The world has witnessed two postmodern tragedies in recent years. These are the tragedies that allow the world to grieve, together.

When Lady Diana was killed in an accident with her lover, the world mourned. Flowers and wreaths piled up at the front of the British embassy. When 9-11 struck, the world grieved too, then rose up in collective indignation.

Pundits are now wondering if the global reaction to the Asian tsunami on Boxing Day -- with financial pledges having exceeded US$ 2billion to date -- reveals for the first time that the world can stand united. Even the Bush administration, which is generally indifferent, instructed the US flag to be flown at half-mast during the tragedy. The convening of the international donors conference in Jakarta last week certainly offers reasons of hope too.

But in many ways the Asian tsunami was unique. To begin with, disasters are usually single country 'event'; with the rest of the world isolated. Hence, the famines in Ethiopia, Somalia, floods in Bangladesh, earthquakes in Turkey or Iran. In each case one country is hit at a time, as explained by a UN officer. And, those who are in a position do something to help are usually far away. Therefore it takes a long time to mobilize support.

In the Asian tsunami, the victims were in several countries all at once. People in four countries -- Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand -- bore the brunt of the disaster. Other countries like the Maldives, Malaysia, Somalia, Kenya, Bangladesh and Myanmar also suffered. So did those countries that were no where near the disaster, such as Sweden, United Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Australia, South Africa and others.

Even 2000 Swedes were reported missing. Indeed, Sweden's losses as a proportion of national population were significantly high. So this was not a single-country tragedy, it was the first global tragedy of its kind, which explains the globalised response.

More importantly, the tragedy happened in a unique part of Asia - which is both modern and troubled. On the one hand there is the "emerging" Asia with the Tiger economies and tourist resorts (Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Maldives) and the Dotcom South India.

These destinations have been familiar to the 'geographical consciousness' of many decision makers and private donors for years.

On the other hand, there is also the existence of a troubled Asia, such as the galling poverty in India, conflicts in Sri Lanka and Aceh, and Maldives, the one country which is sinking under water every day.

They too have enjoyed a certain degree of visibility for some time. When the tsunami hit them, it was easier for many to make the necessary inferences; as opposed to conflicts in Africa which were usually caused by corruption and violent coups.

Indeed, the latter is the part of Asia which under the greatest focus internationally, both in terms of addressing the problems as well as investments in tourist resorts and the IT sector. Both the UN and the international private sector have been heavily involved in this region too. Thus, the quick response was in part generated by these two institutions.

Further more, the area is a conflict zone par excellence. In its midst laid the India-Pakistan nuclear tensions, Sri Lankan civil war, Myanmar instability, Muslim unrest in southern Thailand, Aceh, even the perennial instability in Somalia.

In addition, the politics of conflict as well as peace also played a role in the international response. The two Pakistani ships who rescued people in the Maldives were part of the naval diplomacy to show that the US and Indian fleets are not the only one which have the right of way in the Indian Ocean.

The quick response of Singapore in Indonesia, and Israel in Sri Lanka was seen as countries using humanitarian aid to protect their political interests. The Australian assistance to Indonesia, and the Pakistani offer to assist India, were seen as countries offering olive branches to old rivals too.

Still, one has to remember that governments by nature are slow to respond, no matter the amount of pledges they have agreed to make. One year after the earthquake in Bam, Iran, only US$ 17 million made its way there.

Indeed, while Western countries are usually quick to pledge generous amounts of money, the fact is they are very slow in turning those pledges into cash.

In contrast, while the developing countries are slow in responding, and usually offer much less than the West, but what they do offer is more solid than Western promises. Japan, on the other hand, is good with its financial pledges, but tend to link it to sustainable development projects.

At any rate, given the human dimension of this tragedy, individual people motivated by the Christmas spirit, others by sheer compassion dug deep, responded in unison. Invariably, those countries that suffered the most, especially in Europe, provided the most private sector support.

Although Muslim countries, especially the Middle East, have been criticised for giving little, the actual fact is Muslim Aid organisations such as Islamic Relief, Muslim Aid and IslamicAid were among the first to send huge amounts of money and relief supplies (in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars) to the areas.

Nevertheless, the interesting thing is that all four were either US -- or UK -- registered organizations. So strictly speaking they are a part of the aid effort from Western countries not from Islamic countries.

From an institutional standpoint, the aid for Asian tsunami was well coordinated -- at least in the form of collection, not distribution -- because UN humanitarian relief office was there to map out the logistics. It sprung into action, even though Kofi Annan was still on his Christmas leave on the day the tsunami struck.

From the construtivist standpoint, the huge tsunami aid was due to common suffering, and identity, helped by common CNN and BBC narrative. In fact, they used similar footages and images all the time when covering the news. This gave the world a common 'script' with which to react to the tragedy. As such, the world reacted as one, because it saw itself, as one.