KGOU Pledge Online Today!Follow Us at FacebookLive Streaming
News
World Views: Syria Latest, Farhana Sultana on ''The Right to Water'' (Dec 14, 2012)

On Thursday, President Obama told ABC News the U.S. now recognizes the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate representative of the country.

"Washington is trying to shape the battlefield in Syria," said Joshua Landis, the Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, and one of this country's preeminent Syria watchers. "There have already been announcements by many of the militia heads that they don't recognize this new government, that they see this as an American construct. The future is going to be rocky. "

Russia's Foreign Ministry has denied that a top diplomat said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is losing control of his country.

Russia's state-owned news agencies had quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov as saying that rebels might win the civil war. Landis said Russia does $35 billion worth of trade with Turkey, and Russia won't let Syria get in the way of its relations with neighboring Turkey.

"They're hedging their bets," Landis said. "But they haven't thrown [Assad] under the bus."

Later, during a conversation on international water rights and governance, Syracuse University social geographer Farhana Sultana told Landis there are solutions to the global water crisis if nation-states have the political will.

“It's not a lack of money,” Sultana said.  "It's really a lack of creative thinking…there's no need for a child to be dying every few minutes from water-borne diseases.”

Sultana co-edited the 2011 book The Right to Water: Politics, Governance, and Social Struggles.

INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS

On the United Nations’ 2010 declaration that access to clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right

The question of how to do it is a little bit more challenging, but I think what was very important about the UN declaration was that it didn't come about as a top-down UN declaration. It came about from a bottom-up push from grassroots organizations and activists, and everyday citizens who have been fighting for this, basically to say, "Yes, it's a philosophical statement, but it's really important that nation-states take this on board." Because we cannot even have a dialogue or a conversation about these issues if we're not even talking the same language. So if you look at the vote in the General Assembly, which countries didn't vote for it? America didn't vote for it. Canada didn't vote for it. A majority of the so-called "Third World" voted for it. So it's not necessarily by having the UN declaration that you have a magic bullet, and I think the ideology of the techno-fix or the magic bullet is very problematic, because every context matters. Every country's situation, every society's situation is going to be different, but how to enact the universal call for a right to water is not easy. But at least it gives people a way to engage in a conversation with their government and local powers that we need to work on this, and figure out what works.

On the problems of international water governance

For instance, in South Asia, the Ganges River is historically a very famous river. It's culturally very important in South Asia. It starts off in Nepal, flows through India, and drains out in Bangladesh in the Indian Ocean. But India is the regional hegemon. It can tell both Nepal upstream, and Bangladesh downstream, and control it. So even though there is a treaty in place, the last country on the line, Bangladesh, does not get its share according to the treaty. Because if you obstruct water upstream, you only measure what's at the border. You have the same problem in the Colorado River between the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. obstructs more than it should, and by the time the river gets to Mexico it's a trickle in the sand. So each river has its own treaties that are defined by the riparian nation-states. And it's very hard to have a global body overseeing this.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

SUZETTE GRILLOT, HOST: Dr. Farhana Sultana, welcome to World Views.

FARHANA SULTANA: Thank you.

GRILLOT: So, what is it about water that is particularly interesting, and how is it that you developed your interest in studying water and water rights?

SULTANA: Thank you for having me. I study water because we can't live without water. It is the one non-substitutable bio-resource we have. We can't drink oil. So given that kind of central, crucial nature of water, the way I got interested in it was just observing life occurrences or other realities around the world, that women are hauling water for miles, but the children are dying from water contamination. People are fighting over water, but at the same time water can also bring people together. So, that's kind of how I got interested in it, and started to focus more and more. But it was very, very disturbing statistics, like almost a billion people not having access to safe water, and almost two billion people not having access to sanitation. And that's current statistics. And several children are dying every day from water-borne diseases, it seems almost unjustifiable to continue in the way we think about the world without bringing this kind of alarm to a broader stage, because it's not to be an alarmist, but to highlight issues. We have a serious global problem, and it may not necessarily be here in the U.S., but in many ways it affects all of us. We live on the lonely blue planet. Water connects all the continents in some way or another. We live in such a globalized economy that we can't think of water in isolation and specific locations, even though we may think about the drought "over there," or the water contamination somewhere else. So I think once we start to see water in a very comprehensive way, and see how we're all connected, we'll be able to have the kind of conversations we need to have.

