Population,
Migration and Refugees (PRM) bureau. PRM39 covers refugees worldwide, conflict
victims, and populations of concern to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), often extended to Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).
Humanitarian assistance includes a range of services from basic needs to community
services.
Legislation40
Several bills pertaining to the Indian Ocean tsunamis and their after-effects have
been introduced in the 109th Congress. One of these bills, H.R. 241 (Thomas),
entitled To Accelerate the Income Tax Benefits for Charitable Cash Contributions
for the Relief of Victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, was the first legislative
measure passed by the 109th Congress to be signed into law; it became P.L. 109-1.
As of January 13, 2005, other pending bills included the following:
38 Governed by P.L. 103-326, the maximum amount is $100 million. Authorized in sections
2 and 3 or P.L. 87-510 of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962.
39 When there is functional or programmatic overlap between USAID and PRM, they
coordinate with each other and define partners. Traditionally PRM is a funder of UNHCR
and other multilateral actors; USAID creates bilateral arrangements with NGOs. There is
now a shift in partnering due to funding and resources required.
40 Prepared by Nicolas Cook, African Affairs Specialist.

---

CRS-21
! H.Res. 12 (Hyde). Introduced and passed by the House on January
4, 2005; entitled Expressing condolences and support for assistance
to the victims of the earthquake and tsunamis that occurred on
December 26, 2004, in South and Southeast Asia.
! H.R. 60 (Jackson-Lee). Introduced and referred to the House
Committee on the Judiciary on January 4, 2005; entitled To
designate Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Somalia, Myanmar,
Malaysia, Maldives, Tanzania, Seychelles, Bangladesh, and Kenya
under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order
to render nationals of such foreign states eligible for temporary
protected status under such section.
! S.Res. 4 (Frist). Introduced and passed in the Senate on January 4,
2005; entitled A resolution expressing the sympathy and pledging
the support of the United States Senate and the people of the United
States for the victims of the powerful earthquake and devastating
tsunami that struck Bangladesh, Burma, India, Indonesia, Kenya,
Malaysia, the Maldives, the Seychelles, Somalia, Sri Lanka,
Tanzania, Thailand, and other areas of South Asia, Southeast Asia,
and Africa, on December 26, 2004.
International Emergency Assistance to the Region
International recovery efforts are typically complex because they require
coordination among numerous different actors. Those responding to humanitarian
crises include U.N. agencies, international organizations, NGOs, PVOs, and bilateral
and multilateral donors. A great deal of assistance is provided by other governments
and international agencies. The U.N. OCHA tracks worldwide contributions to
disasters.41 According to the U.N., as of January 19, 2005, pledges from the
international community for the Indian Ocean tsunami stand at over $7 billion.
Initially, the European Union pledged $40.5 million dollars. Australia pledged
$7.6 million dollars while France, Germany, Russia, Britain, Pakistan, and Italy
initially reacted by sending plane loads of assistance supplies. The International Red
Cross and the Red Crescent Societies were focused on an initial appeal of $6.6
million.42 Since then, donations have increased enormously (see Table 1). Australia
and Japan have stated that they will help build a tidal wave warning system which is
thought will cost tens of millions of dollars to establish.43
41 The information is only as complete as the various governments’ willingness to report the
information. It does not include non-cash contributions in services or in kind (such as trucks
and aircraft, crews, and emergency and medical personnel).
42 “World Scrambles to Help Asia Tidal Victims,” Agence France Presse, December 27,
2004.
43 “Officials in Asia Concede That They Failed to Issue Warnings,” Associated Press,
(continued...)

---

CRS-22
The U.N. agencies are also conducting damage assessments and reconstruction
estimates which will likely be used at donor conferences and planning for the future.
The United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and
Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland, has stated that “the cost of the
devastation will be in the billions of dollars. It would probably be in the many
billions of dollars,” making it one of the largest humanitarian relief efforts in
history.44 On January 6, the United Nations and its partners launched a flash appeal
for $977 million.
International Donor Conferences
On January 6, 2005, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) held
an emergency meeting to discuss coordination of international relief efforts and
managing logistical obstacles that have delayed the delivery of aid in certain areas.45
A meeting of summit leaders took place in Jakarta on January 6 and focused on
increasing donor contributions and coordination of the relief effort.46 A large
international donors conference took place on January 11 in Geneva.
Situation Report on Countries
Affected by the Tsunami
The current situation, as of January 18, 2005, in each affected country is
described below with brief background descriptions, reports of the damage, and
highlights of the emergency response.
Indonesia47
The northern part of the Indonesian island of Sumatra, especially the
northernmost province of Aceh, was closest to the epicenter of the Indian Ocean
earthquake. Successive tidal waves of 30 to 50 feet high slammed into Aceh’s west
coast of nearly 200 miles. As of January 2, 2005, the Indonesian government
estimated the death toll at nearly 100,000, mostly in Aceh. Aerial surveys of Aceh’s
west coast from Banda Aceh, the provincial capital, southward for about 150 miles
revealed near total destruction of towns and villages with many of them underwater.
The coastal area was isolated with no aid getting through until January 1, 2005. The
43 (...continued)
December 27, 2004.
44 Colum Lynch, “Billions in Aid Needed for Devastated Areas, U.N. Official Says,” The
Washington Post, December 28, 2004.
45 ASEAN is comprised of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
46 “Special ASEAN Meeting Thursday to Coordinate Tsunami Response,” Agence France-
Presse, January 3, 2005.
47 Prepared by Larry Niksch, Specialist in Asian Affairs, and Bruce Vaughn, Analyst in
Asian Affairs.

---

CRS-23
same is true of a number of small islands off Sumatra’s west coast. Initial
international aid is coming through the re-opened Banda Aceh airport and the airport
at Medan, a major city south of Aceh. The United States, Australia, and Singapore
were supplying the bulk of aid, and non-government humanitarian groups were also
active.
By January 2-3, there were signs of recovery in Banda Aceh: the reopening of
markets, the restoration of power and water to 40 percent of the city, and shipments
of fuel supplies into the city. Indonesian government efforts to remove massive
debris and bury thousands of dead people were making progress, although much
remained to be done. Beginning on January 1, U.S. SH-60 Bravo helicopters flying
off the U.S. aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, were delivering food and water to the
isolated towns and villages down Aceh’s west coast from Banda Aceh. On January
2, U.S. navy helicopters, numbering about 25, flew 27 missions and delivered 80,000
pounds of supplies. Indonesian navy helicopters also were delivering supplies to
these towns and villages, but the Indonesian military only has few helicopters in
Sumatra. Providing adequate water to the thousands of Acehnese stranded along the
west coast remains difficult. Medical treatment of numerous injuries also has been
difficult. Many of the injured have to be transported by helicopter to medical
facilities at Banda Aceh, which strains the helicopter fleet available.
A main problem in relief efforts was the backup of relief supplies at the airports
at Banda Aceh and Medan. Hundreds of tons of food, water, medicines, and tents
were at the airports and reaching destitute people, including approximately 150,000
homeless people in 20 refugee camps, very slowly or not at all. Unloading
equipment at the airports was described as inadequate. There reportedly was a severe
lack of trucks for distribution. The Indonesian central government and the Aceh
provincial governments had little infrastructure to facilitate distribution of aid.
International private aid officials in Aceh also accused the Indonesian military
of delaying distribution of relief supplies. The military (TNI) controls the relief
supplies at the Banda Aceh and Medan airports. Until January 1, the TNI initially
refused to allow foreign relief airplanes to land at Banda Aceh. Indonesian President
Susilio Yudhoyono apparently overrode military opposition to foreign relief
deliveries. Since then, several TNI commanders have cooperated with American,
Australian, and Singaporean military units, and they have praised the U.S. military
relief effort.
Nevertheless, on January 11 and 12, the Indonesian military and government
officials announced restrictions on future foreign relief operations in Aceh. The main
restrictions are termination of all foreign military relief operations by March 26;
restrictions on plans by U.S. Marines to move significant quantities of aid and
manpower into the west coast of Aceh; the establishment of TNI operational control
over all foreign relief operations; a requirement that a TNI officer be on board any
foreign aircraft engaged in relief; confinement of foreign aid workers to the towns of
Banda Aceh and Meulaboh unless they receive TNI permission to operate elsewhere;
and a requirement that aid workers operating outside Banda Aceh and Meulaboh
must be accompanied by TNI personnel.

