Euphrates in Northeastern Syria Turns into ‘River of Death’

Oil waste can be seen in the al-Rad valley. (PAX)
Oil waste can be seen in the al-Rad valley. (PAX)
TT
20

Euphrates in Northeastern Syria Turns into ‘River of Death’

Oil waste can be seen in the al-Rad valley. (PAX)
Oil waste can be seen in the al-Rad valley. (PAX)

Is Ankara using the Euphrates River as a weapon against its Kurdish rivals in northeastern Syria? Is the Kurdish autonomous administration east of the Euphrates using the issue to rally support against Ankara? Is it true that the river, which was once a symbol of life, has now been transformed into a “river of death” due to pollution from oil leaking into its stream?

Damascus and Ankara had signed in 1987 a temporary agreement over sharing the Euphrates water. They agreed that Turkey would get some 500 square meters of water per second. In another agreement with Baghdad in the 1990s, Ankara would allow at least 58 percent of the water to reach Iraq.

Over the decades, the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers were often a point of contention between Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Damascus had allegedly bolstered its relations with the Kurdistan Workers' Party, for many reasons, including maintaining the “water file” that it would use as a main negotiations card against Ankara. The flow of the water has become essential for Turkey as many of its major projects hinge on it.

The Euphrates begins in Turkey, passes through Syria and ends in Iraq where it empties in the Gulf. The amount of water shares each country is entitled to has become a point of contention between them. During better days, Ankara used to inform Damascus through diplomatic channels of its plans to fill up its dams in southeastern Turkey. Syria would, in turn, take the necessary arrangements. It has built three major dams on the Euphrates for storing of water and electricity generation.

After 2012, circumstances began to change. Turkey now believes that the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern and northeastern Syria would pose a strategic threat to it. Damascus, which enjoyed alliance with Kurdish forces, now looks at them with great suspicion, especially after their growing relations with the anti-ISIS coalition led by the United States. Relations frayed even further with the emergence of ISIS in 2014 and the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces’ spearheading of operations against it with US backing.

The divide with Damascus grew even wider after the establishment of a Kurdish autonomous administration east of the Euphrates. This also sparked major tensions with Ankara, which turned to Moscow, without informing Damascus, to strike understandings to block Kurdish expansion in Syria.

The latest developments have seen the Kurdish autonomous administration accuse Ankara of deliberately lowering the flow of the Euphrates water. The director of the dams, Mohammed Tarboush, told Asharq Al-Awsat: “The Turks are using the water as a weapon against us.”

“They allow the water to flow when our lakes are full so that we are unable to benefit from the flow to generate power and irrigate lands,” he explained. “They block the flow when we most need it.”

An informed Syrian source shared a different view. He said Ankara was not using the water as a “weapon”, saying Turkey was respecting agreements and allowing the flow accordingly. The Syrian authorities are being informed of the dam filling schedule as usual.

The Kurds are using the water file for propaganda purposes, like they do with other issues, he charged.

A Kurdish official speculated that Ankara may have informed Damascus that it was lowering the flow, “which raises questions about whether they are working against us.”

‘River of Death’
Meanwhile, Dutch nongovernmental organization PAX released a report this week on the pollution of the Euphrates River. Entitled “River of Death”, the report shed light on ongoing pollution from chronic leakage and dumping from a large storage facility. Tens of thousands of barrels of oil have leaked into the channels and streams that pour into the Euphrates.

Roughly 15 km southwest of Derik, or al-Malikiyah as it is known in Arabic, a large oil storage facility, previously owned by the Syrian Petroleum Company, collects all the crude oil coming from the Suwaydiyah (also known as the Jazeera or Rmeilan) oil field, said the report. “Under ideal circumstances, the facility can store up to 2.4 million barrels of oil, according to experts from renowned oil tracking website TankerTrackers.com. But the story on the ground is far from ideal.”

The looming environmental disaster started early on after the outbreak of the conflict in 2011, when the Kurdish-led Democratic Union Party took over most of the area from the Syrian regime and later established the autonomous administration. “Using satellite imagery from NASA’s Landsat 8, in orbit since February 2013, we can see that the facility struggled with containing oil waste in summer 2013. Open-air reservoirs were expanding on the perimeter in July and August 2013.”

“Soon after, however, the reservoirs began to leak, and a significant part of the facility’s grounds turned black as oil and/or oil waste spilled over.”

The leaks have raised fear among the local population on their health and negative impact on the soil and ground water, which is now polluted. Farmers have lost entire crops to the pollution after seasonal rains flooded polluted canals and streams, covering thousands of hectares in oil.

The leaks are ongoing, according to PAX’s Humanitarian Disarmament program leader Wim Zwijnenburg, who is also one of the authors of the report. He said the local population was suffering, urging the need for “bold” steps to be taken by all concerned parties, including countries, to reach a permanent solution.



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.