At the occasion of the Stockholm Water Symposium, five distinguished individuals offered their interpretations of the question of National Sovereignty and International Watercourses, including reflections on the sensitive issues relating to water conflict prevention and mediation. This "Sovereignty Panel" has been formed from among the honorary members of the World Commission on Water for the 21st Century, and includes Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union and President of Green Cross International, Ingvar Carlsson, Former Prime Minister of Sweden, Sir Ketumile Masire, Former President of Botswana, and Fidel V. Ramos, Former President of the Philippines. At the conference in Stockholm, Mr. Gorbachev was unfortunately unable to be present, but the remaining three Members were joined by HRH The Prince of Orange of the Netherlands, and Professor Kader Asmal, Former Minister for Water in South Africa, and the discussion was chaired by Ismail Serageldin, Chairman of the World Water Commission. Mr. Gorbachev was interviewed on this subject separately prior to the event.

This prestigious Panel reflects the growing concern of the international community for the future of the world's transboundary watercourses, which are among our most precious natural resources, and for the people whose lives and very survival depend on them. This concern springs from both increased awareness of the social, environmental and political damage caused by the mismanagement of these watercourses in the past, and the desire to prevent inter-state conflicts over shared water resources developing as more and more national supplies are exhausted. Within the framework of the World Water Vision for the 21st Century, the Sovereignty Panel members have elected to devote their time and the benefits of their exceptional experience to the search for answers to the myriad of questions and fears relating to international watercourses.

In collaboration with Green Cross International, the four Panel Members have prepared a Report and Statement which will be presented at the 2nd World Water Forum, the Hague, on Monday 20 March 2000. Among the proposals put forward by this Panel are the activation of integrated basin level authorities, the establishment of a Corps of international water conflict mediators, and the acknowledgement that a basic entitlement to clean water is a universal human right.

Mikhail Gorbachev is well known for his concern for humanity and for the environment, and perhaps better than anyone has demonstrated to the world that, where the genuine will exists, it is possible to initiate dramatic changes in systems and values. Since 1992, Mr. Gorbachev has been the President of the International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies, and President of Green Cross International, who have also taken on the role of coordinators of the Sovereignty Panel. Mr. Gorbachev's involvement in water issues dates back to his time as Minister for Agriculture from 1978 to 1985, during which period he witnessed first hand the results of short-sighted centralised water management - namely the Aral Sea disaster.

For Mr. Gorbachev, the problem of National Sovereignty is a topical one, and not only in connection with water. It is connected in particular with the relationships between state sovereignty and the rights and liberties of ethnic minorities; a major issue today, because there is still the threat of disappearance of some of these communities from the face of the Earth, in some cases due to the misuse and appropriation of their water supplies by central authorities. The process of democratisation is still underway in many areas and, consequently, agreements, interdependence, interrelations, and interconnections are all on the increase. Globalisation brings together regions and continents, working through its own mechanisms.

National sovereignty issues are also behind the reaction of the international community to different events, for example in the case of the very different reactions to the recent situations in Chechnya and Kosovo. The international community became involved in Kosovo, but there is still a reluctance to tackle unresolved, fundamental issues like water.

Looking at the question of national sovereignty from the angle of fresh water, Mr. Gorbachev first of all noted that, regardless of our views on sovereignty, rivers follow their course, as they were once drawn by Nature. Human civilisation first began to settle along rivers, and in places with a good climate, such as the White and the Blue Niles, the Tigris and the Euphrates. Some nations have been facing inter-riparian disputes and discussing resolutions for centuries, and the question of sharing international watercourses is now more than ever an issue of great importance. In the most urgent cases it boils down to the preservation of a nation, of a people. It is not the preferable order of the world to let smaller nationalities die, let stronger nationalities live. This is social dominance; it inevitably leads to war, and is a system which in no way suits us.

Science and practice in general show that a human being cannot live without water for more than a few days. He can stand the lack of food for a longer time, but not of water. Shortage of water in Africa, in the Middle East, in Central and Southern Asia rank among the world's top problems ­ but unfortunately not yet among our top priorities. One and a half billion people have a shortage of water, according to the UN analytical figures, and three billion people are forced to use water which is not in line with sanitary requirements. As a result, out of 6 billion people, half of us are having problems caused both by a shortage of water or its poor quality. Very huge amounts of water are used for irrigation, for food production, and yet there is also an acute food problem in the world, with around one billion people suffering from malnutrition.