---

CRS-24
TNI attitudes are governed by an insurgency in the province that has gone on
since 1976. Anti-Indonesia forces (the Free Aceh Movement — GAM) seek
independence for the province and cite decades of repressive Indonesian rule as
justification for their uprising. The Indonesian military (TNI) long has been accused
of committing atrocities and other human rights abuses in Aceh and being involved
in corrupt practices there. In May 2003, the Indonesian government, under pressure
from the TNI, ended a six-month long cease-fire with the insurgents and declared
martial law. The TNI suppressed separatist political activity and reported resumed
severe human rights violations. The TNI also banned foreigners from Aceh,
including aid workers. The government lifted the ban on foreign aid workers on
December 27, 2004; but the restrictions announced on January 11 and 12, 2005,
appear motivated, at least in part, by a desire of the TNI to restore Aceh as much as
possible to the pre-tsunami situation of closure to foreigners. TNI commanders
justify the restrictions as needed to protect aid workers from the GAM and prevent
relief supplies from falling into the hands of GAM. However, GAM has declared a
cease-fire and asserts that it welcomes the foreign presence. Experts on Indonesia
predict that the next round of TNI restrictions will be aimed at the foreign press,
which entered Aceh after the tsunami.
The TNI also has facilitated the entrance into Aceh of Islamic militant groups,
allegedly for relief operations. The TNI provided air transport, provisions, and
housing to these groups. One of these groups, the Mujahideen Council of Indonesia
(MMI) is viewed by U.S. terrorism experts, such as Zachary Abuza (currently with
the U.S. Institute of Peace) as a political front for Jemaah Islamiya, Al Qaeda’s
regional terrorist arm in Southeast Asia.48 The TNI’s support of MMI’s entrance into
Aceh raises questions regarding the TNI’s relations with and policies toward Islamic
terrorist groups.
Sri Lanka49
The Indian Ocean tsunami hit Sri Lanka particularly hard, killing 30,899. An
estimated 40% of those killed in Sri Lanka were children. Some 6,034 people were
still missing while between 441,410 and 504,440 were homeless as of mid-January
2005. Of these, an estimated 186,000 are thought to have been taken in by friends
and family while some 250,000 have been placed in welfare centers and makeshift
camps. Tsunami related damages have been estimated at $1.8 billion. Sri Lanka has
requested some debt forgiveness and a two-year hold on its $8.82 billion debt.50
In the immediate wake of the disaster, President Bush expressed his condolences
to the victims over the “terrible loss of life and suffering.” As of January 6 it was
estimated that one quarter of the disaster victims had yet to be reached.51 The State
48 Interview with Zachary Abuza, January 13, 2005. Abuza, Jachary. Muilitant Islam in
Southeast Asia. Boulder and London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. p. 140-158.
49 Prepared by Bruce Vaughn, Analyst in Asian Affairs.
50 “State of Play in Tsunami-hit Countries,” Reuters, January 14, 2005.
51 Brian Knowlton, “Officials Gather in Jakarta,” International Herald Tribune, January 6,
(continued...)

---

CRS-25
Department issued a travel advisory warning Americans to avoid Sri Lanka.52 The
Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United States, Devinda Subasinghe, stated that up to
70% of the Sri Lankan coast was damaged. The inundation led to looting and a prison
break of some 200 inmates from a coastal prison. By January 18 the situation in Sri
Lanka had improved significantly and widespread disease had not emerged. Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz reportedly observed during his visit to Sri
Lanka that the nation was moving from the relief and rescue stage of operations to
the reconstruction and rehabilitation stage.53
The United States Bonhomme Richard Expeditionary Strike Group, which had
been in Guam, was ordered to the Bay of Bengal to provide assistance to affected
countries. The seven ships in the strike group have 25 helicopters, 2,100 marines and
1,400 sailors which has provided assistance. The head of the Pacific Command,
Admiral Thomas Fargo, also ordered two ships out of the squadron based in Diego
Garcia to provide assistance as well as five pre-positioned ships located in Guam.
Each pre-positioned ship can produce 90,000 gallons of fresh water per day.54
Sri Lanka has apparently mobilized its resources to deal with the disaster in a
more effective way than was originally thought likely. In the initial post disaster
phase Andrew Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development,
stated that “I think the Sri Lankans basically are telling us this is so massive, they are
being overwhelmed by it.”55 It was estimated on December 30 that some 10,000 to
12,000 Sri Lankans were injured. Sri Lanka’s transportation links to the affected
areas has reportedly collapsed. Rail connections to the south had closed. Truckers
refuse to travel south for fear of another tsunami. Some of the estimated one million
land mines set during ongoing Sri Lanka’s civil war — between the government and
ethnic Tamil rebels in the north and east — were reportedly unearthed and shifted
during the flood. The Tamil rebel group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE), complained that aid is not getting through to Tamil areas.56 The Sri Lankan
army has a fleet of only 12 helicopters.57
By January 18, visiting Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz traveled
to Sri Lanka and observed Sri Lanka’s recovery efforts and reportedly stated that Sri
Lanka may now be at the point where it no longer needs U.S. military assistance.
51 (...continued)
2005.
52 Deb Riechman, “Bush Sends Condolences to Asia, Offers Aid,” Associated Press,
December 27, 2004.
53 “US Official Wolfowitz Visits Tsunami Hit Area in Sri Lanka,” BBC News, January 17,
2005.
54 Marc Grossman, “News Briefing on Indian Ocean Disaster Relief,” Federal Document
Clearing House, December 29, 2004.
55 Marc Grossman, “News Briefing on Indian Ocean Disaster Relief,” Federal Document
Clearing House, December 29, 2004.
56 “After the Tsunami the Rising Cost,” The Age, December 30, 2004.
57 Paddy Murphy, “Call for Choppers,” The Australian, December 30, 2004.

---

CRS-26
U.S. helicopters have run 1,500 disaster relief missions across the region. In
connection with secessionist strife in Sri Lanka and Indonesia, Wolfowitz also
remarked that “... hopefully they realize the stakes for which they’re fighting are
trivial in comparison.”58 U.S. military assistance has reportedly stayed away from
Tamil areas of Sri Lanka in an effort to avoid the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
India has reportedly been providing assistance to Tamil areas of Sri Lanka.59 As the
relief effort evolves, it has moved to address issues of protection of survivors and to
providing assistance for psychological social program elements.
The two sectors of the Sri Lankan economy most affected are tourism and
fisheries. Hundreds of hotels are damaged or destroyed. Hotels are now estimated to
be half full. Sri Lanka’s fishing fleet in the affected areas has been badly damaged.
Sri Lanka harvests a reported 300,000 tons of fish annually for domestic
consumption. Much of this is caught by subsistence fishermen.60 Sri Lanka
announced that it is postponing the South Asian games that it had planned to host in
August 2005 in order that it may focus on reconstruction efforts.
Sri Lanka is a constitutional democracy with relatively high educational and
social standards.61 The country’s political, social, and economic development has
been seriously constrained by two decades of ethnic conflict between the majority
Sinhalese and minority Tamil ethnic groups. Since 1983, a separatist war costing
some 64,000 lives has been waged against government forces by the LTTE, which
has been seeking to establish a separate state in the Tamil-dominated areas of the
north and east. Though Sri Lanka lost fewer people than Indonesia, it lost them out
of a smaller population. Sri Lanka lost over 30,000 out of a total population of
approximately 20 million while Indonesia’s losses are out of a population of over 220
million. Further, Sri Lanka suffered destruction on approximately 70% of its coast
while the area affected in Indonesia was much more localized.62
India63
As of January 18, 2004, India is believed to have suffered up to 16,000 deaths
and $2.2 billion in financial losses as a result of the Indian Ocean tsunami.64 Waves
58 Joss White, “Wolfowitz Cites Sri Lanka’s Progress on Reconstruction,” The Washington
Post, 1/18/05.
59 “State of Play in Tsunami-hit Countries,” Reuters, January 14, 2005.
60 Amy Waldman and James Brooke, Disaster’s Damage to Economies may be Minor,” The
New York Times, January 3, 2005.
61 For additional information see CRS Report RL31707, Sri Lanka: Background and U.S.
Relations, by Bruce Vaughn.
62 Amy Waldman and David Rohde, “A Once-cherished Sea Gave Life, Then Took It,” The
New York Times, January 6, 2004.
63 Prepared by Alan Kronstadt, Analyst in Asian Affairs.
64 “India Tsunami Costs ‘Hit $1.6 Billion,’” BBC News, January 7, 2005. On January 13,
the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs was reporting 10,672 Indians confirmed dead and
(continued...)

