Is it possible to make a link between Tsunamis and the war on terror? Ostensibly there is no link at all - one is a natural disaster, the other entirely man-made. However, at a political level it is arguable that the Tsunami may well have an impact on many people's attitudes; perhaps bringing the "war on terror" into context and exposing some perverse decision-making by Western and Asian governments.

The Tsunami will probably rank as the greatest human disaster of this century. But unlike other human disasters, the timing and scale of the Tsunami and the response from Westerners makes it particularly politically significant. While the current Bush administration and its supporters have been prosecuting illegal wars and conflicts in order to reduce perceived threats to human life, the greatest threat to human life since 2001 actually came from natural causes, a so called "act of God", where people were caught completely off-guard. The disaster did not (this time at least) materialise from terrorism.

In considering the political situation, it is important not to underestimate the force of emotion that swept through the West on that fateful day. The Tsunami happened on Boxing Day, the day after Christmas, and even though a large number of Westerners profess to be atheists, Christmas is a national holiday that a lot of them celebrate anyway. Following the merriment and feasting of the previous day, they woke up to reports and images of extreme suffering and human loss. But this was not a crisis that affected only Asians; thousands of Europeans and Americans were also killed.

Nobody caused the Tsunami to happen. As lawyers say, it was an event of "force majeure". Westerners considered it "bad luck" that the Tsunami's victims suffered as they did, as there was no despotic leader or corrupt regime to point the finger at. Additionally, both world and domestic media services were covering stories in minute detail 24 hours a day. During the days following the Tsunami the news media constantly updated Westerners with the tally of dead and injured. It still does.

But for the last few years Bush and Blair et al have told Westerners that it is terrorism that will cause injury, death and misery around the world – and accordingly spent their citizens' hard earned taxes fighting it. Terrorism is still a threat, but many Westerners will naturally ask themselves why billions of US dollars were spent on the "war on terror" and then compare it to the amount of US dollars not spent on attempting to mitigate natural risks, such as the Tsunami. Indeed, there are many risks that would be more sensible to protect against resulting in proportionately larger benefits to human life than the risks that terrorism currently presents: famine is one; global warming is another – both (bizarrely) secondary to terrorism despite the fact that they are happening now. Some Westerners ask why they are funding illegal extravagances such as the war in Iraq (as against sensible and proportionate anti-terrorism measures) when a little bit of well aimed aid and assistance could have saved so many more lives.

Moreover, similar questions must be asked of the relevant Asian governments affected by the Tsunami: why do some of them spend so much on helping the USA with its "war on terror" when they could have allocated their resources towards proper warning systems? Surely such systems are a basic requirement before large scale defence spending, no matter how statistically unlikely natural disasters may be or how much the world's leading country wants you to help it.

It would appear that, until now, security risks from natural disasters have not received the same amount of attention and funding as terrorism prevention. The main question, however, is, will people from the West and Asia forgive their government's spending habits when they go to vote this time? In the UK at least, the Archbishop of Canterbury considered it necessary to reassure Anglicans of their faith after it was rumoured that people had started to question it following the Tsunami. If they question their faith, they will (and should) question their leaders first.