Mr. Gorbachev believes that water, much of which is transnational, requires a new way of looking at national sovereignty problems. Every person must have access to water. But, how can we distribute water so that everybody will be able to use it? On the one hand, we have regulating agreements and accords between different countries, and some of them will have to sacrifice part of their sovereignty to work out the principles that must be observed and implemented strictly according to needs of the particular region. All this is in line with the work of Green Cross International, a non-governmental organisation which seeks sustainable solutions through cooperation and dialogue.

When we ask a question about national sovereignty, this question automatically cancels all other questions. When it comes to the problem of water, we should approach it from the position of a whole basin. Secondly, our approach should be comprehensive, which implies social, environmental and other issues. We should have thoughts also about the concern of those who have apprehension about possible conflicts pertaining to these problems. We need to start a dialogue. Water can set thousands of people in motion, like religion.

Mr. Gorbachev went on to speak of his experiences when responsible for agriculture, and especially of the water resources of the two rivers in Central Asia which feed the Aral Sea. There were very serious problems with the climate and the allocation of water. In these crucial periods there are sometimes, inevitably, uncontrollable actions and conflicts. People used to block water, and at times the situation was extremely critical and totally unpredictable. Mr. Gorbachev regrets that the realisation of the extent of the damage being done has come so late. He already feels the impending conflicts in the region despite the agreements and accords which have been reached. The conventions and agreements are welcome, and with the approval of national governments, national legislation could also be put in place. Again, the problem is not that we do not have understanding of the actuality of the problem; the problem is that our actions come so late. We simply cannot afford to sit back and wait for these festering problems to erupt into conflict.

Following several months of research and consultations with Green Cross International, the Sovereignty Panel convened in Stockholm to present and discuss their views and draw international attention to the urgent need to reconcile differences and find a framework for the sustainable and equitable sharing of international watercourses. For the benefit of the occasion, Green Cross International distributed a discussion paper on the subject, to be developed into a formal and innovative report which will be endorsed and presented by the Members of the Panel at the 2nd World Water Forum in the Hague in March 2000.

The Honourable Ingvar Carlsson was adamant in insisting that he spoke not as a water expert, but as the Co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance. In addition to being Prime Minister of Sweden from 1986-1991 and 1994-1996, Mr Carlsson has held the positions of Minister for Education and Social Affairs and Minister for the Environment, been an active member of the Six Nations Initiative in support of nuclear disarmament, and is currently involved in the Inquiry into UN Actions during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.

Mr Carlsson began by discussing the concept of national sovereignty itself, which has been the cornerstone of the international system in the Post-War period. For many years this sovereignty was strictly observed and the international community was at great pains to demonstrate that it had not been developed in order to interfere with the internal affairs of states. The first time this was done was when the international community decided to act against the apartheid regime in South Africa. It is now more or less accepted that the Security Council is able to decide on action when human rights are seriously threatened in a country.

There are other factors that have dramatically altered the situation of nation states, all of which can be seen as incentives to regional and international cooperation. Today we have international capital moving over borders. We have new technologies. We have pollution by waters and winds; pollution that needs no visa or passports. We have climate changes, problems with the ozone layer, and the subject of this conference - water, that often has to be dealt with over national borders. How should we deal with this new situation? We have to act on 4 levels:
1. The local level is more and more crucial. We have to stay close to where the problems are and to where the people are.
2. The nation states are the most important actors, but we should have no more of this centralisation. There is a need for more of regional decision making. The nation states are not able to act alone. We need cooperation across national borders.
3. The role of wider regions has become more and more essential. However, the term region is not very clear: it could be Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America and so on, but it could also be a particular region relating to water, involving a number of countries with a common problem and a need for joint decision making.
4. Finally there is the global level and there is no sure way of knowing how this will operate in the next decades. Will there be a true union of states? or will there be dominance of one or two super-powers acting as the policemen of the world? or will there be a total anarchy?

Regarding the subject of International Watercourses and National Sovereignty; in cases of conflicts of interests between States over water, there are four possible outcomes:
1. If the countries involved agree on a solution, then they can proceed on the basis of this agreement.
2. If the states cannot agree on a solution, but they agree on mediation, outside groups can be brought in to act as mediators.
3. If not, States could agree on arbitration: and then accept the decision of the arbitrators.
4. If there is no solution at all, if the situation degenerates from a water problem to a security problem, and there is a risk of war, then there should be a possibility to consider preventive initiatives.

What structures do we need to tackle these problems? There are three initiatives we should consider in our common minds:
1. To find a set of guidelines for sharing and taking responsibility for common rivers and basins. I think it should be possible to agree on such guidelines.
2. Establish new institutions, particularly an institution for mediation and arbitration. It could be within the UN family; it could also be a private institution with fees to pay to finance the institution. In this institution water, legal, and environment experts will be needed for mediation and arbitration.
3. We also need to strengthen the UN secretariat. It needs expertise, allowing for early warning measures to be taken when there is a risk of conflict between countries with common rivers and basins.

