spinofflive
Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern have responded markedly differently to disaster. Images: Screengrab; Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images
Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern have responded markedly differently to disaster. Images: Screengrab; Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

PoliticsJanuary 9, 2020

How should leaders respond to disasters? Be visible, offer comfort – and don’t force handshakes

Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern have responded markedly differently to disaster. Images: Screengrab; Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images
Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern have responded markedly differently to disaster. Images: Screengrab; Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

Authenticity matters more than anything, writes Rosemary Williamson of the University of New England, an expert on leaders’ differing responses to catastrophic events.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been harshly criticised for being on holiday in Hawaii as the catastrophic bushfires were burning Australia.

Since his return, he has visited stricken communities – most recently, on Kangaroo Island. He has acknowledged the emotional toll on victims and promised practical support.

But the criticism continues. Every detail of the prime minister’s performance is being scrutinised via the 24/7 news cycle and social media. There is plenty of scope for perceived missteps, and little tolerance of them.

Disaster of any kind throws qualities of leadership – or the perceived lack thereof – under the spotlight. By what criteria, then, do we evaluate a leader’s performance at such times? What do we look for?

Criticised for being out of touch, Scott Morrison made a visit to Kangaroo Island to tour the fire damage and meet with locals. David Mariuz/AAP

How Jacinda Ardern got it right

These are questions that have guided my research on how prime ministers have historically connected with Australians during times of peril.

During crises, people expect two things, broadly speaking. One is practical information, advice and support to minimise the risk faced by those directly impacted. The other is “humanistic communication” – or, the ability to offer comfort.

Last March, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern showed both of these qualities in her decisive response to the massacre of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch.

She immediately provided detailed information and promised aid and tighter gun control measures. And she unambiguously aligned all New Zealanders with the Muslim community by what she said – “They are us” – and by standing with community leaders and comforting those in distress.

Importantly, Ardern also wore a headscarf when meeting the families of victims. This was seen as a strong and culturally sensitive statement of solidarity and support – a mark of good political leadership.

Women across New Zealand wore headscarves in solidarity with the victims of the attacks after Ardern’s gesture. SNPA Pool/EPA

Being on the ground to see themselves

Australian leaders have long shown strength in times of need, but the way they do so has changed over time. Today, there’s much more emphasis on being visible.

Following the Black Sunday bushfires in Victoria in 1926, for example, The Age printed a speech by Prime Minister Stanley Bruce in which he promised federal government aid and praised the heroism and altruism of Australians.

When the Black Friday fires devastated the state 13 years later, The Age quoted an “appalled” Prime Minister Joseph Lyons, who promised aid and expressed his “heartfelt sympathy” to victims.

But nothing was said in the newspapers back then about either prime minister interacting directly with victims.

A leader wouldn’t get away with that these days. Since televisions became ubiquitous in people’s homes, it’s become necessary for leaders to be on the ground following a disaster, surveying damage and consoling victims.

Prime Minister Harry Holt, a savvy user of the media in the early years of television, travelled to Tasmania in the aftermath of the Black Tuesday fires in 1967. Holt said he had to go to see for himself, to better understand people’s experience and needs. A detailed study of the 1967 bushfire response notes that Holt’s visit, while short, “caught the imagination” of journalists, who reported his reaction to the devastation in vivid detail.

This is what we now expect. Visits to disaster sites have become rituals vital to crisis management and a fixture of disaster reporting.

Listening to victims

For a prime minister, such visits are also a chance to express those inherent qualities of “Australianness” that guarantee a full recovery. Everything that is said and done matters, which is why small details are heavily scrutinised.

People do not expect to be held at arm’s length on these occasions. Expressions of empathy are often reinforced by physical contact, even hugs.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd demonstrated this following fires in Victoria in 2009, as did John Howard in the wake of the fires that swept through Canberra in 2003. They shook hands, patted backs and embraced survivors and emergency service workers.

John Howard comforting a fire victim in a Canberra suburb in 2003. Pool/AAP

Others have got it completely wrong. Among his many missteps in his response to Hurricane Katrina, President George W Bush delayed returning to Washington from his vacation by two whole days. An image of him surveying the damage from Air Force One then backfired – a decision Bush later called a “huge mistake”.

When Hurricane Harvey devastated Texas in 2017, President Donald Trump was likewise criticised for paying too little attention to victims when he toured the site. And after the Grenfell Tower fire in London, UK Prime Minister Theresa May admitted that not meeting residents on her first visit was a mistake.

Misjudging what type of response is welcome from a leader also risks being seen as symptomatic of poor leadership, of being out of touch with the people. As we saw recently with Morrison, not everybody appreciates a handshake.

Stilettos and camouflage jackets

Even what a leader wears may be important. First Lady Melania Trump, for instance, was widely mocked for wearing stiletto heels to tour the Harvey devastation.

And when Prime Minister Julia Gillard went to Queensland in early 2011 following extensive flooding and held a press conference with Premier Anna Bligh, some commentators focused on the differences in their attire. Gillard, with her tidy suit, was criticised for not striking the right note. Bligh’s more casual appearance, meanwhile, had the look of someone more in touch with the suffering of the people.

