The Weaponization and Pollution of Water in War

Water systems and infrastructure have long been targeted as a tactic in war. From land disputes in Samaria in 2500 BCE, to attacks on water infrastructure by Israel in Palestine since October 7, 2023, water has long been the source of, a weapon in, or damaged as a result of conflict. Currently, international humanitarian law (IHL) has some language governing the use of water in conflict, including that water not be used to violate any principle of IHL, bans on various types of weapons that have been known to damage water, and stating that combatants in conflict shall not make water non-consumable by humans without risks to their life and health. Despite these rules, water remains a contentious point in many modern conflicts. It is also a consequence of conflicts; water sources, such as aquifers, lakes, oceans, and rivers, can all become polluted. Codification and enforcement of international laws and a greater understanding of how water is affected by conflict is a growing imperative in the world today.

Water can be used as a weapon in several different ways. It can be used as a force for destruction, a tactical battlefield weapon, as a means of coercion, as a threat if access to it is denied, and as an incentive for cooperation. As stated, tactics like this have been used for millennia, so the following examples will be modern. The Syrian Civil War has been ongoing since 2011, and during the last 12 years, denial of water has been used as a tactic, particularly in Aleppo in 2015. This has continued to have consequences; a cholera outbreak began in August 2022, and has so far accounted for nearly 200,000 people becoming sick, and 105 deaths. Similarly, during the ongoing conflict in Yemen, thousands civilians are facing pre-famine conditions and water scarcity as a result of sieges that cut off trade routes to major cities, destruction of water infrastructure by combatants, drought, and water mismanagement. This has led to a water black market, the spread of diseases, and mass deaths. As was the case in Syria, a cholera epidemic took place in Yemen from 2016–2022, during which 2.5 million people became sick, and 4,000 died. A lot of this type of violence appears in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) due to water scarcity that already exists in the region. This has been exacerbated by water mismanagement, land degradation, desertification, temperature increases, and drought. Despite being a pervasive issue that demands the world’s attention, little to nothing is being done to ameliorate the situation. This is likely because it has been an ongoing issue for many years. The region is exemplified by wide-ranging deserts, and so it is assumed that water scarcity comes naturally as a result.

Additionally, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 saw the destruction of water infrastructure and disruption of trade routes. This has caused increased flooding, mass migration, water shortages for basic needs, and a disruption to global supply chains. Lastly, water supply chains into Gaza were explicitly cut off by Israel after the onset of the war with Hamas, along with fuel and food. Without access to water, civilians in conflict-affected areas are likely to experience immense suffering. In November, the World Health Organization reported 70,000 cases of respiratory illnesses, and 44,000 cases of waterborne diseases. Their very lives depend on having access to clean drinking water, food, and shelter. This has brought a lot more attention to the issue of water in war, likely because it has been disrupting international food supply chains and trade routes. Furthermore, because Ukraine is not thought of to be an oft-water scarce country, the issue becomes amplified when it occurs.

However, there have not been any consequences to the actors who use water in this way, despite the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly stating that the denial of anything indispensable to survival is a war crime. This is likely due to the fact that many actors who use water as a weapon of war are allied with any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (i.e., the U.S. and Israel, Russia and Syria, etc.), thus making broad international action all but impossible. Action in this front is becoming more necessary, due to the pervasiveness of the issue of water scarcity and its effects on nearby communities. Further codification of these rules is required, if by the UN or other international bodies, as well as equitable enforcement of these rules. It cannot be only some actors who are punished for these actions, because this use of water as a weapon not only harms civilians, it causes harm to the environment as well.

This is both the use of water as a weapon (in making sure that the opposing side cannot use the water, or making it unusable by civilian populations), but also a consequence of war. Such pollution can be caused by weapons residue, attacks on water infrastructure, chemical or biological weapons, and explosive remnants of war (i.e., landmines). These contaminants include mercury, iron, plutonium, and other chemical or biological agents, which can leak into various types of water systems, thus disrupting local ecosystems alongside humans. As a result of contamination, water-based wildlife can be killed, and their habitats destroyed. This results in a disrupted ecosystem that will likely never recover, which will then harm surrounding communities that often depend on the health of fresh or ocean water.

The human toll of water contamination means that there is less clean water for consumption; for example, in the Syrian Civil War, there is 40% less drinking water available in 2021 than there was in 2011. Additionally, there are higher risks of infectious diseases among both human and animal populations. This can lead to cross-contamination, and the spread of diseases between humans and animals, which can then increase death tolls on both sides. This was the case in Syria, Libya, and Somalia, where contaminated water caused a severe cholera epidemic.

So, what can we do about this? It’s hard to change a system that provides protection to powerful states and those that ally with them should they commit war crimes. This system must be changed to end the privileges and veto powers of the Permanent 5 members of the UNSC so that one country’s ally is not consistently defended despite clearly committing a war crime. Barring that, the best thing to be done going forward is to codify evenly apply IHL to ensure that actors who weaponize water are appropriately punished for doing so through international courts or other international bodies. Furthermore, there needs to be equal implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2573, which condemns attacks against civilians or depriving them of basic goods and services, which then must be applied to clean drinking water. Lastly, there must be greater governance when it comes to harming water resources in war; while there are laws that apply to harm to civilians as a result of water weaponization, there are no such rules for harm to the environment. Governments should be pressured to protect both civilians and nature in wartime. Protection of both ensures the safety of the other, particularly when it comes to clean, livable water and ecosystems. It is imperative that we recognize the consequences of water usage and damage in war in order to both better combat climate change by safeguarding water ecosystems and wildlife and protecting civilians.