We believe what we believe. As humans and culturally directed beings, we feel entitled to our personal opinions and choices. We define our worlds through the political and religious frames we are most familiar with. Conflicts escalate from the competing tensions fuelled by perceived fears and incursions. War unfolds as a highly charged, emotional response to those anticipated threats.
In the grey realms of conflict, wars serve as formidable forces of disruption, causing indiscriminate destruction across multiple facets of life—infrastructure, human populations, animals, and entire ecosystems. The direct consequences of bombings and military operations extend beyond immediate casualties, leading to oil spills, toxic chemical leaks, and the devastation of essential infrastructure. In turn, this results in the contamination of rivers and lakes, and other natural resources. The pervasive idea of war as a solution to problems obscures the harsh reality that it is, in fact, the root cause of numerous environmental issues.
In addition, population displacement due to conflict exerts additional pressures on resources including water supplies, often resulting in devastating over-extraction and irreparable depletion.
Furthermore, the deployment of weapons and explosives disrupts agricultural soil, causing irreversible erosion and sedimentation that negatively impacts water quality in natural water systems. The cumulative environmental impact of war, particularly on crucial resources, is an enduring crisis with far-reaching consequences.
As a global community, we are confronting the reality that the future of humanity is at a critical crossroads. The facts are laid before us and we face the uncomfortable need to acknowledge that all our actions are inextricably linked.
Scientific evidence has repeatably emphasized the current and future catastrophic consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and ongoing ecosystems destruction in our interconnected global environment. Regardless of political borders or cultural differences, the fate of humanity is permanently entangled, rendering distance from the origin of destruction irrelevant. War is not a sustainable solution to resolving inequalities, it is a dangerous contributory to the climate crisis.
In conjunction with government economic initiatives, international law plays a pivotal role in both understanding and regulating the enduring impacts on environments held in public trust. No longer can agendas aligned with political and corporate profit dictate the use and control of natural resources without clear boundaries and robust enforcement measures.
Protection of the environment is not a new concept. However, the conversation is mired in the cultural and legal taboos framed by war. In the patriotic defence of ideals or countries we reject accepting responsibility for the full scope of destruction it entails. We cling to the conception of “winning” without calculating the costs supporting the belief.
In a historical context, the use of “Agent Orange” during the Vietnam War (1955-1975) triggered the first discussions demanding specific environmental protections during conflicts. Agent Orange effectively destroyed the vegetation that hid guerrilla troops, a military advantage designed to save American lives. But, it also caused deep ecological damage to the country while exposing thousands of people to deadly toxic chemicals that resulted in serious and fatal health issues.
Over 2 million civilians were killed in addition to military casualties on both sides; an estimated 250,000 S. Vietnamese soldiers and 58,200 Americans. Vietnam would eventually emerge from the war as a potential new military power in SE Asia. However, the damage caused to its agricultural industries and the natural environment was catastrophic. Sections of the country were deeply scarred by the combination of intense bombing and land mines. Defoliation and toxins from chemicals left farmlands and water sources contaminated. Waves of desperate, displaced refugees fled to neighbouring countries seeking sanctuary from a destroyed country.
The Vietnam War illustrates the indisputable fact that armed conflicts inflict severe and lasting environmental damages while leaving detrimental impacts on ecosystems and natural resources.
Another poignant example is the 1991 Gulf War. The deliberate release of oil into the Persian Gulf by Iraq led to an environmental catastrophe. Approximately 240 to 520 million gallons of crude oil were discharged. Additionally, the intentional oil well fires released enormous amounts of toxic, black smoke into the atmosphere, creating noxious clouds that affected air quality for many miles away.
The environmental consequences were considerable, impacting terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The oil spills contaminated the desert soil, making it difficult for vegetation to flourish while disrupting the delicate balance of the desert ecosystem. Oil then seeped through the sand into the groundwater, affecting the water quality and posing health risks to both humans and animals. It flowed into nearby natural water systems quickly poisoning both natural flora and aquatic life. Local villages were abandoned as unliveable, creating a circle of poverty by displacement that many families would never recover from.
The damage of wars can extend years beyond the immediate consequences. These are facts. Science estimates that ecosystem recovery alone from these events can take more than a decade. This does not include the increase of poverty, health issues and human trafficking experienced by displaced populations. Estimates that must now be re-calculated and adjusted to a global climate crisis.
With facts in hand and hindsight, we must ask ourselves how we define “victory” and at what cost. This is a conversation we can no longer avoid either as individuals or, as countries.
These two, selected examples in a history of human conflict illustrate the profound, enduring damages inflicted by wars and conflicts. They further emphasize an urgent need for collaborative efforts to prevent both the environmental consequences of military conflicts and the weaponization of natural resources.
It is an elementary understanding that water is, life. This is a premise we all accept without argument. We falter in discussions of water as a messenger of death.
Throughout our human history water has been utilized as a tactical weapon in conflicts and warfare. The manipulation and/or destruction of water resources for political or military purposes clearly illustrates that water is both a strategic resource and a tactical weapon. M. Zeitoun and Daoudy characterized the weaponization of water as “a military tool of domination, legitimacy, or a target and goal to instill fear and enforce cooperation among civilians”.
A scarcity of clean water poses significant challenges to both public health and supporting agriculture. Polluted water is both a prominent factor in infant mortality and a primary conduit for disease transmission. Denial or restriction of clean water access is a lethal sentence undermining a society’s fundamental source of sustenance. In view of this, it is critical not to underestimate equally the value and hazards associated with controlling water resources.
When coupled with aggressive intent, water can be unleashed as a military weapon with devastating results, destroying villages and farmlands in its path. “Hydraulic warfare” is both a historical and actively utilized weapon in military arsenals. In WWII the British utilized it to target and destroy the Ruhr Dam, an effort seeking to damage German war manufacturing. It failed its primary objective, but the flooding caused an estimated civilian 1, 300 deaths.
In 1938 China’s Nationalist forces deliberately breached the Yellow River levees in an effort to stop advancing Japanese armies. The concept of “winning” again becomes a difficult and controversial topic. The Japanese army was temporarily halted but at the cost of thousands of Chinese civilian lives.
In June 2023, Ukraine’s “Nova Kakhovka Dam” was destroyed by a suspected, deliberate and internal explosion. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky demanded a war crimes investigation of ecocide, calling it “an environmental bomb of mass destruction”.
The military tactic of flooding historically is a minor influence in determining a “win” in war. However, it does create immediate civilian death and environmental destruction leading to long-term devastation.
To date, international law does not categorically prohibit or define “hydraulic warfare” as a weapon. Research on the nexus between war and the intentional weaponization of water is notably limited. The subject is wreathed with political taboos. Existing studies focus instead on the geographical and political ecology aspects related to the greyly defined arena of “looting water” as a natural resource. Despite the increasing incidences and gravity of international water conflicts, public attention is directed toward pollution and recovery concerns, not the effects related to war. Comprehensive studies and a lack of data leading to an understanding of the intricate relationships between armed conflicts and environmental damage remain hindered by political agendas. The deliberate use of water both as an environmental target and weapon of war remains under-examined and inadequately discussed.
It’s time that changed.
Despite the existence of four Geneva Conventions and three Additional Protocols regulating military conduct, there are no laws explicitly addressing the issues related to war and the destruction of natural environments. Why?
