Here in the United States, is a natural disaster an attack on one state, or an attack on all?

Hmm. Why does the question seem familiar? Oh yes! The same idea is enshrined in NATO treaty article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…

NATO article 5 has been invoked only once – and that in America’s favor. European and Canadian members came alongside the United States following the 9-11 attacks of 2001. The last few years have again focused minds on these few words – occasioned by the war in Ukraine (not a NATO member). Current NATO commitments look wobbly. The United States has expressed skepticism, citing failure of the other parties to commit to their fair share of the defense budgets needed to give the agreement teeth.

This kind of complaint, whatever the issue, from whichever source – that other parties to this or that agreement should pull their weight, do more – is regrettably embedded in human DNA. It shows itself in marriages, in siblings, and in the office. Unsurprisingly, it also manifests itself in the DNA of the United States.

Consider our history. In 1776, colonial signatories closed the Declaration of Independence in this way:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

A noble vow![1] But for much of the war that followed, perhaps most poignantly even as Washington and his forces were shivering and starving in the cold in Valley Forge, the colonies in the Continental Congress squabbled over who should cover which costs and make which contributions (munitions, say, vs. food and blankets). Several of the colonies wanted to protect their own narrow interests by supporting state-level militias instead of funding the national army. In the end, the colonies’ victory owed as much to England’s remoteness and internal English politics as it did to colonial pledges. The United States Constitution and our current form of federal government emerged in response to these shortcomings.

U.S. unity would continue to be threatened over the ensuing decades by the slavery issue and the divergent economic interests of the plantation south and the more mercantile and industrial north. By 1858 the moral and political divide had become so vast that it prompted Abraham Lincoln to mourn:

 A house divided against itself cannot stand.^[2]

Unity was eventually restored, but only at the cost of four years of war and hundreds of thousands of lives.

Americans today could be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu. The United States is riven by political fault lines – racial, ethnic, income-level, rural versus urban, border-states vs. the rest, gender differences, vaccinations, right-to-life, religion, etc. Policy measures to cope trigger disputes about fairness – allocation of both benefits and burdens. In the current political climate, some of these have prompted complaints about federal interference and calls for devolution – a transfer of power (and responsibility) from the federal government to the states.  

Some seek devolution in another arena – living on a real world that does much of its business through extreme events such as cycles of flood and drought, hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, pandemics, and more. The plaintiffs aim to reduce the role of FEMA in disaster recovery and in pre-event measures to reduce vulnerability.

At a superficial level, it’s easy to see why devolution is tempting. Natural disasters are localized and intermittent. They hit communities and states in no particular order. But the patterns of loss and the underlying causes are uneven. Individual states face different risks, and different levels of risk. No state is fully immune to any type of hazard. However, a few are more vulnerable than the rest to earthquakes. Others face hurricane landfalls, or lie in the tornado belt. Others are challenged by drought and wildfires. Some states by virtue of economic strength and other factors are more resilient than others. States vary in how responsibly they take measures to mitigate the risks they face.

But it’s also clear that devolution must be resisted. Natural disasters exact a grievous toll – in lives and injuries, property loss, and economic and social disruption. Almost by definition, natural disasters exceed the ability of communities and even states to recover on their own. Public attention to any one disaster is fleeting, because others are continually coming along to grab the headlines. For example, today’s preoccupation is with last weekend’s Midwest floods and tornadoes.

But disaster losses and the hardship of recovery are enduring. Asheville and Altadena are rapidly fading from national public concern. Meanwhile, Asheville’s recovery is barely getting underway. In Altadena, EPA removal of hazardous waste is complete but the larger task of fire debris removal may extend into next year. (For comparison, 15-20 years after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans has yet to recover fully; see also here).

Experts see a FEMA dismantling as problematic. FEMA and other public- and private-sector institutions for accomplishing disaster recovery could all do with improvement, at national, state, and local levels. But we should do the hard work to make those needed improvements, not just walk away. In every disaster’s aftermath, survivors need to know that all Americans have their back.

This is an important responsibility, but it’s also a significant opportunity. As politicized as the arena of disaster recovery has become, it is less divisive than many of the other social fractures we face. After all, the urge to help the victims of catastrophe is also in our human and national DNA. Rigorously exercising this desire to help, putting it into practice, could be a start to restoring needed national unity in the face of the more contentious issues. And not just the domestic ones. Perhaps success here would help us as a nation to stiffen our commitment to our international allies as well.

An attack on one state is an attack on all.

---

[1] Inspired by practical interests. At the time, Benjamin Franklin put the issue more earthily: We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.

[2] Of course, Lincoln was quoting a remark made famous by Jesus, one well known to Americans. From Matthew 12:25: Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand…”