Waging war against the earth

Bloody pictures of conflict and war have pervaded our consciousness from time to time. But what does war do to the environment? Has the planet been able to cope with the military onslaught that nations have inflicted on other nations as well as the ecology? Roshni Sengupta investigates some calamitous conflicts to understand the dynamic of war and its impact on the environment.

Jiyeh is a small industrial port town 30 kilometers north of Beirut, the Lebanese capital bombed incessantly by Israeli fighter jets. On 13 July 2006, this suburban town experienced an ecological nightmare as Israeli planes attacked a large oil storage depot at the edge of Jiyeh. As oil spewed into the Mediterranean Sea, fires erupted and are still burning.

Four of the plant’s six oil storage containers have been burnt completely, spilling at least 35 000 tonnes of thick fuel oil into the sea. As the fifth storage tank burst into flames, residents witnessed a thick cloud of smoke, soot, and debris rising to the atmosphere corrupting the air quality completely. So devastating was the fire that it melted rail cars and turned sand into glass.

A scenario intimidating enough to send us scurrying for cover! What happens to ecology when nations decide to go to war? Does anyone give it a thought? Lebanese authorities say that cleaning up the oil mess alone will cost upwards of 200 million dollars, an astronomical sum in a country with a gross domestic product of close to 21 billion dollars!

Humans – bulwarks of a composite ecosystem of sustainable processes – now the mainstay of a global race for economic and military superiority have been oblivious to in the perils of a path of progress detrimental to them and the coming generations. The environment, globally, has suffered uncontrollably and immeasurably as wars and low-intensity conflicts continue unabated. The systematic and slow death of the natural resource-based industry in Jammu and Kashmir is another example.

Even though experts on another side of the spectrum believe that going to war is not as environmentally damaging as preparing for war, statistics bear the fact out. History too tells a different and painful story.

Vietnam: the history behind the fact

‘Not since the Romans salted the land after destroying Carthage has a nation taken such pains to visit the war on future generations,’ wrote Ngo Van Long of the US war against Vietnam, which ostensibly ended with the liberation of Saigon in 1975. The ecological catastrophe that the imperial forces rained on the Vietnamese continues to be a cause of concern nearly 31 years after the most notorious misadventure in the history of US military and foreign policy campaigns.

The NLF (National Liberation Front) – Vietnam’s jungle-based guerilla group – was assured of a food and survival base by the forest cover. The country’s environment therefore was targeted under a deliberate strategy of attrition, which aimed to drive the rural populace into the cities in order to deprive the NLF cadre of a natural cover. These young fighters took refuge in the deep-cut mountains and used the rugged terrain to their advantage.

The Vietnamese – dependent upon the dynamic equilibrium of the mountain forests, which guard against floods, droughts, and silting – were uprooted from their native lands just as the commons are appropriated in a bid to develop rural and traditional economies on modern Western lines. This time not by big dams and lumberjacks but by a trigger-happy occupying army, under the guise of a legitimate war (sic). Much of Vietnam was turned into ‘free fire zones’, into which was hurtled immense tonnage of explosives and herbicides.

The strategy, according to Arthur H Westing in the Natural Resources Journal (April 1983), involved ‘massive rural area bombing, chemical and mechanical forest destruction, large scale crop destruction, destruction of food stores, destruction of hospitals, and large-scale population displacements – in short the massive, intentional disruption of both the natural and human ecologies of the region.’

The Vietnam war involved the greatest expenditure of bombs and shells in history. Between early 1965 and mid-1968, over 2.8 million tonnes of bombs were dropped on South Vietnam alone – more than were dropped in all the theatres of World War II by all sides. In total the US fired some 10.2 million tonnes of munitions in South Vietnam, and 11.3 million tonnes in all of Vietnam.