---

CRS-27
12-14 feet high struck India’s eastern coast approximately three hours after the first
tremor. Many or most of those killed in the populous southeastern state of Tamil
Nadu reportedly were women and children.65 The city of Nagapattinam, a fishing
community some 150 miles south of Madras (Chennai), was devastated by the ocean
surge which advanced the shoreline up to 100 meters inland along the Tamil Nadu
coast. (USAID officials reported tsunami-related destruction in Tamil Nadu more
than one kilometer inland.) Nagapattinam alone eventually may account for up to
20,000 deaths, and more than 650,000 Tamil Nadu residents are said to have been
displaced or otherwise affected by the tsunami.66 The southernmost of India’s
Andaman and Nicobar Islands sit only 80 miles from the earthquake epicenter in the
Bay of Bengal. Some 30,000 residents of the archipelago lived on the nearly flat
island of Car Nicobar, where an Indian air force base was completely submerged.
Car Nicobar alone may account for up to one-third of deaths in the remote
archipelago; one report claims that 12 of the island’s 15 villages were “obliterated”
by the tsunami.67 Severe flooding in all affected regions has contaminated water
systems and, combined with the existence of many corpses floating in coastal areas,
raised concerns that lethal waterborne diseases such as cholera and diarrhea may
become epidemic.68 The Tamil Nadu economy is heavily reliant on marine product
exports and is expected to suffer major losses with the destruction of tens of
thousands of fishing boats and nets. Shipping came to a virtual standstill at the
Madras port (south India’s largest), and the region’s tourist industry has been
devastated by physical damage and booking cancellations. Madras’s 8-mile beach,
said to be the world’s second-longest, has been nearly deserted since December 26.69
India was considered by many to have had a well established disaster
management system. The United States has been engaged with Indian in disaster
training and technical assistance through USAID for some years.70 However,
numerous critics of the Indian relief effort have spoken out in 2005. At least one
United Nations expert called the recent disaster a “wake-up call”for Indian planners
who allegedly failed to learn from past experience, and Indian Red Cross officials
64 (...continued)
another 5,711 missing.
65 T.S. Subramanian, “Killer Waves,” Frontline (Madras), January 14, 2005.
66 S. Anand, “The Big Churn,” Outlook India (Delhi), December 30, 2004; USAID Fact
Sheet #7, FY2005, January 2, 2005.
67 Pankaj Sekhsaria, “Andaman’s Agony,” Frontline (Madras), January 14, 2005; Janaki
Kremmer, “No easy Access For Remote Islands,” Christian Science Monitor, January 4,
2005.
68 “India Turns Down Foreign Relief Aid,” ANSA English Media Service, December 29,
2004; “Tsunami-Hit India Struggles to Channel Flood of Aid to Needy,” Agence France
Presse, January 2, 2005.
69 S. Anand, “The Big Churn,” Outlook India (Delhi), December 30, 2004; “Tsunami
Washes Away Tourism,” Times of India (Delhi), December 27, 2004; Chris Tomlinson,
“World’s Second-Longest Beach, Center of Madras Life, Abandoned After Tsunami,”
Associated Press Newswires, January 5, 2004.
70 Marc Grossman, “News Briefing on Indian Ocean Disaster Relief,” Federal Document
Clearing House, December 29, 2004.

---

CRS-28
spoke of “chaotic” relief management and the “hijacking”of aid supplies by
government workers in Port Blair, the Andaman and Nicobar capital. A Hong Kong-
based human rights group described India’s relief efforts as “pathetic,” specifying
lack of interagency coordination and caste discrimination as key problems. New
York-based Human Rights Watch itself highlighted inequitable aid distribution and
urged the Indian government to do more to ensure that the Dalit (so-called
untouchable) community was not discriminated against in disaster-stricken areas.71
Following the tsunami, the Indian government immediately released $115
million for the National Contingency Relief Fund. For some days after the disaster,
New Delhi did not request international assistance and turned down emergency aid
offers from the United States, Russia, Japan, and Israel, saying that indigenous
capabilities are sufficient. Later, the Indian government did request long-term
rehabilitation aid from both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. As
of January 15, 2005, USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance had
committed just above $3.1 million for emergency relief activities in India.72 More
than 5,000 Indian navy personnel used 27 ships, 19 helicopters, and six naval aircraft
to deliver many hundreds of tons of relief supplies. The Indian prime minister has
promised a payment of approximately $2,300 to the next of kin of each of those
killed. India also has pledged $22 million in disaster aid to Sri Lanka and $2 million
for Maldives and dispatched several naval ships to Sri Lanka, Maldives, and
Indonesia. 73 According to the external affairs minister, New Delhi had disbursed
$250 million on relief and rehabilitation efforts in India through January 4.74
In early January, the Tamil Nadu government was reporting that 412 relief
camps had been established and held more than 300,000 people (at least 500,000 of
71 Rajesh Moudgil, “‘A Wake-Up Call for India,” Hindustan Times (Delhi), January 2, 2005;
“Tsunami-Hit India Struggles to Channel Flood of Aid to Needy,” Agence France Presse,
January 2, 2005; “Aid to Indian Islands ‘Hijacked,’” BBC News, January 13, 2005; “Rights
Body Says India’s Tsunami Relief Efforts ‘Pathetic,’” Agence France Presse, January 10,
2005; “India: End Caste Bias in Tsunami Relief,” Human Rights Watch Press Release,
January 14, 2005. See also K.P.S. Gill, “Combined Muddled Group,” Outlook India
(Delhi), January 14, 2005.
72 World Bank Press Release, January 11, 2005; USAID Fact Sheet #20, FY2005, January
15, 2005. Some observers believe that New Delhi’s reliance on indigenous capabilities and
sizeable aid contributions to neighboring states grow at least partly from a desire to have
India seen as a major and self-sufficient power. India’s rejection of external aid brought
criticism from some quarters and reportedly has caused skepticism about motives among
some diplomats. At least one report suggested that a U.S. military presence in Sri Lanka
was being viewed by New Delhi as a symbolic intrusion into India’s sphere of influence
(“Post-Tsunami India’s Image Rises Globally,” Hindustan Times (Delhi), January 5, 2005;
Edward Luce, “India Aims to Be Part of the Solution,” Financial Times (London), January
6, 2005; “US-India Struggle For Control in Disaster Zone,” Telegraph (Calcutta), January
4, 2005).
73 “Earthquake and Tsunamis Wreak Devastation in Indian Ocean Region,” Embassy of
India Press Release; “The Indian Relief Effort,” Embassy of India Press Release.
74 “Statement by External Affairs Minister Shri K. Natwar Singh at the Special Meeting of
Leaders Convened by ASEAN in the Aftermath of the Earthquake and Tsunami,” Embassy
of India Press Release, January 6, 2005.

---

CRS-29
the state’s citizens had been evacuated). That government also will provide special
relief packages to families suffering loss of homes. By January 17, 41 relief camps
were still hosting about 44,000 citizens.75
Much of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are off-limits to foreigners due to the
presence of military facilities and to protect the region’s aboriginal tribes.
International aid agencies have requested access to the islands, where relief efforts
are hampered by the destruction of most of the islands’ jetties. Emergency crews
there focused on burying the dead to prevent epidemics (it is Hindu custom to
cremate the dead).76
India is the world’s second most populous country with nearly 1.1 billion
residents. The U.N. Development Program’s 2004 Human Development Report
assigns India a ranking of 127 out of 177 world countries, a status comparable to that
of Morocco or Cambodia. Despite the existence of widespread and serious poverty,
many observers believe that India’s long-term economic potential is tremendous, and
the current growth rate of the Indian economy (8.2% for the year ending July 2004)
is amongst the highest in the world. The estimated gross domestic product in 2004
was just above $3 trillion, or $2,900 per capita (both figures in purchasing power
parity terms).77 India was allocated about $177 million in U.S. assistance for FY2004
and FY2005 combined, along with another $65 million in food aid. India has
recently dealt with a major disaster, an earthquake that struck the western Gujarat
state in January 2001, killing some 20,000 persons, injuring another 200,000, and
leaving nearly one million homeless. New Delhi reportedly intends to purchase a $29
million tsunami warning system to be functional in 2007. Some observers believe
that such a purchase would be unwise, given the rarity of tsunamis in the region.78
Thailand79
Six provinces on the western coast of southern Thailand, particularly the Phang
Nga province and the resort islands of Phuket and Phi Phi, were badly hit by sea
surges stemming from the underwater quake. Over 5,300 dead have been identified
and over 3,000 remain missing, most of whom are presumed dead.80 Officials said
that about half of the dead were foreign vacationers, many from Europe. Many
oceanfront properties, particularly hotels, were destroyed in the wave. Compared to
other affected nations, however, the infrastructure in Thailand was left relatively
unscathed: the regional electricity grid and telecommunication network continued to
75 Government of Tamil Nadu, “Rescue and Relief Operations” at
[http://www.tn.gov.in/tsunami/rescue.htm].
76 “Foreign NGOs Seek Andamans Access,” BBC News, January 3, 2005.
77 C.I.A. World Factbook 2004; UNDP Human Development Report 2004.
78 “India to Install Tsunami System,” Asia Pulse (Sydney), January 4, 2005; T.V.R. Shenoy,
“How Not to Respond to a Tsunami,” Indian Express (Delhi), January 13, 2005.
79 Prepared by Emma Chanlett-Avery, Analyst in Asian Affairs.
80 CNN News. January 13, 2005.

