[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] Hello. Water and war is certainly a fascinating subject. On one side, you have water which is indispensable for life. On the other side, there is war which can endanger the supply of drinking water to civilian populations. But rather than looking at water as a weapon of war, or as a military objective, I'd like to consider how transboundary water resources are a potential source of conflict. There has been an evolution in the theories behind the relationship between water and conflict. We can see this evolution primarily because the theories, the doctrinal debate, have revealed how water can be a contributing factor in armed conflict. However, during the 1990s and 2000s, water was viewed as a source of cooperation. So, I am going to begin by analysing those theories that view water as a potential instrument of war. Secondly, I will examine water as an instrument of peace. And thirdly, in conclusion, I will provide examples of water as an instrument of peace during armed conflicts. A number of studies exist which have emerged from the United States that view the relationship between transboundary water resources and war, very differently. On the one hand, the research group of Peter Gleick compiled a chronology on the subject, listing over 300 examples of conflicts linked with water. And on the other hand, a research group from Oregon University led by Professor Aaron Wolf has detailed all the examples of legal agreements that exist on transboundary water resources. And according to him, there has never been a war on water if not 3000 before Christ. So in addition to these two perspectives on war and water, I would like to talk about the debate that took place during the 1980s. An article appeared in the Starr on the works of Chesnot, and Bullock and Darwish. These experts used the conflicts in the Middle East to illustrate how water can be a catalyst for conflicts. For example, the 1967 conflict during the Six-Day War between Israel and Arab countries, may have been caused by Israel's desire to appropriate water resources situated with the Golan Heights. Another example would be the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 where Israel wanted to control the Litani River. These theories, these doctrinal approaches, are based on a neo-Malthusian perspective which purports the maximum use of natural resources, where individual interest would prevail over the collective interest. However, these studies have been demystified. The myths surrounding "water wars" have been rejected. This can be seen in the studies of Thomas Dixon which concluded that water may be one of the factors leading to war but water is never the only factor. It must be accompanied by other environmental, social and economic factors. Alongside the studies of Thomas Dixon, there are others, such as those from the Oslo Peace Institute. The researchers considered other natural resources, looking at cases of deforestation or soil degradation, as potential causes of conflict in combination with other factors, economical, social and environmental, that could contribute to authoritarian regimes and the destabilization of society. Another researcher who brought something additional to the debate on water and conflicts is Ken Conca who identified the case of movements linked to the privatization of water services. He referenced the case of Cochabamba as a war over water and he also cited the case of the construction of large hydroelectric dams as a contributing factor due to the displacement of populations and the fact that communities were not involved in the decision-making processes. So here, we can already see how the theory behind water and war is changing. So water may be the subject, the subject of tensions and conflicts between States or at the local level but it is never the only factor to trigger a conflict. In this regard, we must recall the activities, the work of international organizations, in particular for World Water Forum in 2000 and 2003. During the 2000 World Water Forum, a declaration on water security was adopted. In 2003, a mechanism on cooperation over water was established to facilitate intergovernmental negotiations, and so we can see all these steps recognising water as a tool for peace and cooperation. And so, I conclude with my third point which is how water can be used as an instrument of peace during armed conflicts. The first emblematic example is the case of the 1960 Indus Treaty between India and Pakistan. This treaty, the committee continued to meet even during the military confrontations that took place between the two countries. Likewise, the Mekong Committee, which continued to meet during the conflict in Vietnam. The third case refers to the Organization for the Development of the Senegal River where Senegal and Mauritania maintained dialogue, via the organization, even during military confrontations. Or the case of the Danube Commission on Navigation, and the 1948 Convention where even during the clashes in the war of former Yugoslavia, the Security Council had imposed sanctions to restrict the navigation of boats from the former Yugoslavia but the Security Council decided to put aside, to end, to suspend the sanctions relating to navigation with the support of the Danube Commission, which stressed the importance of allowing navigation to former Yugoslavia. So these four examples demonstrate how water is a tool for peace and consolidation, is a tool for reconciliation between riparian States. And I would like to conclude with the words of the Israeli politician, Shimon Peres, who in his book "The Time of Peace" affirmed that wars associated with water resources, solve nothing, make it impossible to dig wells to irrigate dry land and when a war ends the problems still remains. ​[MUSIC]