There have been many articles written about “water wars”, especially with regards to the Middle East and North Africa. Some are of the opinion that these wars start because of water shortages while others argue that water is just a part of the war that is being fought for a larger reason. Whether you side with water wars or water as a part of war, it is easy to see how states in the region have used the bargaining theory of war to deter war when in regards to water. There are multiple cases of this throughout the area that prove the bargaining theory was used to avert war.
In the first case we will look at the Arabian Peninsula, the most water poor region of the world. This area has no large river running through it, meaning it depends mostly on aquifers, desalinization, and “virtual” water. Virtual water is described as the water that is put into food stuffs that states import. On average a country needs 1,000 cubic meters of water to produce food for one person per year, and that person needs 100 cubic meters of water for other uses. Most of the countries in the area do not have that amount of water available, so they have to import food to feed their citizens. Instead of small states such as Kuwait, Yemen, and Oman being left on their own to search for water, Saudi Arabia has invested money in desalinization plants for the other states in their area. This has helped avoid conflict over water resources and has led to cooperation in the Arabian Peninsula.
A second area of the region that has had many tumultuous meetings is the Tigris-Euphrates Basin. This consists of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey who have had dealings that could have lead to water wars, but ended in agreements and peace because of the bargaining theory. When Turkey started building dams on the upstream area of the Tigris River to start hydropower building, Iraq and Syria were both worried about their water sources. The states met and agreed on a plan of action after many negotiations and regulations put in places. Something that could have ended in a small war instead ended in an agreement.
Third is the Jordan River Valley which effects Jordan, Israel, Palestine, and somewhat Lebanon and Syria. It has been said that part of the Israeli involvement in Lebanon was to secure water for the countries rising amount of citizens, which I argue is because the bargaining theory was not used between the two countries. Jordan and Israel, the two most effected by the water situation, have had numerous talks revolved solely around water security. Neither country wants to be depended on another to import “virtual” water, so they want to establish control over the Jordan River. These talks have led to some agreements, but has possibly led to the 6-day War. We will have to see if the bargaining theory can apply to this particular situation.
In all three cases it is possible to see the bargaining theory put to work, because these countries are working with one another to avoid water wars.
Is this the bargaining theory put to work or states finding ways to get past the problems that bargaining theory highlights as starting wars? There is an important distinction there.
ReplyDeleteI think the bargaining theory of war is the idea that countries are about to go to war with each other but then work out their problems in treaties/agreements/talks before the war starts. They do this because war is costly to each state and they have more to gain from an agreement. I think I'm correct in the aversion of water wars being the bargaining theory of war. Why would it be different?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found each of these cases to be very interesting. I was especially intrigued by the third case though. You state that because neither state wanted to bend to each other it may have resulted in the 6-day war. Wars are most likely to break out between two states when they are unwilling to cooperate with each other or if they cannot settle on an agreement. In this case, however, they were able to come to some agreements. Do you believe that these agreements just weren't enough to keep both sides happy or is there another issue going on?
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the 6-Day war I definitely think there was another issue, maybe even a few, that led to the actual war. I think this is a time the bargaining theory failed and states went to war, but I believe it's because there were multiple issues and not just one.
DeleteJust curious, when you stated that “Saudi Arabia has invested money in desalinization plants for the other states in their area”, were you describing a situation in which Saudi Arabia is attempting to upset the current status quo within the region? I think that water distribution to these surrounding countries could be a tactic to instill economic dependency on Saudi Arabia. If you agree with me, do you think that this strategy will lead to a long peace as defined by Liberals, or a power struggle among neighboring nations?
ReplyDeleteI agree and think that the bargaining theory applies to all three cases you have listed above. While it may seem like they are simply finding ways to get around their problems, they are negotiation and talking in an attempt to avoid war. It is interesting that the bargaining theory is working so well in these cases even though it seems to fail in many other cases. Could this aversion to war be attributed to something else as well?
ReplyDelete