---

CRS-30
function, and the transportation system and water supply in Phuket were largely
unaffected.
The emergency response in Thailand has been praised by the international
community: United Nations and Australian relief agency officials described effective
and rapid coordination of grass roots relief teams to distribute supplies and provide
first aid. Some credit Thaksin’s strong political authority to command the military
and police forces. Thaksin has also come out strongly in favor of establishing a
tsunami alert system in cooperation with other regional governments. Scattered press
reports initially accused government officials of declining to evacuate the island
despite receiving a warning, based partially on fears of hurting the tourism industry.81
Such criticism has largely subsided, however, and Thaksin’s popularity ratings have
increased based on his leadership in the wake of the disaster.
The diplomatic and logistical challenge of the disaster in Thailand is different
from the other affected countries. Because at least 36 nationalities are represented
among the victims, many consulates are directly involved in the tasks of identifying
the dead. Sweden appears to be the hardest hit, with up to 1,900 missing. Other high
missing national tolls include Germany (730), Austria (500), the United Kingdom
(over 400) and Italy (330).82 The Thai police have taken charge of a massive effort
to identify all the victims using DNA samples, with the cooperation of several
international teams of forensic specialists. DNA testing is being conducted by
Chinese labs, and an American company is responsible for caring for those remains
that need to be repatriated. Over 4,000 bodies were exhumed from their original
burial in order to ensure that all bodies are identified using the standard set by
Interpol.83
Thailand is the logistics hub for much of the U.S. and international relief effort.
U.S. relief operations by air and sea for the entire region are being directed out of
Thailand’s Utapao air base and Sattahip naval base. Thailand’s government
immediately granted full U.S. access to the bases following the disaster. Lt. Gen.
Robert R. Blackman, the overall American military commander in Okinawa, is
heading the mission in Utapao, coordinating with his OFTA counterpart.
Representatives from Japan, Singapore, the U.N., the World Food Program, and the
World Health Organization are also working out of Utapao. A full DART team is
stationed in Bangkok.
Initially, the U.S. military provided about 20 cargo planes, tanker aircraft, and
search and rescue planes, flown to Thailand from Japan and Guam. P-3 surveillance
aircraft conducted survey operations, including search-and-rescue efforts, and cargo
planes shuttled supplies to shelter the living and dry ice to preserve the dead from
81 “Warning Rejected to Protect Tourism,” The Nation. December 28, 2004.
82 “Hopes Fade on Identifying Missing Foreigners,” Washington Post. January 2, 2005.
83 “MASS EXHUMATIONS: ID Operation Starts Again From Scratch,” The Nation.
January 14, 2005.

---

CRS-31
Bangkok to affected areas.84 Bangkok was the first stop by Secretary of State Colin
Powell and Florida Governor Jeb Bush on their tour of countries hit by the disaster.
Beyond the immediate concern of dealing with the dead and injured, Thailand
is likely to suffer economically, at least in the short term, because of the blow to its
tourism industry. The industry brings in about $8 billion annually, nearly 6% of
Thailand’s GDP. Because the tsunami struck at the peak of tourist season in
Thailand, millions of visitors are expected to cancel their plans, immediately costing
operators about $750 million, analysts estimate.85 Many analysts are optimistic,
however, that the industry will rebound quickly, as only about 5-10% of Thailand’s
hotels were affected and rebuilding is expected to be swift. The Thai government
reassured investors that it intended to spend $768 million to repair infrastructure in
the area.
Thailand is a long-time military ally with ongoing relevance to U.S. logistical
operations in Iraq, a key country in the war against terrorism in Southeast Asia, and
a significant trade and economic partner. A proposed U.S.-Thailand Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) is currently being negotiated. Despite differences on Burma policy
and human rights issues, shared economic and security interests have long provided
the basis for U.S.-Thai cooperation. In FY2003 and 2004, Thailand received over $20
million in economic and security assistance from the United States. For the past year,
Thailand has faced an insurgency in its southern, majority-Muslim provinces; clashes
between separatists and Thai security forces have left up to 560 people dead.
Burma86
In contrast to other governments affected by the Indian Ocean earthquake
and tidal waves, the Burmese government — as of December 29 — had given out
little information of the effects on Burma. An official from an international aid
agency told the Agence France Presse on December 27, on condition of anonymity,
that government officials were confirming 36 dead. The government subsequently
issued a figure of 53 dead. On December 28, the Agence France Presse cited at least
90 killed but cited no source. The source apparently was information over the
internet websites of anti-government groups. The international aid agency official
speculated that the actual death toll is “far greater,” given the trajectory of the tidal
waves and the closeness of Burma’s Indian Ocean coastline to the epicenter of the
earthquake. The London Sunday Telegraph (reprinted in the Washington Times,
January 2, 2005) quoted Burmese fishermen describing a major loss of life on lower
Burma’s coastline just north of the hard-hit Thai coast. However, U.N. officials
stated on January 6 that the death toll in Burma was relatively small. The Burmese
government had not issued an appeal for international aid, as of January 3, 2005.
U.N. officials, Doctors Without Borders, and the International Committee for the Red
Cross have sought government permission to visit the lower Burma coastline.
84 “US Begins Shuttle of Aid to Victims Along Thai Coast,” New York Times. January 1,
2005.
85 “Thailand Death Toll Could Reach 2,000,” CNN.com. December 28, 2004.
86 Prepared by Larry Niksch, Specialist in Asian Affairs.

---

CRS-32
The issue of aid is complicated by the heavy economic sanctions imposed by the
United States and the European Union on Burma because of the politically
repressive policies of the military-dominated Burmese government. United Nations
officials in Rangoon stated on December 27 that the United Nations was prepared to
conduct relief operations. The government likely would accept humanitarian and
reconstruction aid from China, Burma’s main international supporter, and from
regional countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and India. The government also might
accept humanitarian aid from Japan, which has provided low levels of such aid
despite sanctions on Japanese developmental aid and investment. However, the
government likely would not allow any sizeable presence of foreign aid workers. It
is also highly unlikely that the government would ask for or accept aid from the
United States. A number of experts on Burma have stated that the views of Burmese
military officials toward the United States have become very negative because of the
absence of a positive U.S. response to the government’s release from house arrest of
opposition leader, Aung Sann Suu-kyi, in 1992 and the U.S. Congress’ enactment of
a total ban on Burmese imports to the United States in July 1993 in response to the
re-arrest of Aung Sann Suu-kyi.
The Maldives87
The tsunami also hit the island-state of The Maldives. Initial reports put the
death toll at 32. This was increased to 55 on December 29, to 80 by January 3rd, and
to 86 by January 14th, 2005. A further 21 are missing and some 14,900 have been
displaced by the disaster. Many outlying islands are only one meter above sea level.
10,000 persons have been evacuated off 13 low lying islands. About half of the island
of Male was covered in two feet of water which closed the airport.88 All of the
Maldives is below 8 feet in elevation. Reports indicate that a 10 - 15 foot wave
washed over some parts of the Maldives leaving houses smashed, wells
contaminated, and power and communications infrastructure inoperable. The
Maldives’ outlying coral reefs reportedly protected many of the islands from the
tsunami. Nevertheless the government estimates that reconstruction will cost $1
billion or the rough equivalent of two years’ gross domestic product.89 Tourism
accounts for 30% of GDP in the Maldives. It is hoped that tourism can return to 80%
of capacity by March. Parliamentary elections planned for December 31 were
postponed.90
An American civil/military team was in the Maldives on the 3rd of January 2005
to make an assessment of the damage in preparation for U.S. assistance. An initial
estimate called for 1,000 military personnel are to be in the Sri Lanka/Maldives area
87 Prepared by Bruce Vaughn, Analyst in Asian Affairs.
88 “Americans Told to Avoid Travel to Sri Lanka and Thailand,” Agence France Presse,
December 27, 2004.
89 James Hookway, “Tourism Thrives in the Maldives,” The Wall Street Journal, January
3, 2004.
90 “Quake Prompts Enormous Aid Effort,” BBC News, December 28, 2004.

---

CRS-33
to provide disaster assistance.91 On January 17th two military supply ships that had
been providing assistance to Sri Lanka were sent to assist the Maldives. Though the
Maldives managed to have a relatively low number of fatalities, its reconstruction
will be particularly difficult due to its geography.
The Republic of the Maldives is a micro state of some 1,200 islands,
approximately 200 of which are inhabited by a total population of roughly 310,000.
The island state has less than half the land area of Washington DC and is situated in
the Indian Ocean off the southwest tip of India. In 1887, the Maldives became a
British protectorate. The islands became independent in 1965. The capital, Male, has
approximately 70,000 residents. The overall population growth rate is about 3%. The
Maldives has a 97% literacy rate. There are four main ethnic groups; Sinhalese,
Dravidian, Arab and African and the main religion is Sunni Muslim.
The current president of the Maldives, Maumoon Gayoom, assumed office in
1978.92 He was elected to a sixth five-year term in 2003 under a system where the
voters vote for or against a single candidate selected by the Maldivian parliament
known as the Majlis. The President appoints 8 of the 50 members of the Majlis.93 The
Republic of the Maldives is a member of the South Asian Association of Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) as well as the British Commonwealth.94
Diego Garcia95
The American military base on Diego Garcia, located south of the Maldives,
was one of the few places in the Indian Ocean that did receive warning of the tsunami
waves. The base reportedly emerged from the event without major damage. Evidently
the configuration of the ocean floor near Diego Garcia played a role in lessening the
effect of the tsunami there. The base reportedly received a warning because the Navy
is on the contact list of the Pacific Warning Center.96
Malaysia97
Malaysia includes the Malay peninsula in the west and to the east, and Sabah
and Sarawak on the north of the island of Borneo. Malaysia has a population of some
23 million. Malaysia was spared the devastation wrecked on Indonesia as it was
shielded from the tsunami by Sumatra. Despite this, some 68 were reported killed
91 “Ghost Island of the Maldives,” The Australian, January 4, 2005.
92 “Maldives Leader Names Ministers,” BBC News, September 1, 2004.
93 “Country Profile: The Maldives,” BBC News, August 14, 2004.
94 “The Maldives: Introductory Survey,” in The Europa World Yearbook 2004, (London:
Europa Publications, Taylor and Francis Group, 2004). See also “Maldives: Quarterly
Forecast Analysis,” Global Insight, [http://www.globalinsight.com]
95 Prepared by Bruce Vaughn, Analyst in Asian Affairs.
96 M. Kayal and M. Wald, “Tracking Tsunamis: Why was There No Warning?” The New
York Times, December 29, 2004.
97 Prepared by Bruce Vaughn, Analyst in Asian Affairs.

