Will freshwater soon become more valueable then oil? : A study on global water conflicts and it's necessity in the future

(1)

Will freshwater soon

become more valuable

than oil?

A study on global water conflicts and it’s necessity in the future

Bachelor’s thesis in political science Author: Afrodita Seferaj 891225 Tutor: Per Wiklund

(2)

[Bachelor Thesis in political science]

Title: [Will freshwater soon become more valuable than oil?] Author: [Afrodita Seferaj]

Tutor: [Per Wiklund]

Date: [2011-05-23]

Subject terms:

Abstract

Water is a vital part of our lives. When it comes to a certain state where water become scares it has a huge impact on our lives. When nations constantly face increasing population growth and globalization, water be-comes even more essential, since the demand for freshwater increase whilst our water supplies decrease. It is important to explain the matter of freshwater, since freshwater is the only water that can be used for e.g. agriculture and as drinking water, which are the most important compo-nents of our lives.

The issue of water scarcity is complex since most of the water in the world is shared by two or more nations; therefore it is even more impor-tant to cooperate now than ever before. Water scarcity is found all over the world, although this thesis will primarily focus on the Tigris-Euphrates region; where water conflicts are very evident since three na-tions (riparians) share the two rivers.

In this thesis I will do a case study of the Tigris-Euphrates in order to see if there are any possibilities or obstructions for Turkey, Iraq and Syria to reach a cooperative solution to the extensive conflict.

A theoretical framework which is built upon the three level negotiation theory of water politics is going to be used to bring awareness to the ne-gotiation process. The nene-gotiation process over the two rivers water allo-cation amongst the three riparians have been far from successful, there-fore there is a need to revise the current issue by using the three level ne-gotiation theory as a foundation to advocate cooperation in order to find possible resolutions.

(3)

The map of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers

(4)

1 INTRODUCTION

“Many of the wars of the 20th

century were about oil, but wars of the 21st century will be over water”

Word Bank vice president Ismail Serageldin (Morisette & Borrer 2004:86)

As this quote indicate many researchers, politicians and scientists are convinced that the water scarcity will be a source of conflict for the next generations, even though the pat-terns are already evident.

Water is considered by many human beings as a gift from above since no living creature can exist without it; however freshwater is a vulnerable resource. Unlike any other commodity (such as oil), there is no substitute to water (Gleick 2008). Water is ac-knowledged as the most vital natural resource on earth and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights declare;

“The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. An adequate amount of safe water is necessary to prevent death from dehydration, to reduce the risk of water-related disease and to provide for consumption, cooking, personal and domestic hygienic requirements”

(General Comment 15, CESCR, 2002)

Since water is officially recognized as a human right, it is unambiguous that water as a resource should be shared equally not only between humans but also with our precious nature. Artificial boundaries or individuals should not have the authority to decide who or whoever can contain the flow of water which nature have bestowed upon us.

(6)

Water is not only essential regarding environmental issues but also in social and eco-nomical aspects. A functioning and developed society requires an efficient freshwater source e.g. in a city where millions of people live, the demand for freshwater is ex-tremely large; to be able to meet the demands there have to be an efficient freshwater supply.

Rapidly increasing urbanization, depletion and pollution in recent years has put signifi-cant pressure on the amount of freshwater available. These factors have caused more noticeable damage in arid areas where shortages of freshwater is a common problem; the damages are most evident in their social, economical and environmental develop-ment. This worldwide issue could be summarized under the term “water crisis”.

In recent years many regions have been affected by the consequences of war, ethnic frictions, constructions of dams and other water projects that have altered the ecological and geographical flow of the rivers; especially in the Tigris-Euphrates region (which will be the primary focus in this thesis).

This thesis will present several points on why the Tigris-Euphrates water crisis will be one of the major conflicts in the future, ahead of any previous conflicts. Without coop-eration that day will converge, and we will be forced to face the inconvenient reality, will we be able to prevent such fate, or is it too late? However technology shows that there is enough water to supply and sustain every country on earth, if we cooperate (Priscoli 1998). Then how to reach cooperation is an issue, however this thesis will ex-amine if the three-level (regional, national and international) cooperation is a possible solution.

1.1 PURPOSE

The topic of this thesis is whether freshwater will soon become more valuable than oil; to be able to answer that, a thorough research within this matter is required, by focusing at one of the freshwater areas; the Tigris-Euphrates region. This thesis will illustrate the existing disputes over the freshwater in the Euphrates and Tigris area, involving Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

(7)

It is evident that transboundary waters such as the Tigris and Euphrates are very politi-cally influenced. It is commonly known that nations tend to carry out power games as an instrument to achieve their political goals, even though they can be quite unfair. Is-sues like these are made possible since International authorities tend to turn on a blind eye. This has caused an increased number of people who view the path to sustainable cooperation as unnecessary (Zeitoun & Mirumachi 2008). However power acts such as the games played by Turkey can be influenced or even challenged.

My primary aim is to investigate the origin of the current issue over freshwater in the Tigris-Euphrates region, but also to examine if there might be a potential cooperation between the involved countries in favor of a solving the current conflict. However my aim is also to try to answer the problem statements as fully as possible, and to provide insight for the people who live in relatively water-rich countries which have not yet been affected by water shortages.

In order to be able to answer the question if there is a possibility of cooperation, there is a need for a theoretical framework where we can test the negotiations functionality at different levels. Why different levels? It is because the negotiation process differs a lot from the international arena to the national arena.

The thesis will give a theoretical framework based on the negotiation theory that is based on an extension of Putnam’s two way level. The purpose of the extension is to give a broader comprehension of the situation of Tigris-Euphrates and the complexity of the underlying issues which is an obstacle from reaching cooperation. However more on page 8 where I will discuss more about my own additional extension of Putnam’s nego-tiation model.