Mr Carlsson concluded that we absolutely need to start the process of finding a solution before all the good options are lost to us, and to develop concrete proposals for how to deal with this vital issue in the future.

Former President of the Republic of the Philippines, 1992-1998, the Honourable Fidel V. Ramos, has demonstrated his commitment to improved world order by establishing the Ramos Peace and Development Foundation in 1998 following his distinguished military and political career. He drew attention to the work of Green Cross International by highlighting the different types of regional cooperation which can arise out of the sharing of transboundary basins; these varieties of cooperation, outlined in the GCI Report, all contribute to solving the eternal problem of sovereignty over water shared by many states:

1. Cooperation as Allocation: which has to do with the offering of incentives for those who give a little more than the others, as well as for those that are more affluent than others.
2. Cooperation as Salvation: which describes the bottom-line, the very survival of the people and of the states involved in sovereignty issues over fresh potable waters.
3. Cooperation as Opportunity: which is a win-win solution providing a new arithmetic in the world. 1+1 is necessarily not =2 but could be =3, 5, 10, 100, depending on the synergy of the cooperation. This is what the globalised world of the 21st century is all about; creating new opportunities and therefore new wealth for everybody to share and enjoy.
4. Cooperation among Stakeholders: people-to-people cooperation, empowered people cooperating with the less empowered people. The" have people" cooperating more closely and directly with the "have not" people. This kind of cooperation is essential for human development, poverty alleviation, and the protection of the environment for the enjoyment of the generations after us. This cooperation requires what Mr. Ramos calls "our caring, our sharing and our daring for each other". Big words in some senses, but also simple words which can be understood and achieved by people, on a people to people basis, regardless of their nationality. Since this group is represented by people of various nationalities, the challenge to share and protect the world's water is up to us: "Can we do it?" Mr. Ramos asked the audience, mostly water professionals, "Let's say it more loudly for the whole world to hear. Can we do it? YES!"

The next question to consider is what are the simple mechanics of cooperation among stakeholders, for stakeholders? Mr. Ramos turned to the example of the Pasig River in the Philippines, which is utterly polluted and may take one whole generation to clean up. But there is an effort that has been started on a people to people basis. The whole problem of water, including the sovereignty issue, including food issues, including sanitation issues, including the pollution issues, really starts at the level of the individual and the family.

And if these small initiatives can be multiplied and expanded and deepened and broadened and finally accepted by people around the world regardless of their political, economic or social situation, then we shall have taken a joint step towards sustainable development, which includes the protection and the sharing of our water resources around the world. Mr. Ramos looks forward to the day when he and Mrs. Ramos can bathe in the Pasig River, but before cooperating to heal, he wished to stress the importance of cooperating to protect. In Asia, and elsewhere, big dams continue to erase history under water; the world has to become more responsible and conscious of the fragility of its natural resources and become more aware of the web of interdependencies between states and between water and people.

The caring and sharing for each other is relatively easy to do. As Mr. Ramos pointed out, right now the members of the audience are caring and sharing our knowledge, our resources, our time, and our talent. The daring part is a little more difficult, but again this is what must we ask of people as political leaders, as sectoral leaders, as experts, as just plain concerned citizens. The daring involves a daring to commit and to fulfil; a daring to volunteer services and expertise. All around the world there are volunteer movements pertaining to the arrest and the control of HIV AIDS. We are seeing ambassadors at large representing the UN and certain international NGOs in regard to important causes, movements and advocacies. Why not for water? In particular, these initiatives could be geared towards younger people and women, the two most important groups for water. We are seeing in the multimedia all kinds of messages from special people, not necessarily officials, but stakeholders talking about the appalling condition of Mother Earth because of environmental degradation, and the suffering caused by poverty, lack of food, and lack of potable water. This is one more area where we must cross national boundaries because of our revolution in communication and information technology. We should use these new methods of communication when talking about the most basic, elemental causes like water. This is what the caring, the sharing and the daring is all about.

As a parting message, Mr. Ramos stressed that one of the areas in which we, as representatives of international, national and sectoral organisations can be more effective in the solution of Sovereignty issues pertaining to water, would be in pushing for the promulgation and enactment of national clean water laws, perhaps in the image of South Africa. Political and public will should be manifested in such "clean water acts". Above all we must always remember the intimate connection between water, education, and survival.