---

CRS-34
and 183 injured by the tsunami in Penang and in Kedah, Malaysia.98 A fuel loading
facility on the island of Langkawi in north western Malaysia was reportedly damaged
in the tsunami.99 Malaysia has opened its airspace and airports for international relief
efforts. Malaysia also raised 4.7 million rupiah for disaster relief by December 29.100
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi expressed his condolences and proposed greater
regional cooperation to deal with natural disasters.101
Bangladesh102
While Bangladesh has been devastated by past cyclones it was largely spared
destruction from the most recent tsunami. The Bangladesh port of Chittagong was
hit by large waves which caused flooding in 30 districts and left 2 dead as of
December 29.103 Bangladesh lost 300,000 in a cyclone in 1970 and a further 139,000
to another storm in 1991.104 Bangladesh is currently working with other South Asian
countries to set a new date for the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation
summit which was to be held on January 9-11 in Dhaka. Bangladesh has joined other
SAARC countries to provide assistance to Sri Lanka and the Maldives. It is also
hoped that the upcoming SAARC summit can provide further assistance for those
affected by the disaster.105
Somalia106
Tsunami waves reached Somalia about seven hours after hitting nations in South
Asia, about 4,000 miles away. Several Somali coastal towns and roads, notably in
northeastern and central coastal zones, were flooded and substantially destroyed by
the tsunamis. Thousands of boats and shelters were destroyed, severely damaged, and
numerous persons were reported missing. U.N. and news agencies report that
between 150 and 298 Somalis died as a result of the tsunamis.107 The northern Hafun
peninsula was among the worst-affected areas. The U.N.-affiliated World Food
Program (WFP) sent an assessment team to the coast of the northeastern Puntland
region, and OCHA led a preliminary air-based December 30 mission to assess coastal
98 “After the Tsunami the Rising Cost,” The Age, December 30, 2004 and “Malaysia
Economic and Corporate News Summary,” AFX, January 3, 2005.
99 “Asian Tsunami Causes Patchy Damage,” WMRC Daily, December29, 2004.
100 “Malaysians Do Care,” New Straits Times, December 29, 2004.
101 “PM Urges Cooperation in Providing Information,” New Straits Times, December 29,
2004.
102 Prepared by Bruce Vaughn, Analyst in Asian Affairs.
103 “After the Tsunami the Rising Cost,” The Age, December 30, 2004.
104 “Major Natural Disasters,” US News and World Report, January 10, 2005.
105 “SAARC Urged to Organize Help for Tsunami-battered Countries,” Xinhua News
Agency, January 5, 2005.
106 The remainder of the individual country entries were prepared by Nicolas Cook, African
Affairs Specialist.
107 “Somali Tsunami Victim Toll Rises,” BBC News, January 5, 2005.

---

CRS-35
zone tsunami damage. U.N. officials estimated that about 54,000 Somalis were
directly affected by the tsunamis and that about 18,000 households may require
emergency aid. The WFP has sent over 277 tons of food to the affected region, where
the World Health Organization deployed three emergency kits with a capacity to
serve 30,000 persons’ basic needs for three months. The Kenya-based Somali
transitional government has reportedly made unconfirmed, possibly exaggerated
claims that over 1,000 Somalis may have died as a result of the tsunamis, and
announced plans to send its own assessment team to Somalia.
OCHA on January 3, reported that international tsunami-related contributions
to Somalia included $50,000 from the United States, to be delivered via UNICEF,
and $100,000 from Saudi Arabia, contributed through the Society of the Red Cross.
Some existing U.N. drought-related and humanitarian aid was being re-prioritized to
meet emerging tsunami-related needs. Somali government officials issued informal
appeals for tsunami-related food and medical aid. According to a January 3 news
report, a total of 24 countries had pledged to send relief aid to Somalia, but such aid
had not arrived, according to a Somali presidential spokesman.108 U.S. officials
planned to respond to Somali government requests for tsunami relief aid by
reviewing U.N. assessments and, if aid is warranted, to channel any U.S. aid through
U.N. agencies. However, if needs prove severe and U.S. officials view the delivery
of U.S. bilateral emergency aid as necessary, a U.S. emergency declaration could be
made by the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has
suggested that a moratorium on debt owed by Somalia to creditor nations be
discussed at a January 2005 meeting of the Paris Club of official creditors. When
questioned about the proposal, U.S. officials, including President Bush, publicly did
not reject it, although they did not address it in detail.109
Somalia, a northeastern African country of about 8.3 million, has been wracked
by intermittent civil war and armed banditry since the ouster of President Siad Barre
in 1991. Since then, it has lacked an effective central government, and remains
politically fractious and dangerous due to the activities of diverse armed groups. It
is divided into three semi-autonomous regions: Somaliland, in the northwest and
Puntland in the north, both self-governed regions; and southern and central Somalia,
which is divided into localities dominated by local clans, warlords, and business
interests. Somalia is undergoing a process of peace making and state reconstruction.
In August 2004, key warlords and politicians formed a new parliament, which
appointed President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed in October 2004. U.S., international
and Somali government access to southern Somalia is severely limited due to
insecurity. U.S. interests are represented by the U.S. mission in Nairobi, Kenya.
108 Rodrique Ngowi, “Somalia still waiting for food, shelter, medical help for victims of the
tsunamis,” Associated Press, Jan. 3, 2005.
109 Reuters, “Schroeder urges debt relief for Indonesia, Somalia,” December 29, 2004;
Agence France Presse, “US ‘open’ to debt relief for tsunami victims,” December 29, 2004;
White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “President Discusses Support for Earthquake
and Tsunami Victims,” December 29, 2004.

---

CRS-36
Conventional, non-tsunami-related U.S. assistance to Somalia focuses on
bolstering the capacity of civil society organizations and institutions related to local
governance and adherence to the rule of law; enhancing local economic opportunities
by backing a variety of projects focused on basic education, infrastructure
rehabilitation, and alternative energy use; and support for healthcare delivery. U.S.
Economic Support Fund monies, not shown in the aid table in the appendix, have
also helped finance lengthy negotiations aimed at forming a central Somali
government. The bulk of U.S. aid is delivered in the form of a various emergency,
supplemental, and developmental food-related and nutrition programs. H.R. 4818,
the foreign operations FY2005 appropriations bill, enacted as P.L. 108-447, did not
designate a specific appropriation for Somalia, which is not mentioned in the House
report (H.Rept. 108-599) or conference report (H.Rept. 108-792) associated with
H.R. 4818. The Senate report (S.Rept. 108-346) that accompanied S. 2812, a Senate
foreign operations FY2005 appropriations bill, later amended in relation to the
passage of H.R. 4818, stated that “[t]he Committee is concerned that the budget
request for assistance for Somalia under the DA account is only $986,000. The
Committee requests USAID and the State Department to take a more active role to
assist local efforts to promote peace and development in that country and
recommends that not less than $5,000,000 in DA be provided to support secular
education and strengthen civil society, particularly in Somaliland and Puntland.”
Kenya
The coast of Kenya, an east African country of about 32.02 million persons,
experienced tsunami waves that destroyed boats, damaged coastal properties, and
reportedly killed one swimmer, a tourist. More deaths may have been averted because
authorities closed coastal beaches and issued public precautions before and after the
tsunami waves hit the country. Kenya has not requested tsunami-related aid. The
international Committee of the Red Cross plans to ship at least 105 tons of relief
supplies to Sri Lanka from Nairobi, where the organization stocks such supplies.110
Tanzania
In Dar es Salaam, the commercial capital of Tanzania, an east African country
of about 36.59 million persons, ten young swimmers were reported killed as a result
of tsunami waves. Additional persons may have died in a capsized boat. A tanker
reportedly ruptured an oil pipeline as a result of the tsunamis. Tanzanian officials
issued public warnings about possible further tsunami waves. Tanzania has not
requested tsunami-related aid.111
110 BBC, “Many missing...”; Voice of America, “Tidal Wave Hits Somalia, Kenya,” Dec.
27, 2004; Kenyan KBC radio, “Kenya sets up “crisis desk” to monitor tidal waves,” BBC
Monitoring Newsfile, Dec. 27 2004; Adrian Blomfield, “Evacuation from beaches cut deaths
by hundreds in Kenya East Africa,” The Daily Telegraph, Dec. 29 2004; Voice of America,
“Government Officials to Travel Around Somalia to Assess Damage,” Dec. 28, 2004.
111 BBC, “Many missing...”; Pflanz, “Waves kill...”; Tom Maliti, “U.N. Struggles to Get Aid
to Somali Town,” Associated Press, Dec. 29 2004.