Subsequent to the theoretical framework, a brief historical outline of the negotiation over the Tigris-Euphrates will be given in order to understand why the current issues have not yet been solved. Thereafter the conflict will be analyzed, in order to see if there is a possibility of future cooperation between the involved countries, based on the three-level negotiation theory. As mentioned before the three-three-level negotiation will be more discussed on page 8.

(8)

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Identifying the purpose of the dissertation and the associated problem statements has not been a straightforward process. It has rather been a process where the questions have evolved during the path of research. I decided to put these two questions forward:

 What are the possibilities and obstacles for cooperation between Turkey, Syria and Iraq over the Tigris-Euphrates river basins, if the three-level negotiation theory is applied?

 Why is water crisis more evident in the third world and developing countries than in the industrialized countries; is the water scarcity worse in the Tigris-Euphrates area than per say Australia?

For those who don’t understand why I say Australia is due to that Australia is one of those countries that actually do not have any larger freshwater supplies. However Aus-tralia is one of the few countries that actually manage the situation by finding sufficient solutions that gives enough water to every citizen.

1.3 METHOD

At first I prepared the research question I wanted to include in my thesis, where I then chose to limit the variables that were going to be included. The subject of water scarcity is wide and due to the timeframe and limited pages I had to write I was forced to narrow down and focus on the Tigris and Euphrates region.

I used a content analysis, this has been done while using a literature analysis where I found my facts in books, articles and websites. The literature analysis was used in order to obtain the ability to answer the question about the potential possibilities and obstacles for cooperation over Tigris-Euphrates. In order to answer the question, I have studied different kinds of literature including Järgerskog’s book, Why states cooperate over

shared water, which has provided me with a large amount of significant material for my

thesis. The book was noteworthy for my studies since it includes the matter of conflict, negotiation and possible cooperation which are my primary focal points in this thesis.

(9)

Even researches on the Internet has been used as supplementary material in which the keywords in English mainly consisted of the following: "water conflicts", "water scarci-ty", "Euphrates and Tigris", "transboundary water", "water disputes in the Middle East", “water war” “negotiation over transboundary water” and “negotiation theory”. The Swedish keywords were: "Eufrat och Tigris", "Vatten krig ", "Vatten konflikter", "Krig över floderna i Mellanöstern". These keywords were then complemented with the ap-propriate words to obtain an exhaustive research. The majority of my research was con-ducted in Google and Google Scholar. Most of the books and articles I selected were from Jönköping Library Catalog, Ebary which is Jönköping University’s free book website and the database of UN. I did all the researches manually and I chose to study the reference lists of books and articles that seemed relevant to the subject. I then de-cided to further study books and articles titles, summaries and results. I finally selected only the material that emerged as relevant.

1.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Water shortages can be discussed and viewed in several perspectives and especially the matter of transboundary waters such as the Tigris-Euphrates, since the rivers flows through more than one nation’s territorial border. Such circumstances have caused nu-merous disputes and where cooperation over transboundary rivers seems absent. That is why the realization of negotiation is fundamental; for that reason I included a theoretical framework based on three-level negotiation theory which originates in Putnam’s two level negotiations.

Putnam’s model is one of the most famous models describing the way to achieve coop-eration at different. Although Putnam’s model only describes the negation between the international level and the national level which I believed was not sufficient enough due to the complex features of Hydropolitics. Therefore I decided to do an extension of Put-nam’s negotiation model since I believed one important level was missing that could bring about cooperation, which is the regional level. I also believe that by including the regional level will bring awareness to the situation of the people, which are the ones who primarily are affected.

(10)

So the result of including an additional level, my own three-level of negotiation model was created which is based on the international level, national level and the regional level.

1.5 OUTLINE

The thesis is divided into five major parts. Chapter two presents the negotiation theory of Hydropolitics which is divided into three levels; the international, the national and the regional level. Part three will provide the reader with a description and brief histori-cal overview over the Tigris-Euphrates region. Chapter four is an analysis of the re-search question, to see possibilities and obstacle of establishing cooperation over Tigris-Euphrates based on the three-way level negotiation theory. And finally, the fifth part which is a conclusion including suggestions that might generate future cooperation and of course the list of references.

(11)

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

States sharing transboundary rivers are confronted with two options, either get involved with costly conflicts or cooperate by sharing the benefits of the water resources

(El-hance 2000).

This chapter will introduce the theory of negotiation and its importance, when countries are dealing with a subject of interdisciplinary nature, such as freshwater; there is a need for a theoretical framework of negotiation theory. The theoretical framework is based on an expansion of Putnam’s two-level negotiation game. The three-level negoti-ation theory includes an additional level, the regional one. The three-level negotinegoti-ation theory is based on the interplay between the regional, national and international level.

2.1 NEGOTATION THEORY

Shared freshwater resources can be a source of conflict and also a basis for cooperation. In an increasing globalised world, where conflicts easily occur, negotiation is an impor-tant component within policymaking. In order to guarantee that the planned policies are sustainable, negotiation is required when dealing with everything from setting agendas to determine the issues that need to be addressed. Negotiation is considered as a vital role in supporting policymakers to obtain an improved grasp of complex issues (Alfred-son & Cungu 2008).

Most of the nations who share water are usually in status quo; nations rather choose to stay in unchanged situation since they believe that any change would not create a better situation. When water conflicts are in status quo, negotiation can be considered as a path to cooperation between two parties, where negotiation gives results of a positive sum, which would be unattainable without cooperation (Carraro 2007 & Jägerskog 2003). Even though negotiation produces a positive sum result (win-win situation for both par-ties) nations usually do not agree upon cooperation unless they consider cooperation is better alternative than status quo. An example where nations rather choose to cooperate

(12)

is when the political benefits prevail over the benefits of independent actions (Dinar 2009).