"Of all human needs, water comes second only to the air we breathe". Coming from the Former President of water-stressed Botswana, this statement carries extra weight. As one of the most respected of Africa's statesmen, Sir Ketumile Joni Masire has held numerous positions of note. As President of Botswana from 1980 to 1999, he contributed enormously to peace, development and governance in Southern Africa. In addition, during his terms as Chairman of SADC, Vice-Chairman of the OAU, Co-Chairman of the Global Coalition for Africa, and Chairman of the on-going OAU-led investigation into the 1994 genocide in the Great Lakes region, Mr. Masire has worked tirelessly for stability, development and regional cooperation in Africa.

Water is not something to be taken for granted in Southern Africa, and it is his concern for the diminishing water resources of the region which has led Mr. Masire to become involved in regional water issues, first as Chairman of SADC and now as a Member of the Sovereignty Panel. Mr. Masire began by strongly asserting that, as international watercourses transcend national boundaries, as rivers traverse from one country to another, the water in those rivers belongs to all riparian states, upper and lower riparians alike, with equal claim. If Botswana, or any other state, is to believe that the rivers flowing through their territory belong to them, they must also recognise that they belong to all riparian states. Water is a vital good that belongs to humanity, regardless of boundaries; the best way of perceiving this is in terms of communal ownership and the best course of action is to be proactive and share the water before fighting over it.

Southern Africa is a thirsty part of Africa. There is a large area of land in Botswana, shared with Namibia, called the Kalahari. Kalahari means "Mother of Thirst" and, in recognition of this common thirst, the peoples and governments of Southern Africa have already begun to work together. Botswana has taken stock of its water resources, and has developed a Water Master Plan which carries them to 2020. Beyond 2020, with the projection of population growth and the limited availability of water, Botswana will run short of water, and therefore they are already investigating into where they can find the water needed to take them beyond 2020. Fortunately Botswana is not alone, the countries of Southern Africa have recognised that their survival lies only with regional cooperation and solidarity, and riparian states of the various transboundary Southern African river basins have gathered in committees. First of all there is the Okavango, a common river shared between Angola, Botswana and Namibia. Efforts have already been made to prevent fighting over the rivers of the Okavango by establishing the Okavango River Basin Committee, so that as each state's requirements grow, discussions can take place as to how best to share the water. The riparians can discuss these matters before "coming to blows". There is also the Zambezi Basin, which includes Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Here again it was thought prudent to form a Committee before fighting over the waters of the Zambezi River, and thus the Zambezi Action Plan was created to allow for negotiations between all the basin states. In addition to these, Botswana, South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe share the Limpopo Basin, and here again a Limpopo River Basin Committee has been formed to ascertain how to equitably share the common resource.

The aim of all of these committees is to encourage discussion in order to pre-empt and prevent conflict over the increasingly scarce waters, and to assess national water requirements on a regional basis, in order to end up with an equitable sharing of the water. Mr. Masire reminds us however, that despite all of these regional efforts, beyond 2020 Botswana will have run short of the waters from the rivers mentioned. Botswana was for this reason one of the most active promoters of the creation of a SADC Water Protocol which assesses water requirements not just on a bilateral basis but on a regional basis. Because we have to bring in water even from beyond the region, the task is beyond the ability or the capability of any one state. The SADC Protocol, concerned by the impending drying up of many of the region's water resources, is now working towards finding a way of getting the necessary water from elsewhere. And although the solutions imagined so far seem rather utopian, the only certainty is that any alternative will absolutely require transnational cooperation.

The SADC Water Protocol exists to try to assess the region's needs and dream dreams about how to get more water from elsewhere. A host of ideas have been toyed with. One is to bring the icebergs from the Antarctic, another is to divert the mighty Congo River, and then let it gravitate southwards into Namibia, Botswana, maybe even making the water available to Zimbabwe and South Africa. Mr. Masire stressed that in the face of the challenges of the looming water crisis, national sovereignty becomes insignificant. What becomes significant is the survival of one's Homeland and thus we should look after these resources jointly in order that we can all survive. This approach is not only viable in Southern Africa, but could be viable elsewhere in the world.

International Watercourses do not belong to any one country. Sometimes they are boundaries between countries, sometimes they flow from one country through another country through a third country. It will be in our enlightened interest to think internationally and share the precious inheritance of the world's great rivers, which move according to their own will, from country to country, and do not recognise our sovereignty even though we try to recognise our own sovereignty over them.

Professor Kader Asmal joined the Sovereignty Panel on this occasion as former Minister for Water in South Africa and an architect of the highly praised SADC Water Protocol, but spoke as an international lawyer, reverting to his former profession as a professor of international law.

