14 August 2000
World Commission On Dams Chair Challenges "Water War" Rhetoric
Winner of 2000 Stockholm Water Prize Asmal takes on global theory that water scarcity leads to conflict

STOCKHOLM, Monday, Aug. 14 -- In a policy address before the Stockholm Water Forum, World Commission on Dams Chair Prof. Kader Asmal today questioned the motivations and basis for a widespread doctrine that drives foreign policies and global aid: Prevention of Water Wars.

After reviewing the bleak facts about water scarcity, and acknowledging how that leads to stress, Asmal argued that there is no basis for spreading alarm, mobilising, strengthening borders or launching unilateral top-down campaign. All of which have been advocated by global experts.

Officials from the US Department of the Defense, CIA, State Department and White House met to consider the international implications of water conflicts. The result, was a multimillion dollar agenda to resolve global water disputes, on grounds, said the Secretary of State, that "As competition for water intensifies, further disagreements over access and use are likely to erupt."

"With all due respect to my friends," said Asmal, "have battles ever been fought over water? Is water scarcity a casus belli? Does it divide nations? The answer is no, no and no. Indeed, water, by its nature, tends to induce even hostile co-riparian countries to co-operate, even as disputes rage over other issues. The weight of historical evidence demonstrates that organised political bodies have signed 3600 water related treaties since AD 805. Of seven minor water-related skirmishes, all began over non-water issues. "

"There is some value to sensational Water War rhetoric," Asmal acknowledged. "Alarmists awaken people to the underlying reality of water scarcity, and rally their troops to become more progressive and interdependent. By contrast, to challenge that rhetoric is to risk making us passive about the status quo, or delay needed innovations or co-operation...

But the Water War rhetoric must not replace the vacuum left by the Cold War's end. If the 'water's-for-fighting' chorus is off key, its disharmony affects lives as well. It shifts energy and resources from local priorities to foreign affairs. It scares off investment where it is most in need. It reshuffles priorities, delays implementation of policy. It is easier to ignore their thirst than to divert attention to potential foreign threats, real or imagined. Easier, not better. To help the poor and weak, let us together reform our unstable, consumptive habits to share limited supplies…"