Why we must build a global architecture to use water as an instrument of peace

In December 2009, I met Walid Muallem, Foreign Minister of Syria, in his office in Damascus, along with an eminent British politician. He rolled out before us his vision of peace process with Israel in phases. He had two essential conditions. First, secured access to the waters of Tiberias should be guaranteed. Second, Turkey should underwrite the peace process. He said that the government in Damascus could trust only one state as the guarantor of its interests. It was Turkey under Erdogan’s leadership.

In our Blue Peace report, published in February 2011, Strategic Foresight Group proposed several solutions to use water as an instrument of peace and prosperity in the Middle East. One of them was adapted from Muallem’s framework.

A month after the release of the report, Syria was engulfed with civil strife. The primary reason was the erosion of social contract between the state and its citizens. But one of the key contributing factors was drought and the failure to pursue regional water cooperation, which had forced many farmers into destitution and migration to overstretched cities. Syria’s most trusted ally turned into its most strident enemy. A regional war followed that now threatens to turn into a global confrontation. 

In some other parts of the world, leaders have recognised the unstated relationship between water, peace and security. The relations between India and Bangladesh dramatically improved when a treaty for managing the Teesta River was drafted in a grand bargain over the security paradigm. In 2013, Strategic Foresight Group brought together leaders of the ruling and opposition parties in India and Bangladesh to prepare a framework that would lead to the signing of the Teesta River treaty and introduce a mechanism to avert water conflict for the next thousand years. The framework calls for signing the Teesta Treaty as soon as possible, along with an agreement to revitalise the Joint Rivers Commission and a package for integrated development of the Teesta basin to help farmers in dry season.

In the former Yugoslavia, no sooner was the Dayton Agreement signed, did the newly born states enter into an agreement for collaborative management of the Sava River. It contributed to achieving peace and cooperation in the Balkans which had only seen death and violence until then.

The most courageous example of using water for peace can be found in West Africa. In the 1960s, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania and Senegal became independent. They were ideologically hostile to one another. As the Great Sahel Drought caused depletion of water resources in the early 1970s, they could have adapted ultra nationalist policies. Instead, the heads of states of the four countries decided to forge cooperation for jointly managing the Senegal River. Today, canals, dams, navigation and hydro-electricity projects in the four countries are managed collectively for common benefit of all the four countries. This helped them to avert war and increase income of the poor people in the basin. Moreover, when disputes arose between any two of the four countries over other issues, the Senegal River Basin Organisation acted as a peace maker. This is the tale of two droughts.

Enlightened cooperation in West Africa created peace. Ultra nationalism in West Asia has produced refugees and ISIS.

As the subtle equation between water, war and peace was being revealed in different parts of the world, unnoticed by the global public opinion, Strategic Foresight Group took two steps. First, we developed a Water Cooperation Quotient for 219 shared river basins from 148 countries. It proved that any two countries engaged in active water cooperation do not go to war for any other reason.

Second, we collaborated with the Government of Switzerland to launch a Global High Level Panel on Water and Peace in November 2016. Co-convened by the governments of 15 countries from all continents, the panel is chaired by Danilo Turk, former President of Slovenia. 

If the panel succeeds in preparing an operational architecture, it will have an impact on the life of 2.3 billion people living in shared river basins of the developing world, with a combined annual economic product of $10 trillion. Over the years, as cooperative water management spreads, the incremental capital output ratio will go down and the military expenditure will also decline. This will create a peace dividend of $200 billion per year. 

If the panel fails to propose a convincing global architecture, chaos will take place. At present, water resources are depleting at the rate of over 320 billion cubic meters in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. This is equal to ten Euphrates Rivers disappearing from the face of the earth every year. If this trend continues, there will be steep decline in food production and a fresh demand for about 200-300 million tonnes of food grains in the international market. This will raise food prices to unprecedented heights. Food riots will follow not only in Nepal and Nigeria but also in Peru and Paraguay. No country in the world will escape the calamity of high food prices, forced migration, terrorism, dictatorships and perhaps a World War starting in 2039.

Didier Burkhalter, Swiss Foreign Minister, cautioned at the launch of the Global High Level Panel: “Water is not just about development. It is also about security.” Syria had understood this in December 2009. But failure to act with urgency has driven the entire Middle East to the precipice. It is about time that the world wakes up before the story of Syria is repeated in every region. 

The author is President of Strategic Foresight Group, an international think tank that has worked with or on 50 countries from four continents