INTRODUCTION.

Janice J. Terry

We created every living creature of water. Will they then not believe? Qu'ran, al-Anbiya' 30

THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER and its equitable distribution in the water scarce region of the Mashraq and eastern Mediterranean cannot be overstated. In spite of deep nationalist conflicts, experts universally agree that resolutions based on the "fair" allocation of limited water resources, in order to meet the social and economic needs of the peoples of the region, are critical to the success of any peace process. But as the papers in this special issue indicate, experts on the availability and management of water resources hold widely disparate views, both on the amount of the available and potential water resources and on what the "fair" allocations of that water should be.

To address the issues of water conflict and resolution, the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan, in collaboration with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem and with the co-sponsorship by the UM International Institute, Frankel Center for Judaic Studies and School of Public Health, held a one-day symposium on "Water Conflicts in the Middle East: Environmental Health and Socioeconomic Implications" on 14 April 1999. With the exception of the papers by Munther J. Haddadin and John Kolars, earlier renditions of the papers in this special issue of Arab Studies Quarterly were presented at that symposium. Khalil H. Mancy, Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental and Industrial Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, was instrumental in collecting and organizing the papers from the conference. Betsy Barlow of the Center also lent valuable assistance to the effort.

Addressing the complexity of water distribution among riparian nations with multitudes of political, military, economic, and social differences, Jonathan W. Bulkley argues that a full and frank exchange of information is "essential to ensure the long-term viability of water resource projects" and that "the effective management of this life-sustaining resource needs to be implemented through consideration of the resource on an appropriate watershed basis." Jad Isaac, Hillel I. Shuval and Munther J. Haddadin examine the issues of water availability and allocation from the Palestinian, Israeli and Jordanian viewpoints respectively. Their conclusions regarding the "appropriate" allocation of water -- whether from surface water or underground aquifers -- differ sharply. Although Isaac and Shuval agree that the Palestinians are the "thirsty" partners in the allocations of water sources, they differ regarding allocations to downstream vis-a-vis upstream partners.

On a more hopeful note, all three indicate a keen awareness of the needs and sensitivities of the others, thereby creating an atmosphere in which differences over water allocations might be resolved. Shuval stresses that "a nation on a shared water basin has the right to expect that its minimal needs for water for domestic uses required for its survival be met." Isaac emphasizes that Israelis and Palestinians "should immediately and forcefully adopt a holistic approach in addressing their water conflict." Haddadin notes the deleterious impact of population increase and the problems posed by the "trespassing of the neighbors" on shared water courses.

Similar differences plague the riparian nations sharing the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Mehmet Tomanbay presents the plans for the utilization of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers from the Turkish point of view. His description of the motivations and programs by the Turkish government as implemented in the Southeast Anatolia Project underscores the enormous chasm between the Turkish, Syrian and Iraqi governments over the utilization of water resources from both the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. John Kolars refutes the nationally based account of Tomanbey, and by implication similar nationalist interpretations by Syria or Iraq, by proposing that allocations be based, not on national considerations, but on ecological/holistic concerns of what is good for the river and humanity. Similar arguments might be posited for allocations of the water from underground aquifers and surface water resources among Israelis and Palestinians and with the neighboring nations of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Finally, Jamal El-Hindi places the debate over water allocations firmly within the context of international law, arguing that legal precedents and doctrines exist to resolve riparian disputes on an equitable and mutually beneficial basis. El-Hindi also offers a "legal framework based on equitable use of all Palestinian-Israeli water sources based on mutual waivers of exclusive sovereignty." Similar frameworks might well be devised and implemented among the riparians to the Tigris Euphrates Rivers. Such frameworks provide for water allocations of these life-giving and scarce resources through peaceful means. However, the larger and still unresolved issue -- recognized by all the authors here -- is the continued danger that individual national governments will pursue nationalist based policies regarding water allocation and usage without regard to their riparian neighbors. Such narrow, shortsighted policies obviously increase the probability of misuse and mismanagement of the available water and the very real possibility of armed conflict over the control of this vital resource.