---

CRS-37
Seychelles
Seychelles, a group of Indian Ocean islands northeast of Madagascar off the
eastern African coast, sustained tsunami-related coastal floods. These destroyed two
bridges, some sewer and water systems, and caused extensive damage to a port,
power lines, schools, real properties, boats, and vehicles. Total damage in Seychelles
is worth an estimated $23.5 million. Three tsunami-related fatalities occurred.
Seychelles may formally request tsunami-related international aid, likely from the
United States, according to State Department officials.112
Madagascar
A tsunami wave flooded a coastal village in southeastern Madagascar, a large
Indian Ocean island off the coast of Mozambique, causing about 1,200 people to
become homeless. Madagascar, which regularly experiences extensive typhoon-
related natural disasters, has not requested tsunami-related aid.113
Mauritius
Damage to property, boats, and a weather station were reported in Mauritius,
where tsunami-related coastal evacuation orders were issued. Mauritius has not
requested tsunami-related aid.114
Reunion (French Territory)
The BBC reports that tsunamis damaged about 15 fishing vessels.115
South Africa
South Africa reported unusually high tides, believed to be tsunami-related, in
which a man perished.116
112 BBC, “Many missing...”; Pflanz, “Waves kill...”; The Irish Examiner,” Seychelles Caught
in Tsunami’s Path,” Dec. 27, 2004; State Department communications.
113 Mohamed Ali Bile, “Waves kill 38 Somalis, UN fears toll may rise,” Reuters, Dec. 27
2004.
114 Agence France Presse, “Over 100 feared dead in Somalia from killer Asian tidal waves,”
Dec. 27, 2004; State Department personal communication.
115 BBC, “Many missing...”
116 Cape Argus, “Somalia asks for UN help,” Dec. 29, 2004.

---

CRS-38
Issues for Congress117
Tsunami Aid and Reconstruction Issues
Burdensharing. A day after the south Asia crisis, U.N. Under-Secretary-
General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland,
commenting on contributions by the wealthy nations to disasters in general in 2004,
stated that some developed nations were being “stingy” with aid. According to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, although the United
States is the world’s largest provider of foreign assistance, it often is one of the
lowest contributors in per capita terms amongst the world’s most wealthy countries.
The United States has been reported as giving 0.14 percent of GNP in international
development assistance as compared to Norway’s 0.92 percent contribution.118
USAID Director Andrew Natsios has refuted Egeland’s statement, saying that the
aforementioned data was only for development assistance and did not include disaster
relief.119
In the first days after the tsunami, the Bush Administration was criticized by
some observers for displaying a lack of urgency in its initial response. President
Bush came under criticism for waiting three days before publicly speaking about the
disaster during his vacation in Crawford, Texas.120 The subsequent increase of U.S.
economic and logistical assistance, along with the dispatch of Secretary of State
Powell and Florida Governor Bush to the region a week after the tsunami, may help
to change this perception.
In previous disasters, pledges made by governments have not always resulted
in actual contributions, the Bam earthquake of December 2003 is but one example
raised by the United Nations. Experts are concerned that while billions of dollars
have been pledged to help the victims of the tsunami disaster, there is no guarantee
that these pledges will be honored. It also cannot be assumed that the funds represent
new money as it may previously have been allocated elsewhere. Some are also
concerned about funding priorities and resources for other disaster areas and the very
real possibility of international donor fatigue. It will take time for a more complete
picture to reveal how the actual costs of the tsunami disaster will be shared among
international donors.121
117 Prepared by Nicolas Cook, Mark Manyin, Rhoda Margesson, Larry Niksch, Larry
Nowels, Bruce Vaughn, and Wayne Morrissey, Senior Research Assistant.
118 John Harris and Robin Wright, “Aid Grows Amid Remarks About President’s Absence,”
The Washington Post, December 29, 2004.
119 December 29, 2004 Interview on the PBS TV Program, The News Hour. For more
information on donor contribution comparisons, see CRS Report RS22032, Foreign Aid:
Understanding Data Used to Compare Donors, by Larry Nowels.
120 David Sanger, “It’s About Aid, and an Image,” New York Times, December 30, 2004.
121 James Darcy, “The Indian Ocean Tsunami Crisis: Humanitarian Dimensions,” Overseas
Development Institute, January 11, 2005.

---

CRS-39
Competing Aid and Budget Priorities.122 Funding the Indian Ocean
tsunami relief and reconstruction effort is likely to be a challenge faced in the early
weeks of the 109th Congress. Thus far, the Administration has been able to fund its
pledge of $350 million for emergency relief by depleting most worldwide disaster
contingency appropriations for FY2005. In the short term, the Administration can
also shift funds from regular economic aid accounts in order to address urgent
tsunami victim needs. In order to respond to future humanitarian crises, however,
these resources will need to be replenished. The White House may send Congress
an emergency FY2005 supplemental request in early February.
Even before the disaster struck, Congress was expected to struggle to find the
resources to sustain U.S. aid pledges amid efforts to tackle rising budget deficits by,
among other measures, slowing or reducing discretionary spending. During the
FY2005 debate, lawmakers reduced the President’s foreign assistance budget request
(a subset of the larger foreign policy budget request) by $1.7 billion, or nearly 8%.
This was the first time such cuts occurred during the Bush Administration. Some
Members of Congress publicly have expressed concern that funding for tsunami
relief and reconstruction, if not fully restored through supplemental appropriations,
may jeopardize resources for subsequent international disasters or for other aid
priorities from which tsunami emergency aid has been transferred.123
Transparency. Members of Congress have also raised concerns about
transparency of donor contributions, allocation of monies, and monitoring of projects
by the United Nations. The United Nations has said it will improve its financial
tracking and reporting system and Price Waterhouse Coopers is reportedly assisting
in that effort. Many contributions are also being made directly to international
organizations and non-governmental organizations, which could raise the same
questions about transparency requirements. Moreover, while earmarks and time
limits may ensure greater accountability, they can also add pressure for organizations
to spend contributed funds, sometimes leading to unnecessary spending, waste and
duplicated efforts. Restrictions on funds also often do not allow flexibility to adapt
projects to better meet the changing needs on the ground.124
Debt Relief. While there is an on-going need for immediate relief assistance
for tsunami-affected countries, longer term aid will also be needed to assist these
nations, which face substantial costs associated with rebuilding infrastructure and
basic social services. Such extended aid may take the form of official debt relief or
repayment moratoriums, which may free resources for reconstruction. Several
creditor governments reportedly support an immediate moratorium on debt payments
by affected nations while other debt-related policy options are considered.125 While
122 Prepared by Larry Nowels, Foreign Affairs Specialist.
123 Elizabeth Becker, “No New Funds Needed For Relief, Bush Aides Say,” New York
Times, January 4, 2005.
124 Edward Clay, “Lessons for Life,” The Guardian Review, January 12, 2005.
125 “Debt Freeze for Tsunami Nations Gets Boost at Summit,” Reuters News Service,
January 6, 2005; BBC News, “Brown pushes tsunami debt relief,” Jan. 4 2005; Reuters,
(continued...)