Arthur H Westing has estimated that around 100 000 hectares, or some 1% of the forestlands of Vietnam were completely obliterated by bombing and that a further 5 million hectares, or over 40 % were damaged. Much of the damage to the trees was due to shrapnel, a significant cause of tree mortality as it gives rise to fungus and decay.
(Source: www.greenleft.org.au)

The amount of herbicides dumped on the forests and paddy fields of Vietnam was immense. A study by Australian government scientists claims, ‘The figures for Agent Orange alone indicate that the amount of 2,4,5-T sprayed over Vietnam during the period 1962–1971 is far in excess of the amount of 2,4,5-T which has been used in Australia over the past 30 years’. An estimated 72.4 million litres or 100 000 tonnes of herbicides were sprayed on South Vietnam, affecting 43% of the cultivated area and 44% of the total area. 70% of the coconut groves and 60% of the rubber plantations were destroyed, together with enough crops to feed two million people.

In addition to high explosives and spraying, this destruction was achieved by the use of napalm and ‘Rome ploughs’ – large bulldozers equipped with sharpened three-metre wide blades – which would smash through the forests uprooting everything in their path. Elizabeth Kempf, in an article in New Scientist (1988) enumerated that Rome ploughs completely removed and significantly disturbed the topsoil of 325 000 hectares, or 3% of southern Vietnam’s forests.

Operation Ranchhand in the 1950s, also in Vietnam used 91 million kilograms of ‘defoliants’ made up of active ingredients, usually mixtures of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, Agents Orange, Blue, and White in lay terms. While Agents Orange and White killed plants by disrupting their metabolism, Agent Blue got to them through desiccation.

Agent Orange contains quantities of the dioxin TCDD (Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin) as an impurity from the manufacturing process and a controversy has raged in scientific circles over the effects of the chemical on living organisms. It is said to be both teratogenic and carcinogenic and induces deformities in foetuses and cause cancer.

Ever since the 1960s there have been persistent reports of grotesquely deformed infants and a high incidence of liver cancer among the inhabitants of the affected areas.
(Source: www.greenleft.org.au)

Reports document the horrors visited upon the faunal species in the area after the chemical was sprayed. One of them tells of dead cattle and river fish floating on the surface of the water, belly up, soon after the chemicals were sprayed. Another side effect of spraying of chemicals appears to have been the enhancement of the habitat for Anopheles maculatus – the malarial mosquito – by the flooding of an estimated 10–15 large bomb craters in southern Vietnam.

Forests treated with herbicides lost leaves, flowers, and fruits, especially in the upper canopy. About 10% of the trees, depending on the strength of the dose and the species involved, would be killed outright; the survivors would show various stages of damage, including dieback and sterility. It is not possible to remove forest cover on such a large scale, particularly in a tropical country, without causing massive long-term damage to both human and natural ecosystems. These broad-leaved forests in Vietnam also served as a regulator for the rate of surface run-off. Their destruction has led to summer flooding and winter droughts.

Vietnam has over a million acres of coastal swampland, much of it concentrated in the south of the Mekong delta and the Cape of Camau islands. Much of this swampland, thickly covered with mangrove forests was a natural hideout for the guerillas. The Americans subjected this stretch to intense chemical attack. The main mangrove type, Rhizophora spiculata, sensitive to defoliants was destroyed right away. There was also a rapid increase in bird life and 50% of the productive woodlands and fisheries of the Cape of Camau mangroves were destroyed.

Many years after the Americans had turned their backs on the country, in 1988 Vietnam’s forest cover had fallen to an all-time low of 21% of the land surface. Scientists in the same year had exclaimed that the country needs to bring the figure back to around 50% if environmental disaster had to be avoided.

Afghanistan: a similar story

BBC News Online’s correspondent Marcus George is a lucky man. Why lucky? Why not? After all, he had the good fortune of meeting Marjan, the king of the only and debilitated zoo in Kabul. This 48-year-old lion was blinded by a grenade thrown inside his shelter in the early days of the US bombardment of this proud city. The blast which cut through his handsome face also wounded the soul of ecology in this embattled landscape.