A key for creating future cooperation is to address all benefits from cooperation as well as potential obstacles that may act as barriers against realizing these benefits. Since when it is done, effective strategies can be established in order to avoid those barriers and even minimize their impact.

The possibility for cooperation is unique to each river; however development of colla-boration exists in all Transboundary Rivers. Transboundary water means that more than one nation shares the same river. However there are four benefits that can promote mu-tual action; Benefit to the river (e.g. environmental improvement such as better water quality), Benefit from the river (increased efficiency of food and energy production),

Benefit of reduction costs because of the river (enhanced flood management) and Bene-fit beyond the river (economical integration) (Jägerskog & Zeitoun 2009).

As mentioned before recognition of potential barriers improves the possibilities for fu-ture cooperation. Barriers that might hold back improvement of cooperation in a trans-boundary river context could be: inequality between the nations, political differences, religious diversity and the capacity of manage the water resource(Spector 2002)

One of the major steps toward building collaboration is to establish cooperative trans-boundary institutions where the agenda must entirely be with the concerned riparian countries. This kind of structure is created in order to guarantee commitment and pa-tience that later on generates knowledge, trust and confidence among the states. Howev-er based on previous occurrences a third party can act as an instrument to promote co-operation, especially dealing with the larger international rivers. The third party can give unbiased information and analyses which gives room for neutrality.

Negotiation theory is a broad theme where several aspects can be discussed; however the upcoming part will focus on six fields within the three levels. At the International level the focus will be on international law and third party involvement. The National level will contain Governmental hydro-politics and National sovereignty. The Regional level will include the part of non-governmental organizations.

(13)

2.1.1 INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

The international level includes such parts as the international water law and interna-tional relations. The law of water provides a valuable insight of the legal aspects of wa-ter issues and their decision while inwa-ternational relations is regarding the states relations to international organs where they can play a an essential role as helping third party.

International water law

The earth’s 261 international rivers are shared by more than one country; because of that, conflicts easily occur over the water. It is shown that even those countries that have had a friendly and cooperative relation has hard times to accomplish mutual agreements over the transboundary water. Especially nations which are located in arid areas tend to have more difficulties to reach an agreement despite membership in unions and previous collaborative relationships (Dellapenna 2009).

Early civilizations which settled around freshwater sources took advantage of the water in many ways e.g. transportation and irrigation (Wouters 1997). Over the time several of these societies established complex law concerning the allocation of the water. One of the principles reads that nations who share water supplies should ensure and prevent harming of its neighboring nations (Teclaff 1967).This principle is today a vital part of the International law, since it obligates nations to not use their territory in manner which could possibly damage neighboring nations right to water.

The International law can be considered as a guideline and not mandatory, nations can either choose to ignore or to accept the principles set by the United Nations. Countries usually only adhere to those laws that benefits their interests, however they can also ac-cept strong international principles even though they might disfavor them in order to not emerge as an opposing force against international law or to lose integrity in the interna-tional community (Mete 2003).

(14)

On May 21 in 1997, The United Nation General Assembly adopted the convention of

Non-Navigational Uses of International Water Courses in order to create an

interna-tional framework agreement that simplifies the negotiation process over water. The idea of the enactment of this law was to prevent absolute territorial sovereignty and total ter-ritorial integrity. As an alternative it implemented the limited terter-ritorial sovereignty, which endorsed equity and reasonable use of water supplies in order to respect and avoid potential damage on the behalf of others (Salman &Upretii 2002).

The voting in favor of the content of the convention resulted in 103 positive results. Another three countries voted against, 27 nations declined to vote and 33 nations were not present. Those countries who voted against the convention were China, Burundi and Turkey and whom two are involved in disputatious water projects. The negative results demonstrate their will-power to pursue their goals through diplomacy rather than the convention of International law. The countries which did not participate in the voting process due to war or other obstacles are left in uncertainty about the potential outcome. In this case Syria voted in favor of the convention while Turkey voted against it and Iraq did not participate at all (Turton & Henwood 2002).

Even though the convention might never go through, it carries an important message and a determination to develop the water agreements in an equitable and reasonable way where all states shares the benefits from the water without taking advantage or harming each other (Turton & Henwood 2002).

The upcoming section will briefly introduce how a third party can act as a tool for solv-ing disputes over water. When nations have difficulties to cooperate, there is a need for a “neutral” party which can act as a mediator.

(15)

Third-party involvement

As we know negotiation process can take years and especially when it comes to water agreements. Every so often nations do not negotiate due to difficulties to overcome ob-stacles in order to reach negotiation. This is where a third party can be a helping hand as so called “carrots” to convince nations and help them overcome their obstacles and re-consider cooperation as an win- win option (Elhance 1999). A third party can be Inter-national organizations, Non-governmental organizations, and they are useful and often necessary. Third party involvement can hinder governments to take actions that only benefit themselves and as an alternative help governments to neutralize their domestic politics by trying to relocate the issue as an international matter (Stinnett & Tirr 2009). However the third party must treat each river basin separately and take into account the combinations of historical, geographical and cultural aspects. A third party is only func-tional if they have a profound understanding of the complexity of water conflicts (El-hance 2000). No matter how effective a third party might be, it cannot solve the conflict by itself; the states themselves must have the willingness to cooperate, unless world opinions or superpowers can persuade the nation into cooperative actions (Elhance 2000; Jägerskog 2003).

2.1.2 NATIONAL LEVEL

The national structures e.g. are governmental philosophy and its security interests in-cluding national characteristic such as religion, norms and ethnicities. The national level is considered fundamental since it is at this level where states decide the main compo-nents of how a state should be governed, how issues should be tackled or how policies should be implemented (Jägerskog 2003).

