The Tigris River originates in rural eastern Turkey and flows into Iraq, ending in the Persian Gulf. The River is an important water source for the Turkish people as well as creating a fertile marshland in southern Iraq, home to thousands of people. Construction of the Ilisu dam by the Turkish government threatens to disrupt the flow of the Tigris and escalate the political tension between the two countries. The Ilisu dam will provide water and electricity for the Turkish people. A new village (for relocation) will be built creating job opportunities for the local people and improved irrigation for farming. This dam is part of Turkey’s plan to become energy independent as it currently must buy electricity from Russia.
Opposition to the dam states that many rural villages will be flooded(1), including 12,000-year-old Hasankeyf; forcing thousands to relocate. The Iraqi marshlands fed by the Tigris are also at risk. Drops in water supply threaten to cause droughts, and create thousands of water refugees across already water short Iraq.
Iraq and Turkey already have a history of political tension and the construction of the Ilisu dam has only increased it. The dam has been the subject of a terrorist attack from the PKK, a Kurdish group based on the Turkey – Iraq border. Claims have also been made that there are political reasons behind the dam with Turkey aiming to gain control of the water supply over the PKK and Iraq(2). Extreme pressure has also been placed on all engineers involved in the project (e.g. Balfour Beatty PLC), along with multiple withdrawals from banks funding the project adding another ethical dimension to the issue.
IT’S ALL POLITICS
The morality of the project according to virtue ethics is based entirely on the reasons, and therefore the individual’s character, for building the dam. It could be argued that the Turkish government is trying to provide for its people, which would be considered as a virtuous aim. However, it has also been suggested that the aim of the dam is to create political leverage over Iraq, with the constant threat of Turkey controlling their water supply; a rather unvirtuous aim. For this example, determining the reasons behind the dam would clearly identify the character of the individual and provide a good evaluation of the morality of the action.
SURELY THEY KANT DO THAT!
As part of the dam’s construction the historical town of Hasankeyf will be flooded; which is a national conservation area and qualifies to be a UNESCO world heritage site if an application was submitted(3). By considering Kant’s theory, which states that actions are judged to be right or wrong based on whether they fulfil the duty of the acting party, the government has an obligation to provide for its citizens and therefore the building of the dam is the moral duty of the Turkish government. Flooding of the town is not breaking any legal rulings; however, it could be morally wrong by deontological theory- an action is right or wrong based on moral rules, irrespective of the consequences – due to it being a national conservation area. If it was made a world heritage site then it would be protected by law, and flooding of it would be immoral.
Construction of the dam and the nearby New Hasankeyf has created many temporary and permanent jobs in an area with low employment. Overall, the Turkish government are acting morally right by Kant’s theory as there are no strong rules prohibiting their actions, but they are obliged to provide for the citizens.
The positive outcomes from the dam include employment opportunities, water storage for Turkey, independent electricity supply, new homes and new opportunities (such as potential for tourism(1)). However, there are concerns with the dam, such as the agricultural loss in Iraq, water refugees, and a loss of culture (Hasankeyf (4)). Utilitarianism, which says that an action is good so long as the benefits are to the greatest number of people, can be used to judge the morality of these points. On a worldwide scale, the project seems morally wrong, as judged by utilitarianism; since it negatively impacts on another nation (Iraq), and on the Mesopotamian Marshes – a world heritage site(5). These effects can be considered to be negative to anyone outside of Turkey, and therefore this project is morally wrong from a utilitarian point of view.
From a national context, the Turkish government has a duty of care to its citizens as a collective, and prioritising this dependant relationship over the non-existent relationship with Iraqi citizens, means allowing the dam into operation can arguably be justified. However, when framing the situation in a global context, diplomatic relations with Iraq, the UN and other stakeholders are arguably more important for future prosperity of the country than short-term benefits for Turkey’s people; this is especially significant given the recent turbulent political activity in Turkey. This is synonymous with care ethics; it emphasises the connectedness of people, and specifies that vulnerability and dependence play an important role in moral judgements. (6) Unfortunately, viewpoints sought using this theory are inherently not clear-cut, and can only be used as supplementary to arguments made using the three main ethical branches.
Turkey has claimed to be building this dam to provide power and water for their citizens however the following must be asked;
Should providing for your citizens be your number one priority?
Does this allow you to destroy history for a temporary gain?
Is there an ulterior motive?
Group 62: Sam Bigden, Scott Robinson, James Byrne, Adam Karakoc