Security and Human Right to Water in Central Asia

Miguel Ángel Pérez Martín

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781137540041
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137540058
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Civil Rights in Law
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book examines the impact and implications of the declaration of human right to water and sanitation access for human security in Central Asia. It analyzes the current risks and threats arising from mismanagement of water resources in Central Asia through the different dimensions of human security: environmental, economic, social, and political. Identifying the main actors involved in water conflict in the region, the author pays particular attention to the multilateral security organizations operating in the region, OSCE, NATO, SCO, and CSTO, and discusses whether their security policies have been effective in addressing these conflicts.

© The Author(s) 2017

Miguel Ángel Pérez MartínSecurity and Human Right to Water in Central AsiaSecurity, Development and Human Rights in East Asia10.1057/978-1-137-54005-8_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Miguel Ángel Pérez Martín¹

(1)

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

This chapter comprises an initial study to introduce the reader to both theoretical (human security) and methodological (constructivism) aspects and their relation with the human right to water and the international security organizations in Central Asia, i.e. the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and various NATO-sponsored programs. Here, the author explores human security from the perspective of the Canadian School, which sees political decisions as being basic to the allocation of water resources, and considers water as a welfare resource. From a methodological perspective, analysis is based on constructivist school and Thierry Balzacq’s definition of securitization (2011). Accordingly, “securitization” is understood as a discursive strategic process built on a natural resource within the specific framework of international security organizations in Central Asia.

Keywords

Human securityRight to water and sanitationDesecuritizingSecuritizingExtraordinary politicsExceptional politicsEmpowermentEmancipation

End Abstract

Access to water and sanitation are certainly a precondition for the enjoyment of fundamental human rights such as the right to life, health, work, education and protection against torture, as well as being crucial to achieving gender equality. However, its recognition as a human right and the basis of other rights is very recent. In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) of the UN explicitly recognized access to safe water as a basic human right, and in July 2010 the United Nations General Assembly, through the initiative of Bolivia and 33 other states, recognized access to clean water and sanitation as “basic human rights” (United Nations 2010, p.2). It also called on the international community to facilitate access to water for nearly 900 million people who do not have such access. The human right to water proclaims that “states must guarantee the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses”. It also highlights the priority of the production of food in order to avoid hunger and diseases associated with bad water quality. The Declaration on the Human Right to Water and Sanitation (HRWS) implies the inclusion in international practice of certain values, rules and regulations in the current models of water resources management. The implementation of the human right to water is a new set of obligations and rights, not only in the domestic sphere but also in foreign affairs, and its application can have huge geographical implications because most of the water resources that exist across the planet are transboundary. More than 30 countries are located entirely in transboundary basin territories, and in another 39 countries, with a total population of 800 million people, at least half of their water resources come from outside their borders (FAO; Human Development Report 2006, p. 205). The transboundary basins comprise nearly 50 % of the land area, are home to 40 % of the world population and generate nearly 60 % of available fresh water (Giordano and Wolf 2003). The management of water resources in the international basins has become a matter of international security. With regard to the field of international relations, the General Comment included in the human right to water establishes the following guidelines:

1. 1.
   The activities related to management of water resources within the jurisdiction of a state party should not deprive another country of the ability to ensure that persons within their jurisdiction can exercise that right.
2. 2.
   The states parties should refrain from imposing embargoes or similar measures that prevent the supply of water. The water should not be used as a weapon power tool.
3. 3.
   The states parties should take steps to prevent their own citizens and companies from violating the right to water of individuals and communities in other countries.
4. 4.
   Depending on the availability of resources, States Parties shall facilitate the realization of the right to water in other countries; for example, water resources and providing financial and technical assistance, and providing necessary assistance requested.
5. 5.
   The States Parties shall ensure that international agreements are given due attention to the right to water and to this end should consider the creation of new international laws.
6. 6.
   The states parties must ensure that their actions as members of international organizations take due account of the human right to water. Accordingly, States Parties which are members of international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and regional development banks, should take steps to ensure that their lending policies in credit agreements and other international measures take into account the right to water.