To be able to comprehend a state’s decisions on an international arena, one has to un-derstand and revise the nation’s political perspective considering water allocation. That is why this segment will introduce and enlighten the significance of domestic water pol-icies (hydro politics), economical aspect and sovereignty which are components that af-fects water allocation and the negotiation process over water.

(16)

Governmental hydro-politics

Hydro politics can be explained as a structured study of the actions of collaboration and conflicts among nations over shared water (Elhance 1999), or as the authoritative allo-cation of ideas in the community with respect to water (Turton & Henwood, 2002). With other words hydro politics is politics concerning water, such as cooperation and conflicts over transboundary water, agendas for solving the water conflict, but also the management of water and the values of the citizens affected by the water (Waterbury 1979). Domestic hydro politics might also be seen as planned documents, intended re-forms, modification, development projects and theoretical strategies concerning water, decided by the government.

When a concern over water arises the government addresses whether the allocation of water is a matter of high-political priority or a matter of low priority. Due to increased awareness about the world’s increasing water shortage, governments prioritize water as a high-political matter more often (Stinett & Tirr 2009). When it is a high-political mat-ter many variables have to be taken into account such as the affect on its citizen, far-mers, neighboring countries as well as the economical and future aspects. The govern-ment must take its responsibility towards its citizens but also its neighboring countries. When nations do not take its responsibility within this matter, for example water distri-bution, there will be a conflict, since they will make the citizens unsatisfied as well as the neighboring countries.

Hydro politics is important especially where the water is scares, the condition will create a rivalry over the limited water obtainable and that makes nations to perceive the access to water as a matter of sovereignty.

National Sovereignty

The definition of what sovereignty is varies from each dictionary. However the most re-levant definition of what sovereignty in a hydro political context is that a state is free to use the all possible resources within the nation’s territorial borders (Elhance 2000). This

(17)

approach or concept is challenged over and over again, since the convention of Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Water Courses counters this type of concept by saying that transboundary water resources should be used in a equitable and reasonable manner, in order to respect and avoid potential damage on the behalf of others (Salman & Upretii 2002). However these two principles contradict each other since a nation is able to pursue the law that benefits them the most. It is evident that upstream riparian tend to use the “sovereignty principle” for its own benefits while downstream riparians will assert the principle of “equitable and reasonable use”.

2.1.3 LOCAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL

It is natural to think that the international and national levels are the most vital since it is here the conducting of solid negotiations and collaboration are held. However it is in the local and regional level where the consequences of water scarcity are first seen, it’s also at this level where conflicts irrupt due to the poor living standards as a result from water scarcity. (Trondalen 1992)

Regional issues are usually best solved by regional institutes, however to have a suc-cessful regional management there must be a stable national management which in other words makes the local and regional management dependent on the national level (Trondalen 1992)

The importance of Non Governmental Organizations

Since water scarcity is primarily an issue at the local level, NGOs are necessary. NGOs can act as a bond between citizens and governments; they can therefore act as a progres-sively more crucial force in swaying governments to establish various agendas and in-stitutions (Trondalen 1992)

Non Governmental Organizations has an influential role in affecting the media, and in this manner it will keep the subject out in the open, which eventually would compel

(18)

governments to act (Spector 2000). Projects that highlight the water issue from local to national level are essential, and for that reason NGOs presence is even more vital. It is important at an early stage to introduce cooperation and dialogue, where the general public at the local level can persuade cooperation at the national level.

In democratic nations it is easy for the citizens to influence their governments, but in nations where democracy is not evident, it is vital to have the presence of NGO’s which have the power to influence the governments in a way which is not possible for ordinary citizens. (Kempkey 2009)

(19)

3 THE TIGRIS-EUPHRATES RIVER BASINS

This descriptive chapter presents the water disputes between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. Since this thesis focuses on these countries it is impossible to not include the underlying conflict of many years, which is affecting the everyday life of the involving countries cit-izens, therefore is a general information about the two river basins introduced, followed by a brief historical review.

3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

The two river basins Tigris and Euphrates originate in the Anatolian highlands; the mountains of southern-eastern Turkey. The twin basins split into two different direc-tions, where the Tigris flows directly from Turkey into Iraq whereas the Euphrates passes trough Syria and then Iraq. The basins then joint in the Shatt-al-Arab in southern Iraq and finally pour out into the Persian Gulf (Kocabas 1995). The basins share several characteristics and it is common to treat both of them as one single basin, this is done with the aim to create an incorporated development and management of the two rivers (Soffer 1999)

To be able to understand how the water is distributed between the countries. The table below shows the distribution of the basins within the riparian states Turkey, Syria and Iraq, relative to the whole area of the river basins (Gleick 2008).

Basin Name Area of Basin (km2) Countries Sha-ring the Basin

Area within Country (km2) Percentage of Watershed within Country Tigris-Euphrates 789,000 Iraq 319,400 40,48 Turkey 195,700 24,8 Syria 116,300 14,73

(20)

By studying table above, we can immediately see that the major parts of the Tigris-Euphrates basins are located within Iraq; however it is not sufficient enough to just view the data; since water is not measured only by the kilometer it is occupying but it also by the cubic meter that flows.

The flow of the basins differs from year to year but as well as seasonally. This is mainly because the climate of the Mediterranean mountains generates wide changes (Cressey 1958). The natural fluctuations of the rivers water flow hinder utilization of Tigris and Euphrates full water potential. The river basins water flow had its lowest point in 1967 with 15.3 cubic kilometer (km3) and its peak in 1963 with 42.7 km3. However in 2008 the average annual water flow of Tigris from Turkey to Iraq was estimated at 21.33 km3 and the Euphrates from Turkey to Syria was estimated at 28.1 km3 (FAO global infor-mation website).

