“It is not only the living who are killed in war” – Isaac Asimov (science fiction writer)
Over a week has passed since the sinking of the Iranian naval vessel IRIS Dena off the coast of Galle. While both the Sri Lankan and Indian authorities have been silent on the matter, in the past several days US President Donald Trump has commented on this incident. Speaking to reporters, Trump outlined that when he questioned his generals as to why they killed the sailors rather than capture them, the response was, “Sir, it’s a lot more fun.”
Constraining a conflict to within the parameters which, as global powers claim, are enforced to ensure the least impact on surrounding states and regions is often discarded by those very nations.
When the IRIS Dena was sunk off the coast of Sri Lanka, it was a military operation carried out beyond the theatre of war (the Middle East), enveloping a region that had professed its neutrality in the ongoing hostilities. While the Sri Lanka Navy adhered to its obligations outlined under Search and Rescue (SAR) protocols, the question that remains is whether the responsibility lay solely on the shoulders of the Sri Lankan authorities.
Critics of the attack have argued that under the Geneva Conventions, which have governed warfare since 1949, the responsibility lay with the US submarine to “without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled” (Convention [II] for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea – Article 18; Geneva, 12 August 1949).
The recent comments by the US President have provided a fresh set of questions regarding adherence to international laws by combatants in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
However, while the focus has been on the conduct of the war and the impact on Iran, Israel, and US military assets, there has been limited discussion on the environmental impact to neutral states and regions due to the conflict.
Environmental impact
When the IRIS Dena was sunk off the coast of Sri Lanka within the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone, it not only threatened to expand the field of war, but it also directly impacted a neutral country on several fronts.
A few days after the sinking of the Iranian vessel, reports of oil patches and debris scattered along the southern coast of the country emerged. The onus was on the country’s Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) to engage in clean-up operations at its own cost.
The oil spills were reportedly spotted off the coast of Hikkaduwa, a region that is home to coral reef ecosystems and turtle hatcheries. It is also a hotspot for tourism, with visitors from around the world visiting the beaches. Certainly, an oil spill will temporarily halt tourism in that part of the coastline until the clean-up is complete.
While MEPA has since reported that clean-up operations are “99% complete,” it does remain to be seen whether there has been any lasting impact on the environment, with some experts claiming that oil leakages from sunken vessels may not occur immediately, but instead over a prolonged period.
What is noteworthy is that similar to the SAR carried out by the Sri Lanka Navy on a vessel sunk by a foreign submarine, the environmental clean-up operation was also shouldered by Sri Lanka with no indication that assistance from the responsible party was provided.
A divergence of accountability
This leads us to the main question at hand: should belligerent parties bear the cost, financially and otherwise, of the impact that their conflict has on neutral third parties through actions directly attributed to them?
In this case, since the US was responsible for the sinking of the Iranian vessel, should it bear the cost and resources to ensure the mitigation of any environmental damage caused to Sri Lanka and the surrounding regions?
A debate has continued over whether the law of collective security or international environmental law applies to instances of such damage caused to a neutral state by the actions of a belligerent actor. The overriding belief is that actions which result in transboundary environmental damage are covered by international environmental law along with the accepted laws and norms of neutrality. However, in practice the implementation of such laws is often overlooked.
During the 1990s, especially in 1999, the breakup of Yugoslavia saw intense military action, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombing campaigns, in the region. The resulting environmental damage on neighbouring neutral states such as Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania have been well documented. Bulgaria in particular experienced significant environmental damage with toxic spills in the Danube River caused by the destruction of the Pancevo petrochemical complex and oil refineries.
Despite claims for compensation, made by the relevant Balkan States, bodies such as NATO refused to accept liability for the damage caused, forcing these States to fund the cleanups. The absence of a pursuance of compensation by these States was bolstered by the political instability of the region, which saw changing governments hamper any efforts.
There have been, however, instances of successful claims made against offending states. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi forces set fire to an estimated 700 oil wells which resulted in over 11 million barrels of oil spilling into the Persian Gulf. When the Iraqi forces were found to be directly responsible for this environmental disaster, it was the United Nations (UN) which immediately initiated a $ 3 billion Kuwait Environmental Remediation Program to manage the cleanup operations. Furthermore, Iraq was found liable for damages caused to Kuwait, including its environment.
Under the UN Compensation Commission (UNCC) established under Resolution 687 (1991), payments were made to Kuwait from the UN Compensation Fund. These payments were financed through a percentage of Iraq’s oil revenue. With the total estimated compensation for the damage caused by Iraqi forces amounting to $ 52.4 billion, the final instalment was made in late 2021.
While instances do exist of accountability being enforced on offending states for such damages, the list is unfortunately limited in size and scope. During the 20 years of occupation of Afghanistan by US forces, intense environmental damage has been recorded in the country, including the unregulated use of burn pits – open-air pits used to dispose of over 400,000 kg of waste on a daily basis.
Contamination of water supplies and soil were regularly highlighted during this period, caused by military action and the occupation and establishment of military bases. Despite these significant cases of environmental damage, there has been no reported compensation paid to the Afghanistan government, nor has there been any remedial efforts taken by the offending party.
Similarly in Ukraine, the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam caused extensive flooding and destroyed ecosystems while spreading pollutants into the Black Sea. A recent report has highlighted that over 20% of Ukraine’s fertile soil has been affected due to the intense bombing, while 30% of the protected natural zones such as nature parks and conservation forests have been damaged by Russian offences.
In contrast to Afghanistan, Ukraine is currently preparing a claim of an estimated $ 44 billion in climate compensation against Russia for the damage caused to the environment in the war. Whether the claim is successful remains to be seen. However, it is certainly a proactive step by a country which is otherwise preoccupied with an ongoing conflict.
It is here that we see the divergence of accountability in times of war. When Iraq was held responsible and forced to pay compensation to Kuwait, it was on the back of a successful UN Security Council resolution. This indicated that this action against Iraq was carried out with the blessings of global superpowers.
Similarly, the proposed claims against Russia are being made by Ukraine, which enjoys unfettered support from the US and Europe. In contrast, the absence of action against NATO in 1999 and the US in Afghanistan demonstrates the biased implementation of legal redress available to countries.
The onus on Sri Lanka
For Sri Lanka, a nation that is no stranger to internationally backed calls for accountability, the opportunity to ensure liability when impacted by a conflict in which it plays no part should not be passed up.
In 2023, under former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sri Lanka launched the Climate Justice Forum at COP28 in Dubai. The purpose of this forum is to address the disproportionate impact of climate change on developing nations, with a greater emphasis on accountability by the developed world.
The growing impact that conflicts such as the ongoing Israel-US-Iran war have on the environment, both locally and internationally, needs to be addressed. Sri Lanka’s own environment was damaged by this war, and yet silence remains over any possibility of seeking compensation from the offending parties.
As the world continues to face increasing regional conflicts, the threat of climate change becomes ever clearer. Smaller nations such as Sri Lanka run the risk of bearing the brunt of the increased impact on the environment, with little to no support to mitigate the effects.
With the current conflict in the Gulf having damaging ramifications on the global economy, any avenues that may alleviate the impact must be pursued. In this case, the onus is on the Sri Lankan Government to make a claim for compensation for the environmental damage caused to the country by the sinking of the Iranian vessel.
Bodies such as the UN, while certainly appearing powerless in recent years, must be utilised by Sri Lanka. Accountability, when applied, is a powerful tool, but it requires equal implementation across the global community.
The writer is the Chief Research Officer at the Geopolitical Cartographer and has previously served as the Director of International Affairs to former President Ranil Wickremesinghe)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)