---

CRS-40
U.S. officials have not firmly committed to any large-scale program of debt
cancellation or repayment term rescheduling,126 at least one significant debt-related
policy decision — the release of a communique allowing temporary credit
forbearance by debtors to the consensus-based Paris Club of creditor governments,
of which the United States is a member — has been made to date.127 In addition, the
World Bank, IMF, and major bilateral creditor governments, including the United
States, have been considering an expansion of the Heavily Indebted Poor Country
(HIPC) initiative. Although none of the tsunami-affected countries are eligible for
HIPC debt relief, consideration of debt reduction proposals for these disaster-struck
nations could occur during subsequent talks on HIPC enhancement. Due to the size
of Indonesia’s debt burden, some have argued in the past that Jakarta should be
eligible for some form of HIPC debt-relief terms.
If the Paris Club decides to provide debt cancellation or the rescheduling of
credit repayment terms to any of the tsunami-affected countries, or if the multilateral
financial institutions recommend such relief, Congress may be called upon to
consider the nature, extent, and conditions of any credit relief that may be provided
by the United States. In addition, Congress may consider bilateral or multilateral
debt relief as a component of U.S. policy efforts to help tsunami-affected countries
to recover economically.
Implications for Other U.S. Foreign Policy Interests
The War on Terrorism. The 9/11 Commission and others have pointed out
the U.S. interest in preventing regions of instability from becoming havens or
recruiting grounds for Islamist terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Jemaah
Islamiya (JI), the Southeast Asia terrorist organization that has close ties to Al Qaeda
and is thought to have killed hundreds in four separate attacks since September 11,
2001. While Sumatra, in Indonesia, has not been an active base of operation for Al
Qaeda or JI, the Indonesian military’s support of the entrance of the Mujahideen
Council of Indonesia (MMI) raises serious questions about the TNI’s policy toward
terrorist groups, given the MMI’s relationship with Jemaah Islamiya and Al Qaeda.
Moreover, any prolonged economic and political disruption, combined with potential
perceptions of Jakarta’s inability to deliver assistance, could open the door for a more
active terrorist presence or lead the anti-Indonesian Free Aceh Movement (GAM) to
125 (...continued)
“Schroeder urges debt relief for Indonesia, Somalia,” December 29, 2004;.
126 Agence France Presse, “US ‘open’ to debt relief for tsunami victims,” December 29,
2004; White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “President Discusses Support for
Earthquake and Tsunami Victims,” December 29, 2004.
127 At their January 12, 2005 meeting, Paris Club members “shared the view” that “with
immediate effect and consistent with the national laws of the creditor countries, they will
not expect debt payments from affected countries that request such forbearance until the
World Bank and the IMF [International Monetary Fund] have made a full assessment of
their reconstruction and financing needs.” Following such assessments, the Paris Club “will
consider what further steps are necessary.” See Paris Club, “Paris Club communique on
Tsunami affected countries,” January 12, 2005. For background, see CRS Report RS21482,
The Paris Club and International Debt Relief, by Martin A. Weiss.

---

CRS-41
establish ties to JI or Al Qaeda. Additionally, some Indonesian organizations and
charities with known ties to JI have dispatched humanitarian relief teams to Aceh.
In Southern Thailand, the areas most affected by the tsunami are generally considered
ethnically and regionally distinct from the predominantly Muslim provinces on the
western coast of peninsular Thailand, which have been the site of sectarian and anti-
government violence by Muslims over the past year.
Countering Negative Images of the United States. The large-scale
U.S. response to the tsunami is unlikely to reverse the decline in the U.S. image
abroad since the September 11 attacks, because this decline primarily is due to
American policies in the Middle East. However, the scale and scope of U.S.
assistance could provide a positive example of U.S. leadership and military
capabilities. The decline in the U.S. image abroad has been particularly acute in the
Muslim world, especially in Indonesia, where according to one series of polls, only
15% of those polled in 2003 said they had a favorable opinion of the United States,
down from 61% in 2002.128 Additionally, the U.S. tsunami relief effort could help
counter the perception among some Southeast Asians that the United States not only
has placed too much emphasis on terrorism in its Southeast Asia policy, but also has
relied too heavily on “hard” (military) power to combat terrorism. The 9/11
Commission and others have recommended expanding U.S. public diplomacy
programs as a way to help win the global battle for “hearts and minds” especially in
the Islamic world from which the Muslim terrorists seek to draw recruits and support.
The restrictions on foreign relief activities announced by the Indonesian military and
government on January 11 and 12, 2005, potentially raise the reverse issue of
negative U.S. reactions to Indonesia. Commentary in the U.S. press and on radio
talks shows has been very negative toward Indonesia because of the restrictions.
Early Warning Systems: International Scientific, Technological and
Other Challenges.129 Nations affected by the December 26, 2004 tsunami,
assisted by others, are pursuing a multilateral effort through the U.N. Environmental
Programs to develop a tsunami detection and early warning network for the Indian
Ocean.
Decisions about whether and how to proceed with establishing an international
tsunami early warning system for the Indian Ocean (and elsewhere) will likely be
complicated for a number of reasons. One reason is because of the number of
different potential international parties that would be involved with the need to
coordinate data collection and warning dissemination, and a second is the funding
needed to establish a tsunami warning system in that region. A third is that nations,
including some in the Indian Ocean, might charge for access to critical satellite data
that may help in warning potential victims. Some in Congress assert that the costs
of acquiring those data could be well worth it, in terms of lives saved; while others
128 Dan Gardner, “Bush is Losing the War for Hearts and Ninds,” The Ottawa Citizen,
March 13, 2004 and Ellen Nakashima, “U.S. Policy Censured in Indonesia,” The
Washington Post, October 21, 2003.
129 Prepared by Wayne Morrissey, Senior Research Assistant, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division. See also CRS Report RL32739 Tsunamis: Monitoring, Detection, and
Early Warning Systems by the same author.

---

CRS-42
counter that access to those proprietary data should be provided free of charge,
especially when the United States and other nations provide disaster relief and
propose funding tsunami detection and warning activities for the region.130
The greatest challenge is likely be to establishing local or regional emergency
management infrastructures for inhabitants in coastal regions bounding the Indian
Ocean to receive tsunami alerts in sufficient time to evacuate, and to be notified
when to return after the dangers have subsided. Many question who would be
responsible for building and maintaining such systems. Other challenges could
include standardizing instrumentation for detecting tsunamis and other related
technology globally. As a possible threat for U.S. homeland security, routine,
unrestricted access to international telecommunications networks that would relay
sensitive environmental data as well as issue tsunami warnings could compromise
domestic intelligence-gathering operations.
After the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster, some Members of Congress became
concerned about the possible vulnerability of U.S. coastal areas to tsunamis, and the
adequacy of early warning for costal areas of the western Atlantic Ocean. A few of
them, and now the Bush Administration, proposed expanding tsunami warning
networks in Pacific coastal areas, and adding coverage for the Atlantic seaboard.
Others question the risks of a tsunami hitting the U.S. Atlantic coast.131 Assessing
the probability as low, they assert that risk factor should be important when
conceptualizing a cooperative early tsunami warning system for the U.S. Eastern
Seaboard. Although additional tsunami detection and warning instrumentation for
the United States (and elsewhere) could run into the millions of dollars, experts
suggest that existing weather buoy and regional coastal and ocean observation
networks and their telecommunications capacity might be shared. Others have
proposed that the European Union, Canada, and the United States engage jointly
establish coverage for the North Atlantic.
The Indian Ocean tsunami has led some to call for instituting a tsunami
detection and warning system in the Atlantic and/or Indian Oceans. Affected nations
assisted by others may consider a multilateral effort to develop a detection and
warning network for the future. Australia and Japan have stated that they will help
build a tidal wave warning system for the Indian Ocean. By some estimates, this
will cost tens of millions of dollars to establish.132 Some Members of Congress also
have proposed such a network for the U.S. Atlantic seaboard. Although
instrumentation costs could run into the millions of dollars, existing weather buoys
and developing state and local coastal and ocean observation networks might serve
as possible platforms for instrumentation. Accordingly, the European Union,
Canada, and the United States might consider bi-lateral efforts to establish tsunami
coverage of the North Atlantic.
130 The Washington Times, Jan. 7, 2005: A10.
131 See “Off W Coast of Northern Sumatra, Can It Happen in the United States?” See USGS
E a r t h q u a k e H a z a r d s P r o g r a m : F A Q , J a n . 4 , 2 0 0 5 a t
[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/canit.html], visited Jan. 5, 2005.
132 “Officials in Asia Concede That They Failed to Issue Warnings,” Associated Press,
December 27, 2004.

---

CRS-43
Aid to Indonesia and the Leahy Amendment. U.S. economic aid to
Indonesia for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 totaled $412 million. The Bush
Administration budgeted $158 million for FY2005. Much of this aid has gone to
programs supporting the development of democratic political institutions in
Indonesia with a recent emphasis on Indonesia’s education system. The
Administration reportedly will tap this existing bilateral aid program to help fund the
U.S. relief effort in Indonesia.133 Congress can be expected to receive new aid
requests from the Administration focusing on humanitarian and reconstruction aid,
especially directed at Aceh. Such requests undoubtedly would turn the attention of
the Administration and Congress to the political situation in Aceh, especially the
insurgency and the role of the Indonesian military (TNI).
Additionally, the disaster relief cooperation between the U.S. and Indonesian
militaries is likely to be mentioned during the annual congressional deliberations over
renewing restrictions on U.S.-Indonesian military-to-military relations, which the
Bush Administration has sought to restore since the September 11, 2001 attacks. For
more than a decade, Congress has restricted the provision of military assistance to
Indonesia due to concern about serious human rights violations by the TNI, most
notably the massacre of hundreds of people participating in a pro-independence rally
in Dili, East Timor, in November 1991.
In a press briefing on January 6, 2005, Secretary Powell said that the U.S. is
trying to provide the Indonesian government with enough spare parts to repair five
Indonesian C-130 Hercules transport aircraft that currently are not operational. This
would raise Indonesia’s number of operational C-130s to twelve. As discussed
below, current U.S. legislation places strict controls on the provision of military
equipment to Indonesia. When pressed on the issue of whether Jakarta in the future
might use repaired planes in its conflict with the GAM rebels in Aceh, Secretary
Powell said that “the humanitarian need ... trumps, right now, the reservations we
have.” He added his “hope” that the Indonesian government’s desire to receive
additional military parts in the future would serve as a disincentive for using aircraft
against the GAM.134
Although the language has varied from year to year, in general, the Leahy
amendment bans arms sales to Indonesia, U.S. military training with the TNI, and
TNI participation in the U.S. International Military Education Training (IMET)
program unless the President certifies that the Indonesian government and the TNI
are taking actions against the TNI’s reported human rights abuses, including
prosecution of abusers. The Leahy amendments for fiscal years 2002 and 2003
specifically mentioned Aceh in this context. About a week after the tsunami hit, the
head of the Indonesian military’s relief operations, Major General. Adam Damiri,
was replaced, apparently because of concerns that his indictment for war crimes by
133 Jonathan Weisman, “Funds Ready for Tsunami Aid, but Hill Seeks to Do More,”
Washington Post, January 6, 2005.
134 State Department, “Secretary Colin L. Powell Remarks to the Traveling Press in
Indonesia,” Press Filing Center, Jakarta, Indonesia, January 6, 2005.