It is evident that the data’s differentiation of the river basins water flow is very unstable between the years and this is not only due to the climate changes. There are other rea-sons which have caused less water flow in the two rivers. The first and perhaps the main reason for less water are due to water projects such as the dams and hydropower projects. The second cause to less water available is due to the constantly increasing population, since the demand for water exceeds the water supply available.

The location of the two rivers has caused many conflicts and concerns over the course of history. If the conflict will not soon be solved a war will be triggered, it is just a mat-ter of time. Turkey is the only nation that finds itself in a favorable position due to their location. Since it is the only country that can enjoy the water without relying upon other nations to have their share; while Syria and Iraq deeply depends on the water Turkey lets them receive (Hohendinger 2006).

Turkey has a clear advantage over Syria and Turkey in a way where Turkey can build dams without being affected, while the neighboring countries receive less and less water flowing within their country. One clear case is the Southeastern Anatolia Project (Gu-neydogu Anadolu Projesi, or GAP). The Turkish GAP project is a massive water re-source development project that started in 1977. The project caused anxiety among Tur-key’s neighbors, who feared reduced water flow (Beschorner 1992).

(21)

GAP might have caused many disputes in the Euphrates and Tigris area, however not all of them. To be able to understand the situation in the area and the importance of coop-eration over the two rivers which are considered to be the “cradle of civilization” it is required to review the history. The history can give a perspective on how the conflict arose and why it is still not solved and perhaps by studying the patterns of the past, one might find a solution.

The upcoming part will briefly introduce the reader on the history of Tigris and Euph-rates, by initially focusing on the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia and then moving on to modern day Iraq.

3.2 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT OVER

TIGRIS-EUPHRATES WATER

Centuries of water utilization in the Tigris and Euphrates river basins have given birth to the Mesopotamian civilization and culture. The expression Mesopotamia comes from the Greek language having the meaning “land between the two rivers”. Mesopotamia was not a country, or a kingdom. It is the name of the area, an area which the Tigris-Euphrates rivers flowed. The region is the birthplace for many different flourishing cul-tures; including ancient empire of Sumer, Babylonia and Assyria (Mountjoy 2005) With a surplus of food, due to the fruitful soil and the exquisite agriculture techniques, allowed the population to develop and therefore grow. In order to ration the food they had to create a system and for that they needed communication, which later developed into a language. They managed to create an incredibly organized and sophisticated lan-guage for their time, their communication skills granted them the upper hand against other tribes, in terms mobilization etc.

The first civilization was called the Sumerian empire. The harsh living conditions near the two rivers required the early Sumerians to be taught to manage the two rivers by the use of ground-breaking irrigation systems and advanced canal systems. The modern ir-rigation systems have its roots in these ancients systems and much of the current progress is indebted to the Sumerians. Without their innovation and discovering ability

(22)

concerning the management of the two rivers water, it would be hard to imagine the way we would then handle the water today (Frazee 1997). Many empires were estab-lished and then fallen after the Sumerian empire, however there were always a common agreement over the water, where everyone had an equally share of the water (Kibaroglu 2002b).

It was in the 1960’s where the conflict started, after Turkey’s choice to build the Keban Dam on Euphrates. The first meeting was held in 1964, where Turkey promised to ac-cept a minimum flow of the water. Another meeting was held in 1965, which is known as the first three party negotiation, where Iraq, Syria and Turkey exchanged technical data about each nations own dam. Although several meetings were held from the year 1965 until 1970, no agreements were established. In 1974 did Syria agree to increase the flow into Iraq, but that did not last for long. Because in 1975 did Euphrates flow from Syria to Iraq decrease from 920 m3/sec to 197 m3/sec. (Naff & Matson 1984) In 1980, Turkey had plans in sight that needed cooperation among all three nations, so the Joint Economic Commission was created. At first only Iraq and Turkey were mem-bers of the commission, however Syria eventually joined in 1983. 16 meetings were held with no particular success since any common terminology of the sharing of Tigris and Euphrates was not created. The problem was that Turkey claimed that the water of the basins should be allocated after each nation need while Syria and Iraq considered and still do, that the river basins should be seen as international water and the water should be equally shared (Kibaroglu & Ünver 2000).

Iraq and Syria did stress the importance of a common terminology of the water alloca-tion several times, however Turkey could not agree upon their values. Instead Turkey proposed the Three Stage Plan in order to solve the disputes, but the plan was not favor-able by Syria and Iraq. As a result Iraq and Syria sustained with the previous system, to insist on new water quotas (Kibaroglu 2004).

The Three Stage Plan was put forward once again in 1990. Iraq and Syria disagreed once again, however this time they put their long-standing of disagreements aside and decided to go up against Turkey’s cutoff of the water flow for a whole month during the filling up of the Ataturk dam (Klare 2002).

(23)

The building of the Keban dam was only a part of the bigger plans that Turkey had. Turkey’s had plans of building massive hydro-projects along Tigris and Euphrates, which later became known as the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP or Güneydogu Anadolu Projesi).

The GAP project

This massive GAP plan started off the year 1983 and it consists of 22 dams and 19 hy-droelectric projects (Carkoglu & Eder 2001). The GAP project is located in south Tur-key and it covers about 9 regions and its center is the Ataturk Dam that imposes Euph-rates was completed in 1992. Those regions are considered to be the poorest in all of Turkey and accounts for approximately for 20% of the agricultural land of Turkey. The Ataturk Dam has the capacity to storage water up until 48.7 BCM and produce 2,400 MW electricity.

