written by Ibrahim Erdogan printable version send your friend

Friday, 13 February 2009


Throughout history almost every aspect of life has come to rest upon water. Availability of such a precious resource meant human life, agriculture, industry, energy and many other things while the shortage or lack thereof signaled gloom for humanity, society and civilization. Nowhere clearer and adequately has that fact been stressed other then in the books of the world’s leading religions; The Quran defines water as the sole basis for the emergence of life: "We have made every living thing out of water"; the Bible makes frequent reference to water in both its literal and metaphorical sense: Water is "God’s creation" and a "divine benefit" but its absence prevents the faithful from fulfilling their obligations and also brings in its wake drought and desolation; while Judaism equates water to Torah by stating that; “Just as water is a life source, so is Torah a source of life; Just as water comes from heaven, so too is the Torah’s origin in heaven.”

A resource so ubiquitous that it covers nearly three-quarters of the earth’s surface has recently become the catchphrase for increased competition, disputes, conflicts and even wars. Proponents of setting up a causal linkage between water and competition have often maintained that water is such a valuable resource for the sustenance of life and development that states would be especially concerned to preserve their supplies even to the point of fighting. That is especially true if and when the actions of other actors may be perceived to constrain ones’ access to and utilization of shared resources.

Following the importance of water is the argument that there is not simply enough water to satisfy all the legitimate needs. Accordingly, the balance between the supply and demand has for a considerable time been tilted towards the latter due to soaring populations, exponential expansion of per-capita consumption, ever-growing requirements of agriculture and industry and the pollution of surface and underground water resources.

Shortage, though, was not going to be taken merely to mean that the world is running out of water. In fact, usable water, the percentage of rainwater that does not evaporate, equals roughly 19,000 liters per person daily, far more than any individual could ever use. The problem is that due to the mal-distribution of the existing resources, water is less then often available where and when needed. Another fact used to support the growing potential for competition is the mapping of existing resources with respect to the political borders that separate countries. The distribution of existing resources is as such that it, rarely, if ever, coincides with the boundaries of political or administrative units. More than 200 river systems are shared by two or more countries. Many of existing surface and underground resources run between countries with a history of conflict, where water plays an essential part in the economic life of the country.

 Resource optimists, on the other hand, have long stressed that there was an abundance of water where it was not subject to wasteful uses, human ingenuity could overcome shortages, and nations could cooperate rather than fight to resolve international water issues. As many pondered around the question of whichever view to adopt optimists seemed proven when actors opted for increased dialogue and cooperation. The very same set-of factors that thought to cause competition have led actors to bridge water utilization plans and basin development planning, build joint management structures, and adopt international measures for further integration and regulation. International law and compliance measures have been strengthened to serve as a basis for dialogue, cooperation and conflict resolution.

However, at times when water issues were much more sharply focused, susceptible to narrow self-interest and emotionally charged, surrendering competing claims over transboundary water resources has proved difficult. Experience acquired from observing the history of water relations suggests that advising states to jointly develop shared resources for the common good often times do not automatically bring about cooperation. In other words, to simply state that opting cooperation over conflict would bring payoffs for all the concerned is not sufficient to promote and sustain cooperation.

States need to warm-up to the idea of converting their perceived ‘zero-sum’ confrontations into ‘win-win’ situations. In that respect, incentives should be provided to those who would accept guidance and coordination in their plans to utilize from transboundary water resources. For, cooperation would less likely to accrue without economic, social, and political payoffs to the public across nations.

Legal norms, regulations and institutions that have so far been developed by states and particularly international organizations to deal with water issues, on the other hand, appeared to have failed in receiving wide-range recognition as a means for cooperation. Initially the work done under the auspices of the United Nations seemed promising as it included an appeal to ethics of justice and equity. Over time, though, it has resolved little and caused further confusion by improperly juxtapositioning the principles of equitable utilization and not to cause significant harm.

Therefore, such critical questions of; who would have the right to access to a specific water resource; how much of the resource would a given user be allowed to utilize and in what manner; and under which principles should rights and duties be outlined in respect to a specific resource still remain. Addressing those questions and facilitating cooperation among competing claims require bringing an often overlooked yet crucial element into discussions, ‘leadership’.

Leadership may that be in the form of a person or country has a great deal to offer. A leader that had time and again been proved as a successful third party mediator, an honest broker, and a sincere conciliator could first of all provide a trusted platform where states could in confidence exchange information, views and mutual recognition of rights and obligations. That in itself is likely to promote openness, awareness of others’ perceptions, and thus facilitate coordination as a step for cooperation. An adept leader could also limit further securitization of the language of water issues which has done more harm rather then merely helping states to realize the consequences of their actions. For, the language of using water repeatedly along with the concepts of national security and thus conflict has caused actors inadvertently to view others and their actions without tolerance and sympathy. Reconciliation and agreements have thus remained remote targets to reach by states on their own.

A skilled leader, moreover, would be resourceful enough to identify and generate both common and individual benefits that had never been considered by the actors over a given shared water resource. Due to the confidence invested in its role, its decision as an agent distributing benefits among the actors in a basin would less likely to be objected.

Finally, an experienced leader in water related problems would have already identified that the majority of disagreements in a basin are not centered upon a simple equation of demand and supply. They are rather embroiled within diverging identities, domestic concerns and cultural differences. Therefore, any attempt initiated by the leader to prevent or resolve conflicts would necessarily include a process of bridging those elements in order to create a more unperturbed negotiating environment.

All that accounted on leaders and leadership may be grounded on a more meaningful setting when considered with Turkey and its Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s forthcoming role as a host to the Fifth World Water Forum. To be held in March 2009, the forum would assemble nearly 20.000 people from different countries, professions and backgrounds to form so to say an ‘intellectual resource pool’. It would provide an open, reliable and receptive platform in bringing together a plethora of diverse views, experiences and choices, thus allow addressing the many facets of water issues.

By drawing from its earlier experience in hosting the United Nations Habitat conference in Istanbul in 1996, Turkey appears to be well equipped to fulfill the role of leadership the qualities of which has already been detailed. That role has been evolving in Turkey’s foreign policy since Mr. Erdogan became Prime Minister of the country. He seemed to have taken a personal responsibility for disseminating the concepts of tolerance, peace, and cooperation. That has secured him the trust and appreciation of not only Turkey’s neighbors but also a wider spectrum of countries.

To count but to give a few examples of how Turkey has been rapidly becoming a trusted, indispensable, stable, and secure bridge between East to the West and between North to the South consider the following; Turkeys relations with neighboring Syria and Iran has improved from a point of impulsive tensions to a mutual understanding and collaboration at a time when both were accused of intransigence; Turkey took a leading role with Spain in an attempt to prevent potential identity, cultural and religious clashes; It successfully mediated the dispute between Russia and Georgia during the Caucasian crisis; Its intervening role during the Gazza crisis helped to secure the resultant cease fire; and finally it has recently been selected by the majority of the General Assembly to the United Nations Security Council.

In conclusion, the often overlooked role of leadership need to be integrated into process of dealing with water related problems because any cooperation attempt requires conciliation, compromise and recognition of mutual rights and duties. No actor is better suited to appeal for such ethical concepts of justice and equity other then those that have built themselves a history of trust, confidence, and honesty. The role of Turkey and the Prime Minister Mr. Erdogan in hosting the World Water Forum should therefore be perceived from the perspective of commitment to ‘bridging divides’ over water in Istanbul.


Ibrahim Erdogan is a Lecturer at Balikesir University, He is also International Security advisor for (USAK-ISRO) International Strategic Research Organization.