---

CRS-44
a U.N.-backed tribunal in East Timor would complicate U.S.-Indonesian military
relief cooperation.135
135 Alan Sipress and Noor Huda Ismail, “Relief Transcends U.S.-Indonesia Divide,”
Washington Post, January 4, 2005.

---

CRS-45
Appendix 1. U.S. Assistance to Selected Countries
Affected by the Indian Ocean Tsunami
(Note: Totals may not add due to rounding)
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to Indonesia, 2001-2005
(millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2002
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 S.A.a
FY2003
estimate
estimate
CSH
19.6
35.6
—
32.0
34.0
32.3
DA
51.5
38.7
—
39.0
31.3
32.7
ESF
49.9
50.0
—
59.6
49.7
65.0
IMET
0.0
0.4
—
0.0
0.0
0.6
NADR 0.0
0.0
8.0
1.0
5.8
6.0
INCLE
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
Totals 121.0
124.7
12.0
131.6
120.8
146.6
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title I
15.0
19.0
—
0.0
0.0
n/a
USDA Loan
P.L. 480 Title
12.2
10.4
—
29.5
2.2
23.0
II Grant
FFP
5.1
10.9
—
0.0
5.6
n/a
Section 416(b)
0.0
11.2
—
7.9
17.7
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture
a. Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 107-206)
Table 6. U.S. Assistance to Sri Lanka, 2001-2005
(millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
DA
3.4
5.2
6.2
4.8
6.6
ESF
0.0
3.0
4.0
11.9
10.0
FMF
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
IMET
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
NADR
0.0
0.0
2.4
1.9
1.9
PKO
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
Totals
4.0
8.7
13.1
21.3
20.8
Food Aid (not including freight costs)
P.L. 480 Title I
7.9
8.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
USDA Loan
P.L. 480 Title II
0.0
1.3
0.6
2.7
0.0
Grant
FFP
0.0
2.8
0.0
n/a
Section 416(b)
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
n/a
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

---

CRS-46
Table 7. U.S. Assistance to India, FY2001-FY2005
(millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
Program or Account
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
CSH
24.6
41.7
47.4
48.3
43.4
DA
28.8
29.2
34.5
25.7
25.4
ESF
5.0
7.0
10.5
14.9
15.0
IMET
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.4
NADR-EXBS
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.7
Totals
$59.8
$79.8
$94.4
$90.9
$85.9
Food Aid (Not including freight costs)
P.L.480 Title II*
78.3
93.7
44.8
20.2
44.8
Section 416(b)*
-.-
12.0
-.-
-.-
-.-
Sources: U.S. Departments of State and Agriculture; U.S. Agency for International Development.
Table 8. U.S. Assistance to Thailand, FY2002-FY2005
(millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
CSH
0.0
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
DA
0.0
0.8
1.3
0.0
0.0
ESF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
FMF
0.0
1.3
2.0
1.0
1.5
IMET
1.9
1.7
1.8
2.5
2.5
INCLE
4.1
4.0
3.7
2.0
2.0
NADR
1.3
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.8
Peace Corps
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.1
2.6
Totals
8.4
10.7
12.2
7.9
10.3
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Table 9. U.S. Assistance to Malaysia, 2001-2005
(millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
Account
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 estimate
estimate
IMET
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.1
NADR
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.1
1.0
Totals
0.9
1.0
2.1
1.3
2.1
Sources: U.S. Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

---

CRS-47
Table 10. U.S. Assistance to Somalia
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Account
FY2003 Actual
FY2004 Est.
FY2005 Req.*
CSH
0.3
0.1
-
DA
3.1
0.9
1.0
NADR-HD
0.5
-
-
Totals
3.8
1.0
1.0
P.L._480_Title_II
136.4
89.0
-
Food Aid
Source: “Somalia,” Request by Region: Africa, FY2005 Congressional Budget Justification for
Foreign Operations, Feb. 10, 2004.
*Note: No Somalia-specific appropriations were enacted for FY2005. Data on levels of any U.S.
assistance for Somalia will become available after the Administration has notified the appropriate
Congressional committees of its functional account allocations, in accordance with the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Overall assistance to sub-Saharan Africa rose slightly over
FY2004 levels.

List of Aid-Related Abbreviations
CSH: Child Survival and Health Programs
DA: Development Assistance Programs
ESF: Economic Support Fund Programs
IMET: International Military Education and Training Programs
NADR-EXBS: Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related - Export
Control and Related Border Security Assistance Programs
P.L.480 Title II: Emergency and Private Assistance food aid (grants)
Section 416(b): The Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (surplus agricultural
commodity donations)

---

CRS-48
Appendix 2. Child Protection Issues in Tsunami-
Affected Countries
Indonesia
! One confirmed case of four-year-old boy taken out of Banda Aceh
by a couple claiming to be his parents. (We cannot confirm the child
was trafficked.)
! There may be other possible cases of child-trafficking: media reports
sighting by an “NGO worker” of about 100 infants carried in a speed
boat in the middle of the night.
! The government has imposed a moratorium on adoptions of children
from Aceh.
! Children from Aceh under 16 cannot leave the country at this time.
! Surveillance will be increased at airports and seaports in North
Sumatra and Aceh.
! The government has placed many Acehnese children in orphanages
in Medan and other towns across Sumatra Island.
! Children being placed with Acehnese families under a temporary
foster care scheme.
! Twenty child-friendly centers for unaccompanied children will soon
be opened in major displacement camps in Aceh.
! Registration of children has begun.
! When adoptions become possible, Achenese residents will be given
priority.
Thailand
! The government reports no cases of trafficking or abduction.
! The government has ruled out adoptions for unaccompanied children
at this time.
! Specific measures being taken to prevent trafficking include
registration of children, provision of temporary accommodation for
unaccompanied children in government reception homes and family
tracing.
! Child rights volunteers deployed in Ranong and Phuket to conduct
community surveillance. UNICEF will work with provincial and
district authorities to mobilize NGO partners, communities, and the
media to be more vigilant on child protection issues.

---

CRS-49
Sri Lanka
! No reports of trafficking or abuse of children (in camps) received by
UNICEF.
! UNICEF and partners providing additional support to grandparent-
headed families and unaccompanied children.
! Reports of Sri Lankan citizens wanting to adopt children. Process for
adoption takes up to five years. UNICEF is advocating for foster
system. (Foster care is not a tradition in Sri Lanka.)
! UNICEF and partners have mobilized teams to identify and register
all unaccompanied and separated children.
! Police and authorities are not yet present in camps, raising concerns
that children will be more vulnerable to sexual and other abuse.
! UNICEF and the NCPA are conducting an emergency assessment to
identify children in displaced camps who are without parents or
otherwise vulnerable.
! UNICEF will support authorities in the investigation of all
incidences of abuse of children.
! Data collection on unaccompanied and separated children is ongoing
in all districts.

India
! No reports of trafficking or abuse of children received by UNICEF.
! UNICEF is seeking the views of the government of India on the
adoption policy announced by the government of Tamil Nadu.
! UNICEF is providing psychosocial support to traumatized children
in 13 districts.
! Unaccompanied children have been identified in camps in two
districts in Tamil Nadu.
! Special orphanages for unaccompanied children have been opened
in Tamil Nadu.
Malaysia
! The text message offering 300 Acehnese “orphans” for adoption is
under investigation.
! UNICEF working with the government and UNICEF Indonesia as
necessary to strengthen the monitoring capacity of immigration
controls to prevent trafficking into Malaysia.
Source: Reported by UNICEF on January 12, 2005.

---

CRS-50
Figure 2. Countries Affected by the Tsunami

---

CRS-51
Figure 3. Regional Assistance and Food Aid Requirements

---