The aim of the GAP project is to increase arable land of the region from 2.9 % to 22.8%. Turkey is determined to gradually develop and strengthen their agriculture, agri-industrial production for exporting purposes; if that is achieved with the irrigation sys-tems envisioned it will eventually raise the standard of living in that particular area, in which will lead to decreased migration into the already overpopulated cities (Turan 2004).

Turkey took advantage of its upper position of the two rivers and used of the river ba-sins to achieve their own development purposes, without considering the harms to its two neighboring countries. Their image of the water allocation was most evident when at the Ataturk Dam opening in 1992, when the president Suleyman Demirel at that time said:

“Neither Syria nor Iraq can lay claim to Turkey's rivers any more than Ankara could claim their oil. This is a matter of sovereignty. We have a right to do any-thing we like. The water resources are Turkey's, the oil resources are theirs. We don't say we share their oil resources, and they can't say they share our water resource” (Bulloch & Darwish 1993).

(24)

This quote clearly indicates that Turkey opposes any foreign claims on the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers since they consider the two rivers to be Turkish and matter of absolute sovereignty. Adopting such a mindset eliminates any hope for future diplomatic solu-tions.

To further ignite the conflict Turkey decided to build an additional dam, the Ilisu dam, which is another gigantic project which will surely cause havoc in the region, if finished in 2015. In order to avoid such circumstances an efficient negotiation system that works on all levels is required, more on that in the upcoming section.

(25)

4 ANALYSIS

4.1 THREE-LEVEL OF NEGOTIATION OVER THE

TIGRIS-EUPHRATES BASINS

Based on the three-level of negotiation theory of water politics this part will provide an analysis of all important parts given in chapter two combined with a look back into the previous negotiations attempts between the involved countries. Discussion will be also be included in each section, in order to explain what the obstacles are which have caused the nations not reach a common goal concerning the Tigris-Euphrates water al-location. However suggestions will also be presented.

4.2 INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

International law

The International law clearly declares that states must utilize international water in an equitable and reasonable manner, and respecting other nation’s rights. This principle is diffused and has caused problems amongst nations that have Transboundary. The inter-national law does not present a clear definition on what is considered as interinter-national waters and what are domestic waters. Therefore can a state like Turkey which the two rivers originate in claim sole ownership without facing any serious consequences by the international committee. On the other hand Iraq and Syria are also able to demand their rightful share of the water based on the fact that two rivers are transboundary which flow within their borders, which in other words can be considered as international wa-ter.

The reason for Turkey's failed commitment to the international agreements stems from the idea that the two rivers are regarded as Turkish since they originate in Turkeys high-lands; and that is why they consider it as a subject of sovereignty and not an interna-tional matter. Turkey has often stated that the waters of Tigris-Euphrates belong solely to Turkey no more than the oil of Iraq belongs to Iraq and Iraq only. However that logic

(26)

is flawed since the oil of Iraq and other oil rich countries is not constantly flowing into other territories i.e. not transboundary.

This is a serious issue since no nation can be proven wrong by the international law. To be able to solve such conflict great measures must be taken .e.g. revise several parts of the international law; to clearly indicate the definition of the laws, in order to safely avoid such dilemmas. Strengthening the significance of the law is another issue which must not be overlooked; by introducing strong sanctions as an indication of gravity. In this manner countries will think twice before disrespecting the regulations, if knowing the consequences which will pursued against them.

Another suggestion is to improve the international law since it have caused concerns and dispute due to its undeveloped law and incompatible principles.

Third-party involvement

Previously the three countries have only negotiated when the water levels have serious-ly endangered their national security. To ensure that a next crisis will be prevented ma-jor efforts must be carried out. However only an external party has the capability to em-phasize the three riparian’s motivation and highlight the conflict in a way that each na-tion has to believe that it will only cost them by avoiding cooperana-tion and negotiana-tion. Only an external intervention can assemble the countries and initiate a successful nego-tiation process since a third party can more easily find and take an objective and ba-lanced stance which in a sense could later convince each nation that there is a better substitute resolution, by creating unbiased terms, reliable and equally beneficial and simplistic alternative solutions which each country could adopt (Se Akanda, Freeman & Placht 2007).

In this particular case there have been several attempts by three legitimate external par-ties with the technical and financial potential to solve the ongoing conflict between the three riparian nations. These interferences were made by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the World Bank.

(27)

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has previously solved a prior conflict between the three states. It was dur-ing a very dry period between the years 1974-1975; Syria had been reducdur-ing the flow of water into Iraq in result of receiving less water from Turkey. Iraq confronted Syria in sense of a warning but Syria blamed Turkey, Iraq was not pleased with Syria’s justifica-tion which in terms led to growing hostility between the two neighbors and ultimately brought the two countries to the brink of war. Saudi Arabia’s interference in this con-flict was perfectly timed. The clash diminished when the Saudi Crown Prince Fahd as-sembled the countries for ultimate negotiations. The terms set by Saudi Arabia required Syria to increase the flow of water into Iraq in exchange of receiving financial resources from Iraq and Saudi Arabia to enhance and develop their irrigation system in order to be able to diminish the unmet demand.

Egypt

Egypt is legitimate as a third party due to their wide range experience gained from their negation methods and effort to resolve the Nile conflict between them and their neigh-bors.

In 1998 Turkey accused Syria of harboring and supporting the militant Kurdish libera-tion organizalibera-tion “PKK” which would eventually gravely threaten the relalibera-tions between Turkey and Syria if not resolved immediately. Egypt’s former president Hosni Mubarak quickly instigated diplomacy between Turkey and Syria which soon after assured Tur-key that Syria would stop supporting the PKK by making an oath of honor to TurTur-key. Even though the successful security agreement did not include the water issue, it con-firmed the third parties ability to conclude successful negotiations between the conflict-ing states.

