Manifestations of the Environmental Consequences of Warfare

Many of us attended the Ecological Literacy course last semester, which detailed the basic tenets of the ecological question based on Sciences Po Paris professor Pierre Charbonnier’s book Culture Écologique. However, one aspect of environmental disturbance, the environmental implications of warfare, was largely excluded from the course’s curriculum. Considering the Menton campus’ focus on Mediterranean and Middle Eastern politics, there is a vast range of historical examples to draw from regarding environmental warfare, such as the Islamic State’s weaponization of water and seizure of oil fields or deforestation as a result of Turkish efforts to control rural territories amidst the rise in Kurdish insurgency activity; highlighting the pertinence for the Menton campus.  

As the conflict in Ukraine persists, the analysis of historical environmental warfare tactics is all the more relevant. Even though the  front lines remain relatively unchanged, it is no secret that the ecological destruction and death toll have had irreversible repercussions. This past June, the destruction of the Kakhovka dam unleashed pollutants and agricultural chemicals into the local ecosystem, contaminated water supply, destroyed farmland, and eradicated villages, resulting in over 100 deaths. These effects – stated environmental activist Greta Thunberg– are ecocide, characterized by severe long term environmental impact as a result of human activity, and may end up warranting prosecution in the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

Using destructive force to purposefully harm and destroy ecological habitats for strategic gain is not new to military campaigns. In his paper The Environmental Effects of War, Philip Swintek describes how “throughout history, armies have burned enemy crops and fields, rivers have been dammed, and water supplies have been poisoned, all in the name of war.” Yet, it was not until the introduction of modern technological methods in warfare that this phenomenon manifested in a newer, more dangerous light. From the use of chemical weapons to intensify the risk of fatality to the use of flamethrowers and napalm to expel camouflaged combatants from forests lit ablaze, many modern war strategies have been crafted with the specific purpose of destroying the environment to neutralize opposing forces. When paired with the notion that wealthier countries have significant advantages in military investment capabilities and generally larger budgets to mitigate or control such environmental damage, the inequity in the creation and alleviation of this environmental damage also becomes clear. 

Russia’s purported role in the dam’s destruction serves as an example of a tactical justification of environmental damage, as outlined in Anna Feuer’s framework that details the various incentives that mold the practice of environmental warfare. In these cases, actors cause environmental damage to directly support military operations against strategic targets. The other five justifications that Feuer details include political, ideological, cultural, technological, and strategic motivations. Cultural incentives include narratives that perpetuate colonial ideas that “uncivilized” countries cannot provide proper stewardship of their land. These arguments are often weaponized to justify environmental destruction where the local populations might have a tactical advantage. The use of cultural motifs present in the environment should also not be remiss; the Israel Defense Forces disregarded the cultural value of the olive tree, a longstanding symbol of national identity to the Palestinians, when they uprooted olive groves during the First Intifada to build infrastructure and increase visibility in conflict zones. 

Among the most common justifications are strategic incentives that militaries exhibit, such as deforestation to increase the visibility of militant targets. The ongoing Kurdish-Turkish conflict serves to illustrate the strategic incentive behind ecological destruction. With the origins of the insurgency beginning in the 1970s, the conflict has been fought in mostly rural areas. Through an environmental lens, Dr. Mehmet Gurses has analyzed the response of the Turkish government, asserting that  the practice of deforestation in a rural landscape is “a direct result of the [Turkish] state’s deliberate policies to undermine rebels’ ability to operate.” Environmental damage materialized in various ways, but mainly through the direct targeting of flora, with the aim of rendering targeted vegetation fruitless. This, in turn, destroyed the agriculturally reliant economies of the southeastern regions of Turkey. Furthermore, Gurses claims that the decimation of natural habitats as deliberate targets, especially considering the devastation in economies that rely on agricultural production, has hindered the preservation of peace following the war. 

Overall, the evolution of warfare has surfaced unique worries and new capabilities for ecological destruction. Knowledge of frameworks such as those created by Feuer is instrumental in analyzing modern conflicts such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, as well as for recognizing a need to create legal guidelines to prosecute these crimes. A proposal has been brought forth to the ICC to include ecocide as a fifth crime, eligible for prosecution by the ICC, but it has yet to be adopted into the Rome Statute, the text that established the ICC. Such an amendment would require the proposal to amass a two-thirds vote of the signatories. Even then, experts express that there are various constraints and limitations to the efficacy of international law and its clash with state sovereignty. Nonetheless, the statute would have the potential to deter corporations and state actors from committing ecocide and create a legal classification for explicit crimes of ecocide to be prosecuted.