Capitalism Fouls Things Up
The bombing has stopped, and the war in Yugoslavia/Kosova is over. Or is it?
According to news reports from the region, the effects of NATO's relentless 70-days-plus bombing campaign may be felt far beyond the borders of Kosova and Yugoslavia.
In one attack, NATO bombers hit a huge chemical plant in Baric, 15 kilometres southwest of Belgrade. Yugoslav scientists reacted in horror at the NATO attacks, saying that "NATO bombing is creating 'a new Chernobyl' in the Balkans."1
NATO warplanes concentrated their firepower on destroying Yugoslavia's infrastructure. Bridges, electricity generating stations, and oil and gas refineries were prime targets. The consequences of the damage inflicted on petroleum refineries is particularly worrisome from an environmental perspective.
As Dr. Luke Radoja, a Belgrade agronomist, points out, "just one litre of spilt naphtha or its derivatives pollutes one million litres of water. These poisons endanger all life forms, not only on the territory of Yugoslavia, but the territories of our neighbouring countries, as well as the wider region of Europe because the winds and water-flows are directed right back to Central Europe, the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea region."2 Huge aquifers that provide water to populations far beyond the area of conflict have been ruined by NATO's attacks.
The long term consequences of NATO's imperialist warmongering adventure in the Balkans can only be imagined at this point. Who really knows what will be the ultimate effects on the region's soil and water resources? Certainly, initial projections of the long term impacts are not promising. The devastation inflicted on Yugoslavia's infrastructure may take a generation or more to repair. The impact on the region's water resources, however, may turn out to be by far the most threatening in the long term.
The deliberate poisoning of wells and other 'enemy' water sources is not a new phenomena. It has a long tradition in the history of wars. The war in the Balkans is just the latest example of armed conflict leading to environmental destruction. It is impossible to ignore the direct links between modern warfare and the environmental devastation that lies in its wake. Around the world, in conflict after conflict, environmental issues are coming to the fore. Unlike the past where war destroyed or damaged environmental systems, we are fast approaching a point in human history where environmental devastation will be the prime catalyst in new wars.
The signs clearly point to more disputes in the future with direct environmental origins. There are several likely sources of future conflict. Rapidly declining water resources on an international scale will heighten tensions within and between countries. Mass population migrations are expected if shorelines recede as sea levels rise in response to global warming. Population migrations will also occur more often as deserts expand and forests shrink, again in association with global warming.
Water is destined to increase in importance as the prime source of future conflicts. A quick survey of the international scene points to several potential hot spots, ranging from China to the Middle-East, and even North America. The problems become exacerbated when the linked effects not immediately apparent are taken into account.
Although it should come as no surprise that the world faces serious water shortage problems in the near future, there is a common misconception that the world has an infinite supply of water. Unfortunately, the renewable source of fresh water is limited to the annual continental rainfall (a more or less constant global supply of 40,000 to 45,000 cubic km per year).3 This contrasts sharply with annual increases in world population averaging 85 million per year. Compounding the problem, global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of population increase. This tenacious growth in water consumption is severely straining the world's aquatic ecosystems.
The United Nations reports that today there are 31 countries "facing water stress and scarcity and over one billion people lack adequate access to clean water."4 It is projected that by 2025 two-thirds of the world's population will be living in conditions of serious water shortage and one-third in conditions of absolute water scarcity.5 In a world in which vital natural resources such as water are becoming increasingly scarce, the potential for major conflicts between and within countries is limitless.
We are not looking at a simple case of a shortage of water for drinking, but rather a shortage for all uses. For example, 65 percent of all water used by humans goes to irrigate crops, while 25 percent is used in industry. Conflicts are growing between the different sectors of our economies as to which sector gets the biggest slice of the water pie. As population grows, more water is required each year for grain production. At the same time, growing cities and industrial economies are demanding more and more access to water resources. This is most apparent in China which faces a major internal distribution crisis between agriculture, industry and an increasingly affluent urban population demanding the installation of indoor plumbing. The problem is so severe that the government is studying the option of major river diversions to feed the growing water demands in north-eastern China.6 The ecological consequences of river diversions will likely prove catastrophic in the long term. The example of how the former Soviet Union destroyed the Aral Sea through river diversions should dissuade other governments from similar measuresbut apparently not China.
Wide-spread scarcity of a resource necessary for life itself can only lead to more and more dangerous disputes in the future as what has historically been treated as a life-giving force becomes turned into a commodity to be bought and sold in the global marketplace.