(28)

Egypt as a third party could pose as an experienced adviser who could bring insight and invaluable knowledge which could produce possible alternatives for resolving the cur-rent disagreement in the Tigris-Euphrates region.

World Bank

The World Bank has had an extensive role as third party regarding water disagreements, since they have all the means necessary to resolve such issues, from financial to tech-nical expertise and of course extensive experience.

In 1975 Turkey applied for financial support to build a second dam, but since Iraq and Syria issued numerous objections, the bank decided to decline Turkey the funding, forc-ing Turkey to fund the project sforc-ingle-handedly. Turkey eventually managed to build the dam, but was now desperate for funding to be able to complete the GAP project.

The three riparians know that they have to resolve their current water issues to be able to admission the banks funding. This would of course not only pressure the disputing states to find a resolution but also the bank, since they would once again be able to pro-vide loans to those states which is very beneficial for both parts.

As a conclusion of third-party involvement; any involvement of a legitimate third party is positive progress towards finding a resolution. That is why a third-party involvement plays such a vital role in keeping the stability in the region.

4.3 NATIONAL LEVEL

Governmental hydro-politics

Over the course of history the priority of water issues has been considered as a low po-litical priority rather than an issue of high popo-litical priority. However the low priority appears to be changing, where more nations in the Middle East consider the water issues as a high priority.

(29)

If more nations considered water issues as high priority politics, more nations would perhaps value the vitality of the water resources available and that might open new doors for cooperation and negotiation. However there might be a reverse effect if all sides have an excessively high water priority politics, which would mean that every na-tion tries to fulfill their priorities only and ignore the demands of others. This can clear-ly be seen in the Tigris-Euphrates region, were no nation is willing to compromise.

State sovereignty

State sovereignty is a delicate and a difficult issue because of the disagreements be-tween the riparians. Syria and Iraq claims that the Tigris-Euphrates is international wa-ter, since the rivers flow through their borders. However Turkey has another point view, to them the rivers are a matter of sovereignty since they originate in Turkey. According to Turkey the Euphrates can only be considered as an international river after it unites with its sibling the Tigris River and forms the Shatt al-Arab which functions as a border between Iraq and Iran.

Due to the complex nature of the Tigris-Euphrates basins, state sovereignty concerning them is a complicated matter to discuss and very difficult to illustrate in a neutral man-ner.

The main cause of the implementation of the equitable utilization law is due to that each nation can act as an intervention so riparians ought to value and respect both previous historic use and the origin of the water source. If a riparian nations cause’s harm to oth-er nations by not upholding these principles, it is in their duty to diminish and repair the damage. However this is a paradox, considering that all three nations use this principle to advocate their case. Turkey applies this law to their cause since they are in possession of the source of the two rivers, whereas Iraq and Syria justify their claims to the water by focusing on the prior historic use paragraph of the law.

(30)

4.4 LOCAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL

The importance of Non Governmental Organizations

The Non Governmental Organizations has a vital role as a provider of information and to creator of public awareness. GWN (The good water neighbors) which are a NGO tries to create a successful cooperation not only between local societies but also between neighboring nations. They generate various educational, assistance and communication projects all over the Middle East.

Nations such as Turkey, Iraq and Syria are in need of improved and reformed educa-tional systems regarding the environment and other aspects. Due to the lack of informa-tion the people have about the utilizainforma-tion of water and the importance of nourishment extremely large quantities of water has gone to waste through incompetent irrigation systems and other misuse. It is here where the NGOs play a vital role, in educating and enlightening the population. However their primarily objective should not only be edu-cating the ordinary farmers and citizens but also the core of the government; by provid-ing better solutions to the politicians, solutions that not only benefit their country but the entire region.

I have now presented a number of possible and potential resolutions and the obstacles that might prevent cooperation and negotiation the upcoming part will provide the con-cluding discussion.

(31)

5 CONCLUNDING DISCUSSION

I have now provided the potential outcomes of negotiation and cooperation and the ob-stacles that follow. I have tried to cover the most relevant parts regarding my thesis which is the Tigris-Euphrates issue, however there are plenty of elements which I have not included or perhaps just merely mentioned.

In order for the three riparian states to reach cooperation extreme measures must be tak-en, first and foremost, Turkey must be willing to compromise and reduce their claims for total water sovereignty, whereas Iraq and Syria must strive to develop their economy and infrastructure in order to be able to utilize the available water within their regions to its full potential. As a result this will make them less reliant and less affected by the ac-tions Turkey make. Iraq has great economical potential, since it is a very oil rich coun-try. If the security issue within Iraq is stabilized, Iraq will be able to achieve all the goals necessary to make the nation into an effective and self dependent nation in a very short time, since they will have all the funds necessary to support such extensive projects. As a result Iraq would be less dependent on the water released by turkey (as mentioned above) this would provide Syria a benefit in sense of claiming more water for its needs.

Another possible solution is for the European Union to make strict demands on Turkey to reform its hydro-politics and also to revise their decisions regarding absolute terri-torial sovereignty in accordance to international law. This could ignite a potential re-formation of Turkey’s water politics.

I say this because the acceptance by the EU has been one of Turkey’s main priorities for several years, and there is a great probability that Turkey would reconsider their current plans and instead release more waters into Syria and Iraq just in order to be accepted in-to the European Union.

In my honest opinion, strict demands from superpowers such as the US and the EU are the most probable approach to cooperation and serious negotiations and even resolution to the majority of existing water conflicts. Higher authorities have to play their role in protecting the weaker nations in order to keep stability and uphold the international law.

