Water Resources: Conflicts or a Cup of Tea?

By Erin Roberts

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090904/OPINION/709039916

Robert Wright, author of “Take Me to the Source: In Search of Water” is of the surprising opinion that conflicts based on water availability are in fact not something to worry about at all. He argues that the likelihood of ‘water wars’ occurring is not very high because of several reasons; that the benefits of international cooperation in fresh water management such as increased trade lead to harmony more often than conflict; that the control of water has often fell to a community and therefore encourages cooperation; and those that lack water are generally too poor to start wars.

The evidence that Wright uses to prove each part of his argument do not support it enough to be convincing. For example, to defend the his first reasoning, that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the negatives, he relies on David Grey, the World Bank’s senior advisor on water, who Wright introduces by saying he has “spent much of his professional life trying to resolve water conflicts”. It seems contradictory to use such an authority to defend a position which rejects the likelihood of water conflicts. As well, many of Grey’s points argue why there should not be a problem, and not why there is not or will not be a problem. Grey is quoted when speaking about co-operation along rivers: “It’s a win-win situation. If you don’t do it, everybody loses. But you might argue for a country such as Turkey, which sits upstream on the Euphrates from Syria and Iraq. What’s in it for them? The answer is a basket of benefits, such as cross-border tariffs on trade and energy and many other issues.” By focusing on opinions instead of concrete evidence, this fails to defend his argument of low likelihood of future water conflicts.

The final two supports to his argument are not backed up by any evidence at all. He states first that community control of water supports co-operation, and yet does not provide any evidence of this being the case. Incidences of co-operation resulting from the community control of water would help to strengthen his argument. He also states that those who lack water are too poor to start wars. There are several ways to dispute this; when even a group with lesser power grows in size there are ways to first organize amongst themselves or inspire political action that can address the immense problem of lack of fresh water.

Wright also fails to thoroughly address noticeable fundamental flaws in his argument; one example being that the arguments are mainly based on events in the past. He argues that in the past water has not been a major cause for war; however, he ignores the twin powers of overpopulation and pollution, which today threaten the Earth’s water supplies like no other time in history. Since he does not address whether or not these will affect the situation, the argument is cast into doubt.

A further objection Wright did not address is the lack of evidence for co-operation in countries which do not have a readily available source of fresh water. He instead focuses on populations clustered around fresh water sources, such as the Nile and the Mekong Delta. It would provide a more full argument to support it with countries which are more likely to undergo water shortages.

Wright does not have the proper evidence to back up his heady claims, and therefore his argument fails because of lack of support. While his logic may be reasonable, he fails to address clear objections such as the future effects of pollution and overpopulation. He did not convince me of his side, without concrete evidence, and I think it is likely that fresh water resources are likely to cause conflict in the future.

References

Wright, R. (2009) “Water wars? More likely a reason for a nice cup of tea.” The National, Sept 4 2009. http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090904 -/OPINION/709039916. Accessed Sept 30 2009.