The principles of international law and sovereignty are well known, but Mr. Asmal announced that he would "shock" the audience by saying that they are principles that we should in fact guard and cherish, because national sovereignty is the principle that protects against possible intervention into internal, national affairs. Even the General Assembly has approved the exemption of all systemic violations of human rights from the protected jurisdiction of states. A classic example was apartheid, but there are other examples, like aggression, on which the Security Council has authority. For large states, it is not the law of principles and morality that applies, but a law of power. But for smaller and medium-sized states it is very important to cherish and advance the concept of sovereignty, particularly considering the developing situation where the Security Council, which is the authorised body for direct intervention, is being bypassed by powerful states.

Thus, whether it is humanitarian intervention or any kind of intervention, collective intervention is the only correct course to take. The political, unilateral approach is the wrong one. For the correct ethical and moral response to any violations of human rights or sovereignty, the international community should act through the Security Council. It may act also in relation to water, whenever water is a cause of aggression or an element in a wider conflict settlement. The Security Council is the proper instrument for this task; but we should not be sentimental and claim that sovereignty is an outdated concept, particularly if we realise that when states are pooling their resources they are in effect pooling and enriching sovereignty, which is the proper line to take. In order to achieve this enrichment, we must separate water questions from notions of the vital interests of states. This applies particularly to those countries which believe that vital interests are those determined by themselves alone.

So we must ask, what are the incentives which will be necessary to remove the question of vital interest? One answer is that it is a regional interest to remove the threat or the use of force. The discussion paper says that: "Water can be a source of conflict and also a target in conflict." Water can certainly be a cause of conflict. For this reason, Professor Asmal insisted repeatedly of the need to substitute the question of vital interest with the idea of collective interest of states, particularly downstream states who are nervous of what is going on upstream, either through irrigation or in the search for electricity. There are some downstream states which are very powerful and are afraid of what happens regarding developments upstream, especially where there are prior treaty arrangements.

We must look beyond international law to questions of policy, and particularly the need to generate political will. There are already simple rules, and even the UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, which should be sufficient inducement.

The SADC Protocol is a protocol for shared water resources and shows that where there is a will, there can be a movement. India and Pakistan have fought three wars, transnational wars, since their independence, but they have this extraordinary agreement regarding the Indus, whether for self-preservation interests or to ensure collective interests. Likewise, when there was finally the political will in India, the recent agreement between Bangladesh and India was reached. There is no real reciprocity of benefits in it as there is in the Pakistan-India agreement, but once there was the political conviction that it is the right and ethical thing to do, and a Minister was willing to seize the opportunity, there was an Agreement reached with Bangladesh over the Ganges Basin after decades of discussion and disagreement.

States should ratify the UN convention in order to create confidence in their region. The incentive is there to ratify the UN convention and particularly to accept its principles, even where the principles, such as that of "no harm downstream" may not be an interest or priority of the particular state. They are not necessarily the objectives of South Africa, being largely an upstream state, but still South Africa is one of only very few states to have ratified the Convention. The incentive was the need to encourage confidence in the region, and improving the international reputation of South Africa.

The first step therefore should be the ratification of the UN Convention as a display of acceptance of the principles of mutual respect enshrined in it. States must recognise that certain values are changing, for example in relation to the environment. There is no universal agreement, so what values do we use? Who is authorised to make judgements regarding delta protection or upstream irrigation? Here Mr. Asmal reiterated the comments of Ingvar Carlsson in stating that "who judges?" will depend on the level of agreement between countries; whether it will be decided by mutual consent, arbitration or international intervention. In any event, confidence-building measures are enormously important. Lawyers contribute only very little in this area. Theologians and educators may contribute much more.

In any agreement there should be inducement to reach peaceful solutions, either by conciliation or through arbitration. Southern Africa effectively has a whole range of regional conventions, as explained by Mr. Masire, and, beyond simply having the Protocol on Shared Water Resources, it is moving in a regional direction, both bilaterally and multilaterally.

In all regions, we need mechanisms to improve basin planning to complement the principles of the UN convention with the means for practical decision making. The high principles of equitable water use and basin management are not being achieved, even within states, so it is hardly surprising that a high degree of mobility of rhetoric and language has not yet been achieved between states. Therefore we first have to work out mechanisms within states. Again it comes down to the need to provoke confidence, openness and integration across sectors. That is why the principles laid down in the UN Convention, such as the idea of prior notification, are absolutely vital. We have to push for the principle of solidarity. Mr Asmal concluded by stating that solidarity, in the end, articulates all the other values that have been discussed. We need a process to manage international waters and resolve transboundary water conflicts, but in the end:
"Water for Peace and Peace for Water" can only operate if we have solidarity.