(32)

LIST OF REFERENCES

Akanda, A., Freeman, S. & Placht, M. (2007). The Tigris-Euphrates River Basin: Me-diating a Path towards Regional Water Stability. Fletcher School Journal, 3-7

Alfredson, T. & Cungu, A. (2008). Negotiation Theory and Practice: a review of the literature. EasyPol, 179, 2

Beschorner, N. (1992) Water and Instability in the Middle East. Adelphi paper, 273,

70-80

Bulloch, J. & Darwish, A. (1993). Water wars: coming conflicts in the Middle East. London : Gollancz.

Çarkoğlu, Ali. & Eder, M. (2001). Domestic Concerns and the Water Conflict over the Euphrates-Tigris River Basin. Middle Eastern Studies, 3(1), 41-71

Carraro, C., Marchiori, C. & Sgobbi, A. (2007). Negotiation on water: insights from non-cooperative bargain theory. Environment and development economics, 12 Cressey, G. (1958). Geographical Review: the Shatt al-Arab. Middle East Journal, 12,

450.

Dinar, S. (2009). Power asymmetry and negotiations in international river basins.

In-ternational Negotiations, 14, 329- 359

Elhance, A. (1999). Hydropolitics in the 3rd world. Conflict and cooperation in interna-tional river basins. Washington: United States Institutes of Peace.

Elhance, A. (2000). Hydropolitics: Grounds for Despair, Reasons for Hope.

Interna-tional Negotiation, 5, 201-222

Frazee, C. A. (1997) World History the Easy Way: A.D 1500 to the present. New York: Barron’s Educational Series.

Gleick, P.H. (1993). Water and conflict: Fresh water resources and international

secu-rity in Wolf, Aaron T 2002. Conflict prevention and resolution in water systems.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited:

Gleick, P.H., Cooley, H. & Morikawa, Mari. (2008). The World’s Water 2008-2009:

The biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Washington: Island Press.

Hohendinger, K. (2006). Water politics in the Middle East: The Euphrates Tigris basin. Jägerskog, A. & Zeitoun, M. (2009). Getting Transboundary Water Right: Theory and

(33)

Järgerskog, A. (2003). Why states cooperate over shared water: The water negotiations

over in the Jordan River Basin. Lindköping: Department of water and

environ-mental studies.

Kempkey, N., Pinard, M., Pochat, V. & Dinar, A. (2009). Negotiations over water and other natural resources in the La Plata River Basin: A model for other transboun-dary basins? International Negotiations, 14, 254-278

Kibaroglu, A. & Olcay, Ü. (2000). An Institutional Framework for Facilitating Coop-eration in the Euphrates-Tigris River Basin. International Negotiation, 5(2), 312– 329.

Kibaroglu, A. & Olcay, Ü. (2000). An Institutional Framework for Facilitating Coop-eration in the Euphrates-Tigris River Basin. International Negotiation, 5(2), 310– 329

Kibaroglu, A. (2002b). Settling the Dispute over the Waters of the Euphrates-Tigris River Basin. UNESCO-IHP, 329-343

Kibaroglu, A. (2004). Socio-Economic Development and Benefit Sharing in the Euph-rates-Tigris River Basin. the IPCRI Conference: Water for Life in the Middle

East.

Klare, M. T. (2002). Resource Wars. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Kliot, N. (1994). Water Resources and Conflict in the Middle East. New York: Rout-ledge.

Koçabaş, I. (1995). Türkiye’nin Sınıraşan Suları: Dicle ve Fırat (Transboundary Waters

of Turkey: Tigris and Euphrates. Ankara: Institute of Turkish and Middle Eastern

Public.

Mete, E. (2003). The Tigris-Euphrates rivers controversy and the role of international law. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, 8, 6-12

Morrissette, J. & Borer, D. (2004). Where oil and water do mix: Environmental scarcity and future conflict in the Middle East and North Africa. Parameters, 34, 86-102 Mountjoy, S. (2005) The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. New York: Chelsea house

pub-lishers.

Naff, T. and Matson, R.C. (1984) Water in the Middle East: conflict or cooperation?. Westview press.

(34)

Priscoli, D. (1998). Conflict prevention and resolution in water systems. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham.

Salman, M., Salman, A. & Upretti, K. (2002). Conflict and cooperation on South Asis’s

International Rivers: A legal Perspective. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Soffer, A. (1999). Rivers of Fire: the Conflict over Water in the Middle East. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Spector, B. (2000). Motivating water diplomacy: Finding the situational incentives to negotiate. International negotiation, 5(2), 223-235

Stinett, D. & Tir, J. (2009). The institutionalization of river treaties. International

Nego-tiation, 14, 229-252

Teclaff, L. A. (1967). The River Basin in History and Law. The Hague: Martinus Nij-hoff.

Trondalen, J. M. (1992). Conflict prevention and resolution in water systems. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Turan, I. (2004). Water and Turkish Foreign Policy in Martin G. Lenore and Dimitris

Keridis, eds., The Future of Turkish Foreign Policy. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

Turton, A. & Henwood, R. (2002). Hydropolitics in the developing world: A southern

African perspective. South Africa: African Water Research Unit.

United Nations, General Comment No. 15, The right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the In-ternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)

Waterbury, J. (1979). Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley. New York: Syracuse University. Wouters, P. (1997). International water law: Selected writings of Professor Charles B

Bourne. London: Kluwer Law International.

Zeitoun, M. & Mirumachi, N. (2008). Transboundary water interaction I: Reconsidering conflict and cooperation. Annual Convention, Bridging Multiple Divides, 8, 297-316

(35)

WEBSITES

Dellapenna, J. (2009). Law, International Water. Visited 2011-02-13, from http:// www.waterencyclopedia.com/La-Mi/Law-International-Water.html

FAO's global information system on water and agriculture, developed by the Land and Water Division. Visited 2011-03-02, from

Will freshwater soon become more valueable then oil? : A study on global water conflicts and it&apos;s necessity in the future