By Geneviève Lalonde
Bennett Gordon posted an interesting blog on “Why water wars won’t come”. His blog is supported by recent examples of history that while true, are not sufficient evidence to guarantee a future with no water wars. He draws from some good articles written by authors such as Wendy Burnaby and Aaron Wolf who make strong arguments for his position. A more complete analysis shows that there are other important aspects to consider.
His position that wars over water are not likely draws on statements such as “The wars have been more about borders, security, and statehood”. While in fact this in true, it does not necessarily predict the future; He further supports his contention by quoting Wendy Burnaby; “India and Pakistan have a water treaty that has survived since 1960—through two wars. In the middle of one of the wars, India made payments to Pakistan as part of its treaty obligations.” If India and Pakistan have worked it out then this does not really have a great representation of the rest of the world in my view.
That is where I wish to intervene with some reflections. I found a few interesting facts about this subject. If Gordon had wanted to elaborate more on the India and Pakistan treaty, he could have easily showed that both India and Pakistan were safe from water wars in other articles. Since he did not, I do not see how we can apply this example to other parts of the world? As Tony, Allan posted in his article in Avoiding War Over Natural Resources, 1998. “Individuals and communities can pick a fight over any issue, including tangibles like territory and resources - water among them. ”
To further defend his position, Gordon takes another claim from Wendy Burnaby’s article in conservation Magazine. She states “Predictions of armed conflict come from the media and from popular, non-peer-reviewed work,” If this were reality, it would be sufficient to take her word. Unfortunately, that evidence is hard to find.
There are a couple key points that this author does not evaluate. He does not mention that the world is going through very significant changes. They include Global climate changes and likely a warming of the equator and tropics concluding in a declining water supply base, as well as economic growth in the undeveloped world such as Africa and parts of Asia and that there continues to be a population growth on what many already consider to be an overcrowded planet. These certainly will increase the stress on populations and countries and on the need for water. Pollution is today certainly major contributors to lack of clean water supplies across the world. If we were talking about the potential of wars for water in the future, I would find these considerations difficult to neglect.
The question of trade and in particular that of the relative water trade, (i.e. food supplies whose base for growing is water in other parts of the world) also adds to the complexity of the equation. This question is raised by Tony Allan in his 1998 article “avoiding war over natural resources”.
Therefore, I would strongly suggest that if we are talking about the future we would need to pay attention to all of these details in trying to predict outcomes and possible conflicts over water. Furthermore our conclusions might be different depending on the conditions in different part of the world.
As Tony Allan states in his 1998 article, “it is a paradox that the water pessimists are wrong but their pessimism is a very useful political tool” to preempt and prevent conflicts while the optimists (while right so far) are dangerous in that they render the issue of lower priority and might be ignored at our peril.
In conclusion, I prefer siding on the more cautious side in stating we cannot count on water wars from not occurring. The double negative in this statement is intentional. The author Bennett Gordon does not seem to be looking at all sides of the argument. His reasoning is based on a few examples in history and yet there are reasons to believe all outcomes remain possible. We must take all the information into account in assembling the puzzle including trends that may influence the outcome. It would seem quite probable that water will not be accessible to everyone short of significant technological advancements. We cannot predict the future but if we have a more complete and clearer view of all issues, it will be easier to attempt.
References
Changing Climate, Part IV
By Andrea Brower – Special to The Garden Island-Published: Saturday, September 26, 2009
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2009/09/27/business/kauai_business/doc4abf0805abcc5356732707.txt
Avoiding War Over Natural Resources
By Tony Allan
Forum: Water and War
November 1, 1998
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/198-natural-resources/32890.html
Why the Water Wars Won’t Come
by Bennett Gordon- UTNE reader
September 11,2009
http://www.utne.com/Environment/Why-the-Water-Wars-Wont-Come.aspx#comments
Water Negotiator Aaron Wolf Spreads Liquid Hope
by Tom Jacobs, from Miller-McCune –UTNE reader
July-August 2009
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Water-War-Peace-Conflict-Negotiations-Hope.aspx
Conservation Magazine article
By Wendy Barnaby
Summer 2009
http://www.conservationmagazine.org/contents/table-of-contents-summer-2009/
I totally agree that his arguments are lacking in evidence for both side. I’m a little confused in the conclusion when you say” His reasoning is based on a few examples in history and yet there are reasons to believe all outcomes remain possible.” I somewhat agree that only looking at examples in the past is not useful in attempting to predict the future. But on the other hand considering trends are data from the past. On a whole, I think your critic is well written and logical.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with your argument against the author in several ways; you brought up the valid points that future events such as pollution, climate change, water trade, and population growth might change the model so it would be difficult to predict the likelihood based on past events. However, I think his article was mainly defensive against the multitude of "pessimists" who may be raising outcry that is less deserved. But all arguments deserve criticism, especially faulty ones like his.
ReplyDelete