Earlier this year, Morrison was also faulted for wearing a military camouflage jacket when touring a north Queensland flood zone, with some saying he was “hamming it up” for the cameras.

Morrison visiting flood victims in Townsville last February. Dave Acree/AAP

Authenticity matters more than anything

The reactions to Morrison’s handling of the bushfires shows how important these qualities are in our presidents and prime ministers and how they will continue to influence perceptions of leadership in times of crisis.

Just as every leader is different, every disaster also requires a distinct approach. Each demands quick and sensitive judgements about what’s appropriate for the occasion. Reaction to any perceived errors of judgement will be swift and will spread quickly.

Above all, we look for authenticity in these moments, rather than obviously scripted photo opportunities. And in times of crisis, we’re more attuned to those out-of-touch moments when authenticity seems to be lacking.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keep going!
Forty five NZ personnel remain at the Taji base in Iraq. Some international media reported the base had been hit by Iranian missiles, but these reports have since been corrected. Photo: NZDF
Forty five NZ personnel remain at the Taji base in Iraq. Some international media reported the base had been hit by Iranian missiles, but these reports have since been corrected. Photo: NZDF

PoliticsJanuary 8, 2020

Iran fires ‘revenge’ missiles at US bases in Iraq: What we know so far

Forty five NZ personnel remain at the Taji base in Iraq. Some international media reported the base had been hit by Iranian missiles, but these reports have since been corrected. Photo: NZDF
Forty five NZ personnel remain at the Taji base in Iraq. Some international media reported the base had been hit by Iranian missiles, but these reports have since been corrected. Photo: NZDF

In a developing situation, Iran has fired ballistic missiles at two US military bases in Iraq. Here’s what we know so far about the attacks, the response, and the impact for NZ forces currently in the country.

Last updated 4.14pm.

What has happened? 

Iranian state TV has confirmed that missiles have been fired at US military targets in neighbouring Iraq, and the US government has confirmed that two bases have been hit. They are Ain al-Assad in Western Iraq and Irbil to the north. Both have significant numbers of US and Coalition soldiers stationed there, with casualties and damage still being assessed.

I’ve seen other things being said on Twitter.

At this stage, it is too early to report if other actions or escalations have taken place. Many initial reports will contain falsehoods, misinformation or propaganda, and aren’t necessarily credible. For example, some of the pictures circulating on social media purportedly showing these strikes actually show events from years ago, in completely different countries.

Why now?

The missile attack follows an airstrike ordered by US president Donald Trump, in which senior Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani was assassinated. The missile attacks, says Tehran, are justified as revenge strikes.

What does Trump say about what has happened?

As yet, he hasn’t tweeted about it, nor has there been an official statement in his name. However, a White House spokesperson said: “the President has been briefed and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team.”

UPDATE – 3.52pm: Donald Trump has now tweeted.

Will there be further retaliation?

That is unclear, however earlier in the week Trump vowed to destroy 52 Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated to the Soleimani assassination.

UPDATE 3.42pm: The following statement has been made by Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif.

Does New Zealand have troops currently in Iraq?

Yes. There are currently 50 NZDF personnel stationed in Iraq, with 45 of those at Camp Taji. At this stage, we don’t have confirmation about whether the base was targeted, though it was on alert. While there were some initial reports it had been hit, those have since been corrected. The NZ troops are there as part of an anti-ISIS coalition, which arrived on the invitation of the Iraqi government.

Are New Zealand troops leaving?

The deployment is scheduled to end later this year, but at this stage it appears that they will be staying. Radio NZ has reported comments from defence minister Ron Mark, who says there are no plans to withdraw early, and that there had not yet been a formal request from the Iraqi government to do so.

“We will continue to monitor the situation,” he said.

“This is a time for cool heads and calm. There are families back here in New Zealand who I guess can be sensitive to reporting – from our position and Defence’s position it’s about maintaining stringent situational awareness, making calm, cool, collected assessments.”

UPDATE – 4.14pm: Acting PM and foreign minister Winston Peters has just released a statement.

“Now is the time for restraint and de-escalation, and for diplomacy to take over,” Mr Peters said.

“It is important to note that the missile attacks did not target Camp Taji and the Government has been informed that all New Zealand personnel are as safe as they can be in these developing circumstances.

“The Government is working actively with our partners through military and diplomatic channels, and we continue to keep the security situation under close review, including implications for our personnel,” Mr Peters said.

How does Iraq feel about the latest developments?

Not good. After the Soleimani assassination, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling on foreign troops to leave Iraq immediately. It wasn’t a binding resolution, and comes with the additional caveat that many MPs abstained from taking part. However, it is clear that there is a significant amount of anger in the country that they were used as a staging ground for the American airstrike. Iraqi PM Adil Abdul al-Mahdi has also attacked the US government over a recent blunder, in which a draft letter announcing US troop withdrawals was released, and then almost immediately had to be walked back.

But wait there's more!