From these guidelines we can draw certain conclusions:

1. (a)
   The states should be the most responsible guarantors of the human right to water in its territory, respecting, implementing it and punishing domestic or foreign actors preventing or limiting the enjoyment of this right to any sector or community.
2. (b)
   Cross-border cooperation between states is a key element to ensure the human right to water. Therefore, states must ensure not only the human right to water in its own territory but also in the territories of neighbouring countries implementing policies of cooperation.
3. (c)
   The water should not be used by states as a weapon of political or economic pressure against other states.
4. (d)
   Many actors should be involved in the transboundary management of water resources: states, international organizations, user associations, civil society.
5. (e)
   Agreements and treaties, signed by the states (especially those related to economic cooperation), must comply or cooperate to ensure the human right to water.
6. (f)
   The states should consider the possibility of creating new institutions and international organizations involved in the management of water resources and the human right to water.

The acceptance and implementation by states of these guidelines directly affects the management policies of the states and their international policies regarding water resources. Consequently, the implementation of the human right to water will be determined largely by the concepts of security or security models that are used in the management of water, and how these models conceive water will predetermine the results

Water, Security and Human Security

The first ideas about water and security can be found in a number of papers published in the late 1970s and during the 1980s, including “Redefining security” by L. Brown (1977), “Redefining security” by R. Ullman (1983), and “An Expanded Concept of International Security” by A. H. Westing (1986). The main conclusion of this work was the claim that most of the conflicts between states are rooted in competition for territory or natural resources (including water). If natural resources are in decline, conflicts tend to increase. In many cases the scarcity of natural resources is connected to the degradation of the environment. Therefore, the environment, water resources and security are inextricably linked. During the 1990s authors such as Homer-Dixon (1991) and Gleick (1992; 1993) began to create the first classifications of water conflicts. Homer-Dixon, in his “On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict. Part 1” identified three types of conflicts resulting from environmental changes:

1. 1.
   Simple Scarcity Conflicts. Simple scarcity conflicts are explained and predicted by general structural theories. They are the conflicts we would expect when state actors rationally calculate their interests in a zero-sum or negative-sum situation such as might arise from resource scarcity.
2. 2.
   Group-identity Conflicts. Group-identity conflicts are explained and predicted by group-identity theories. Such conflicts are likely to arise from the large-scale movements of populations brought about by environmental change.
3. 3.
   Relative-deprivation Conflicts. Relative-deprivation theories indicate that as long as developing societies produce less wealth because of environmental problems, their citizens will probably become increasingly discontented by the widening gap between their actual level of economic achievement and the level they feel they deserve.

Definitively, in Homer-Dixon’s opinion, conflicts about water are determined primarily by the scarcity of resources, motivated by environmental anomalies. Meanwhile, Gleick, in his article “Water and Conflict”, gives us a wider and essentially political vision of water conflicts. The threats can be grouped into five categories:

• Control of Water Resources: where water supplies or access to water is at the root of tensions.
• Military Tool: where water resources, or water systems, are used by a nation or state as a weapon during a military action.
• Political Tool: where water resources, or water systems, are used by a nation, state, or non-state actor for a political goal.
• Terrorism: where water resources, or water systems, are either targets or tools of violence or coercion by non-state actors.
• Military Target: where water resource systems are targets of military actions by nations or states.
• Development Disputes: where water resources or water systems are a major source of contention and dispute in the context of economic and social development.

Gleick essentially considers water as a power resource. Water is used as a power lever, and this situation is the main reason of water conflicts. Let us analyze the most recent last water conflicts classification, the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, which include...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. A Water History of Central Asia
• 3. Environmental Security, Water Resources and International Security Organizations
• 4. Economic Security, Water Resources and International Security Organizations (NATO, OSCE, CSTO, SCO)
• 5. Political Security Water Resources and International Security Organizations (NATO, OSCE, CSTO, SCO) in the Amu Darya
• 6. Conclusions
• Backmatter