GRILLOT: So, just to follow up, this is very interesting that you talk about how water brings us together, and connects us, considering there's often a lot of talk about how water is something that divides us, and that it's a source of conflict. Violence, even. So, in what ways can we minimize the conflict that results from water and water access, and maximize the ways in which we view it as a connecting source, and something that is of common interest to us all?

SULTANA: Right. That's a great question, because if I had the perfect answer I'd be kingmaker. The historical aspect of water as a source of conflict is naturally there. People have fought over sources of water, whether it's a stream, or a river, or a well, but there are also historical precedents of people uniting together, and collectivizing around water. Whether it's to protect a stream source, protect a wetland, to share a well - we just don't hear as much about the collectivizing around water as we do about the conflicts over water. So we hear about the famous, or rather infamous, "water wars" in Cochabamba, Bolivia over a decade ago, where citizens of Cochabamba rose up and took to the streets. There was this huge battle because the water had been privatized, but the contracts had been given to Bechtel, and the fees for water had really spiked. So that hike in water tariff meant a lot of poor households could not afford their water anymore. So that really collectivized average citizens to come together to protest against a government contract being given to a private company. Whereas you have other cases where people have come together to protect a water source, and you have cases, for instance, in the Sardar Sarovar Valley in India, where citizens in many different villages are getting together to protest against large dams. They don't want the wetlands and the ecosystem and the river shed to be altered through the building of large dams to provide hydroelectric power. Because the flooding and the displacement will be absolutely egregious - huge cultural displacement, indigenous populations replaced. So yes, water can splinter us, but it can also bring people together.

JOSHUA LANDIS: I know you've written recently about the UN's declaration that there's a human right to water, which makes perfect sense. How does that work? How would the world even go about thinking of securing these human rights for people, and big swathes of people where the water supply is decreasing, and becoming more in jeopardy? What can be done?

SULTANA: Well, the UN basically in late 2010 announced that, yes, there is a human right to water and sanitation. It wasn't just to water but also to sanitation, and that nation-states are obligated to provide this for their citizens. Basically, it was a gesture toward the fact that we have these awful statistics that we should not be living with. Not in the 21st century. And there are very easy solutions to the global water crisis if we have the political will. It's not a lack of money. It's really a lack of creative thinking and political will. There's no need for a child to be dying every few minutes from water-borne diseases. The question of how to do it is a little bit more challenging, but I think what was very important about the UN declaration was that it didn't come about as a top-down UN declaration. It came about from a bottom-up push from grassroots organizations and activists, and everyday citizens who have been fighting for this, basically to say, "Yes, it's a philosophical statement, but it's really important that nation-states take this on board." Because we cannot even have a dialogue or a conversation about these issues if we're not even talking the same language. So if you look at the vote in the General Assembly, which countries didn't vote for it? America didn't vote for it. Canada didn't vote for it. A majority of the so-called "Third World" voted for it. So it's not necessarily by having the UN declaration that you have a magic bullet, and I think the ideology of the techno-fix or the magic bullet is very problematic, because every context matters. Every country's situation, every society's situation is going to be different, but how to enact the universal call for a right to water is not easy. But at least it gives people a way to engage in a conversation with their government and local powers that we need to work on this, and figure out what works. Whether it's crop subsidies, different tariffs, figure out how to expand the network, there are many different strategies. But the bigger issue is to create the space for political will, and I think that was important.

GRILLOT: So you've said there's no magic bullet, there are different ways we can go about doing this, but we haven't found that mechanism yet. How are we to find that mechanism? How can we change the way in which access to water and clean water is doled out in some sort of equitable manner? And remove this concept of power from this issue?