The neo-liberal reforms initiated in the 1980's have contributed to a global economic model in the '90s that is characterized by the belief that a single global economy with universal rules set by corporations and financial markets is both inevitable and desirable. The drive to globalize our economic lives is also typified by an international campaign to privatize resources such as power companies, railroads, airlines and waterresources that were formerly either publicly owned or controlled. In 1997 global sales of public assets to private companies reached $157 billion, a 70 percent increase in one year.7 Everything is for sale, i.e., everything is now a commodity, including our air and water. Unfortunately, globalization leads to increasing inequality of access to resources (see box).
As Michael Renner points out, "Equity issues also interact with growing resource scarcity and environmental degradation. The depletion of fresh-water resources, excessive exploitation of fisheries, degradation of arable land, and deforestation, among other problems, not only affect human health and well-being and imperil the habitability of some regions, but they are also increasingly understood to play an important role in generating or exacerbating some conflicts."8 He further adds that "Although several trans-boundary environmental disputes exist and some of them could escalate in the future, environmentally induced conflict is far more likely within than between nations."9 This is borne out by recent examples from both Yugoslavia and Somalia.
Developing countries are most affected by environmental problems, particularly those whose economies are most dependent on agriculture and a healthy natural resource base. The needs and interests of contending groups are difficult to reconcile. Conflicts erupt regularly over land and water. The evidence of struggles from Mexico, Nigeria, Sudan, India and other countries shows that poorer communities, minority groups and indigenous peoples "typically bear the brunt of adverse environmental change, particularly that triggered by oil drilling, mining, logging, and large-scale dam and irrigation projects."10
Even though many of these problems seem distant from everyday life in Canada, we are and will be increasingly affected in some way by each and every conflict. The recent arrival of Kosovar refugees is the latest example of how conflicts far from our borders can directly impact Canadians. Prior to Kosova, Canada opened its doors to Somali refugees, fleeing civil war at home. Closer to home, there are serious storm clouds on our southern horizon. We cannot rule out the prospect of a serious conflict developing with the United States over Canadian water resources. Given that there are 270 million potentially thirsty consumers south of the border who already have their eyes set on our water resources (Canada has 20 percent of the world's fresh water), and that the U.S. government is renown for getting what it wants one way or another, our own relatively peaceful lives may be threatened in the not to distant future.
Overall, this is a pretty bleak picture. There is clearly little room for optimism. Looking at the future of our environment at the end of the twentieth century can indeed induce feelings of powerlessness, despair and terminal discouragement. The problems, undeniably real, appear truly insurmountableclimate change, rain forest destruction, ozone depletion and so on......
This is not the time, however, to simply throw ours hands in the air in despair, resignation or submission. It may seem like a trite response, but everything we now know about our future environmental prospects leads to one conclusion. Now, more than ever, building an international revolutionary socialist party capable of leading the struggle to finally putting an end to international capitalism is the only alternative that offers any realistic hope that our world will survive the next century in any kind of habitable condition.
The only hope that we can stave off massive environmental destruction and dislocation in the next century rests on our ability to forge a "Socialist United Nations" built on mutual respect, cooperation, assistance and an equitable distribution of the earth's resources. The challenge is truly daunting. The consequences of failure, however, are almost beyond imagination. If capitalism is able to maintain itself on a wide scale the future of humanity, in any recognizable form, is clearly at risk. If we fail, the twenty-first century will be dominated by ever-increasing civil strife as our environment crumbles around us and we are forced to struggle for our day to day existence.
Truly, there is not a moment to lose. Evidence is mounting daily that we are approaching the point at which it may be too late to stop the present trajectory toward global climate change. If that happens, there is no telling what life forms may survive in the next century. There are no guarantees for the future except oneif we do not succeed in our fight to eradicate the world of capitalist exploitation, the old slogan "Socialism or Barbarism", will become simply and finally "Barbarism".
1. O'Malley, Martin & Mulholland, Angela. Canada's Water, CBC News Online, p.1, viewed April 28, 1999.
2. Ibid., p.1.
3. Barlow, Maud. (June, 1999). Blue GoldThe Global Water Crisis And The Commodification Of The World's Water Supply, p. 5.
4. Ibid. p. 5.
5. Ibid. p. 5.
6. Brown, Lester & Halweil, Brian. World Watch, China's Water Shortage Could Shake World Food Security, July/August 1998, p. 19.
7. Op cit. p. 10.
8. Renner, Michael. Ending Violent Conflict, World Watch Paper 146, April, 1999, p. 39.
9. Ibid. p. 39.
10. Ibid. p. 40.