That animals suffered the worst impact of the serial bombing bears witness to the Taliban’s practice of fierce ground fighting. The fate of birds flying through and over Afghanistan also became a grave concern in late 2001 as the bombing picked up pace. Ornithologists in Pakistan feared that populations of birds whose migration route took them over Afghan territory may have been devastated by weeks of bombing. Whole populations of birds went missing from the shores of the Rawal Lake – a key conservation area, which is only a 10-minute drive away from Islamabad.

Thousands of ducks, cranes, and other birds migrate to Pakistan, flying over Afghanistan. For the birds, the timing of the bombing could not have been worse. Most birds were killed, either by bombing or because of the poisoning of the wetlands/sites they frequented. Another impact of the bombings was that birds were being derouted from their precise migratory corridors.

Cranes were perhaps the most at risk. The globally endangered Siberian crane is just one of them. Earlier, locals in Pakistan used to spot cranes in large groups of 50–55. In 2001 – the year Afghanistan was bombed relentlessly– not see more than three cranes could be seen together! At the Rawal lake, observation teams waited for a glimpse of the earlier cache of birds, but in vain. After all, the number of birds flying across the region had dropped by a staggering 85%.

The UN dispatched a team of investigators to the region in the same year to evaluate overall ecological damage. Only an estimated 2% of the country is presently under anything resembling forest cover. The worst deforestation occurred during Taliban rule as the timber mafia felled forests to cater for the demand in Pakistan. The American bombing only compounded the problem.

The rugged mountains usually provide a safe haven for mountain leopards, gazelles, bears, and Marco Polo sheep – the world’s largest species. The same terrain that allows fighters to strike and disappear has also, historically, enabled wildlife to survive the American bombing, initially, and the invasions of refugees and fighters, subsequently.

Sometimes, refugees resort to hunting rare snow leopards, using their fur to buy safe passage across the border, into Pakistan. A single fur, according to a report of the Wildlife Conservation Society can fetch 2000 dollars on the black market. Only around 5000 snow leopards are thought to survive in central Asia with less than a 100 in Afghanistan, their numbers already decimated by extensive hunting long before the conflict actually erupted.

Incessant bombing has also left its mark beyond the craters. Defense analysts say that while depleted uranium had been used less in Afghanistan than in the Kosovo conflict, conventional explosives have littered the country with pollutants. They contain toxic compounds, such as cyclonite, a carcinogen, and rocket propellants contain perchlorates, which are known to damage the thyroid glands.

The story of habitat destruction and ecological catastrophe is strikingly similar in almost any place where the treacherous travesties of war have been inflicted. Like Vietnam, Afghanistan too has been tanked and bombed, its species destroyed and its lands degraded forever. A story much worse is unfolding in the dusty flatlands of Lebanon.

Devastated Middle East

UN IMO (United Nations International Maritime Organization) stated recently that the Lebanese coastline, for some 70–80 kilometres north of a power plant, has been adversely affected. The effected areas include sandy and rocky beaches, fishing ports, and marinas. Ecologists are of the opinion that the spill, an outcome of the bombing will turn out to be an environmental catastrophe threatening spawning fish species and sea turtles including the endangered green turtle, which is a rare sight in the Mediterranean. IMO (International Maritime Organization) is coordinating an international effort to assist Lebanon in dealing with the disaster.

Meanwhile in northern Israel, huge swathes of forests and fields have been scorched by thousands of Hezbollah rocket strikes. Experts opine that it would take nature at least 50 years to recover. While entire fields have been reduced to heaps of ash, countless animals have been killed. The Mount Naftali forest was hit by a series of Katyusha rockets in the early phase of the Unequal War, setting it ablaze. Strong gusts of wind helped in the spread of the ghastly fire trapping gazelles, coyotes, jackals, rabbits, and snakes. The destruction of Mount Naftali is painful since it is not a natural forest, but one meticulously planted by man.

Amid this conflict of monumental proportions, between the Hezbollah and Israel, the environmental damage has attracted little attention. But experts warn that the long-term effects could be devastating. Cyprus, Turkey, and even Greece could be affected by the ecological disaster waiting to explode onto the scene in the heart of Arab territory. Chances are that the whole marine ecosystem along the Lebanese shoreline is already dead.