SULTANA: Well I think some sage person a long time back said, "Water is power." And in terms of this global declaration, the UN doesn't actually figure out how to dole out water. It's a philosophical statement, and each nation-state has to figure it out with its own government structure, and work with other non-government entities. So, the UN declaration created the space to have these kinds of conversations within each society, and how it's done within each society, or each country, really will vary. So, in the U.S., most of the water comes from simple services. Not many people know that most cities' water is actually privatized. Different corporations manage it, and where the water comes from a lot of people don't think about it. They turn on the tap, and they quench their thirst. No one's really concerned about it until it becomes a personal issue. Maybe this stream is polluted, or this lake is drying out. But in other parts of the world where water is an issue about power and equity, this kind of doctrine allows people to make claims to their government that, whether the government fulfills or not is a different issue. But at least it gives them a space to have that kind of a voice, and have that claim of "Let's work together in figuring out how we ensure this human right to water? How do we think about having better provision of water for the poor, so that it's not just people who have money can have power, can have water?" But we need to think about how water has historically been held in the commons. It's always been a common public good, and often held in the public trust. So, some entity - a public government structure - that can be held accountable to its citizens, has usually been entrusted with managing and allocating water. But when you turn that over to private corporations who are not necessarily accountable to local citizens, and whose bottom line is to make a profit, are they working in the best interest of the very poor who are not able to pay for water in a market-driven society. So what happens is when you monetize or commodify water, the very poor are pushed out of the market because they cannot pay those kinds of rates. And that's what actually led to the Cochabamba Water Wars in Bolivia, and you've seen that all across the globe. But that doesn't necessarily mean you let the government do whatever the hell they want. It's figuring out how different constituencies come together to figure out a better way to provide water, especially to the poorest. So we need to think about water issues from multiple disciplines, multiple perspectives, and bring different stakeholders together.

LANDIS: In international relations, the fight over water between countries where you don't have a natural collective. Turkey building 70 dams. The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers running dry. Places like Syria, Iraq downstream are starving to death. They have no power to bargain with Turkey. Central Asia is about to light up in the same dam-building fest that will deprive water from weaker downstream states. We've seen this in the Nile. Egypt is threatening Sudan. If you build a dam, we're going to come and blow you apart. Now I know there are probably some international laws or at least recommendations on how to adjudicate this thing, but how successful has the international community been in trying to come up with laws that people follow? Do countries actually follow these things, or do they just take what they want?

SULTANA: That's a complex question and I'll try to simplify my answer. There are international laws, so in terms of sharing trans-boundary rivers, there's an international law that came into being in 1997. It's a question of enforcement. And that's when we get into global geopolitics and regional hegemony, so Egypt has power over the Sudan, even though it's technically a downstream country. Usually it's the upstream riparian country that has more power. They can control the water.

LANDIS: Now, is the principle based on how many people you have in each country, or how much of the water is generated in your country?

SULTANA: Not necessarily generated, but how much is flowing through your country. Every country...

LANDIS: So if you're Turkey, and it starts there, you can have it?

SULTANA: Well, usually upstream countries can control it...

LANDIS: How much are they supposed to let go downstream?

SULTANA: That depends on each river shed. Each river shed will usually have a treaty if the countries come together, but not always have they. So for instance, in South Asia, the Ganges River is historically a very famous river. It's culturally very important in South Asia. It starts off in Nepal, flows through India, and drains out in Bangladesh in the Indian Ocean. But India is the regional hegemon. It can tell both Nepal upstream, and Bangladesh downstream, and control it. So even though there is a treaty in place, the last country on the line, Bangladesh, does not get its share according to the treaty. Because if you obstruct water upstream, you only measure what's at the border. You have the same problem in the Colorado River between the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. obstructs more than it should, and by the time the river gets to Mexico it's a trickle in the sand. So each river has its own treaties that are defined by the riparian nation-states. And it's very hard to have a global body overseeing this.

GRILLOT: Well, Dr. Sultana, this is a very interesting subject. Thank you for being with us today on World Views.

Copyright © 2012 KGOU Radio. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to KGOU Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only. Any other use requires KGOU's prior permission

KGOU transcripts are created on a rush deadline by our staff, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of KGOU's programming is the audio.



Play Listen
« back

NPRPRIBBCOU OutreachKGOU
Sponsors

High Speed Low Speed streaming issues High Speed Low Speed streaming issues