Lebanon, whose flag features a cedar tree and which is known by many as Green Lebanon for its forested mountains, is one of the few countries in the Arab world that pays attention to environmental degradation and pollution. Minibuses that run on diesel are banned, and factories usually abide by very strict rules and environmental ethics.

Large parts of the country’s sandy and rocky beaches are covered with a thick layer of black oil. Many fishermen have been forced out of business and people are too scared to eat fish. Baby turtles, usually born in late summer, die once they swim into the polluted water after hatching. Optimistic assessments suggest it will take at least six months for the shore to be completely cleaned up and up to 10 years to re-establish the ecosystem of the eastern Mediterranean.

In light of the mammoth environmental crisis brewing in the Middle East, can the Israel-Palestine conflict be far behind? Palestinian hopes for genuine self-determination hinge on a number of factors, not the least of which is Israel’s ability to solve its perennial and growing water shortage. The problem is based upon one simple premise that has guided Israel-Arab relations for decades, since the establishment of the Jewish homeland in 1948.

Israel uses 17% more than the 1.9 million cubic metres of water that is renewable from natural resources. Arguably, 50% or more of the water that Israel uses is unilaterally appropriated from water that should, in all fairness, go to its Arab neighbours. Jewish settlers have for long diverted water from the Jordan River, along the Jordan Valley, through the Mediterranean, to River Negev in the Israeli mainland. Lebanese waters too have been seen to be of interest to the Israelis; hence the recent conflict is attached to another argument of gross misappropriation and outright theft to solve domestic water woes.

The Litani river in Lebanon has been a bone of contention. This natural resource over which only the Lebanese have any rights has led to skirmishes culminating in war. Former Israeli Prime Minister, Moshe Dayan’s plan of action for the control of the Litani river was to ‘enter Lebanon, occupy the relevant territory’ and then ‘annex the territory south of the Litani into Israel after which everything would fall into place’. Since its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, there have been reports that Israel has been taking more water than authorized from the Litani river and has not allowed any external observations to take place.

The Iraq story

Land-based hostilities in Iraq in the First Gulf War in 1991 had a significant environmental impact that compromised post-war reconstruction. This was concluded in a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the Gulf War upon the land and atmosphere undertaken by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in the same year.

Coral reefs, salt marshes, mudflats, mangroves, and seagrass beds – the ecological backbone of the Gulf region – already degraded by livestock, uncontrolled killing of wildlife, and disturbance of oil installations was rendered useless by the onslaught of the war. The saltpans, marshes and wadis scattered in the desert – of considerable economic and ecological importance for man and wildlife – were damaged irreparably by military activity.

The Mesopotamian marshes of the Euphrates and Tigris river basins in Iraq, northwest of Basra – an extremely rich and fertile wetland supporting a prolific freshwater ecosystem including commercially important fisheries – was badly affected. The British military base in the Oman island of Masirah in the Indian Ocean, a major staging site for logistical support to troops fighting in the Gulf region is also the most important nesting site in the world for the globally endangered Loggerhead Turtles.

The bombing of Iraqi bridges – a norm in the First Gulf War as well as the 2003 invasion of the country by the Allied forces – led to extensive damage to the irrigation schemes and agricultural production as some of the main irrigation barrages served as strategic river crossings. This affected food supplies and increased the problem of post-war rehabilitation. Large smoke clouds resulting from the burning of oil installations impacted the down-wind environment from soot fallout, acid deposition, and reduced solar radiation.

Increasingly, stories of senseless destruction in numerous war zones spread across the world filter into our homes, making the painful reality all the more palpable. More fires rage today than ever before, scorching the earth beyond repair – a result of rapidly deteriorating international relations, the monstrous ambitions of a global superpower, and the reluctance of the rest of the world to stand up and say no. Cluster bombs and carpet attacks continue to maim the planet, decimating forests, ruining ecosystems, impairing species habitat, and scarring the ecological landscape for a long time to come. Hasn’t Mother Earth had enough?