Water in the dynamics of strategic natural resources in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world

Abstract

Are we close to face what some researchers and politicians call a “war for water as a resource”? The ideas around this topic are divided. We think that external factors, such as climate change and unequal distribution of the resource, will create conditions and pressures that are pressing perceptions and will be eventually affecting political behavior that will lead to war. Others agree that there are changes in the political landscape. However, when we look at different resources, we have to consider that they present a different dynamic affecting in alternative form the political behavior of the actor related to specific resources. War is not a consequence of the resource necessity and access problem. Resource wars are related to external factors like opportunity and power asymmetries, among others.

In the case of water, if we consider the scarcity problem, the technological change and the capacity to create institutional ways to regulate its use, we can avoid the worst consequences of the resources race. As far as the previous sentence establishes, access and necessity could be the channeling cause of conflict. However, we will find the root of it in another part of the rivalry dynamic as the conflict for the Golan Heights shows.

The present work tries to put in perspective the preceding discussion to clarify the current dynamics around different types of natural resources. To do that, we must start discussing what "Strategic Natural Resources (SNR)" are and also their role in geopolitical terms, to understand how they affect the political calculus around them. Resource discussions about policies, conflicts, and politics use mainly a realist approach, because it is all about use, availability, and scarcity. Security is an essential topic around them, but in the case of water, perspectives are a little bit different.

We should consider Hydropolitics as a topic within the geopolitical field of studies. In that sense, it shows how different is the dynamics around water, and even if many conflicts of interest are around it, political action most of the time is not to fight over it in the sense of going to war. We will see tensions but no war. A war over water is considered awful for everyone, so it is more useful to try to channel the conflict to a more productive arena. In that sense, the creation of regimes, norms, and treaties around a shared river, underground water deposit, sustainable use, and others will be the most critical aspects of policy coordination around those who have a dispute over it. Moreover, we will see others trying to assist major partners in managing the problems that its uses generate. Policymakers look at social and economic considerations about to ignite a war over water, so that they are able to prevent it, because acts as a political barrier most of the time.

The objectives of the present article are twofold, and they are interrelated. The first one is to advance in the discussion around which ones and how natural resources become a problem that could lead to war. Geopolitics and Realist Theory are the best tools to have a comprehensive picture of the resources play as a factor in war. It is doing that we can tackle the issue of war for water, which is a different thing than a conflict over water. When we look at security considerations, realism think that resources are a contributing factor to the balance of power, but do not affect the security dilemma. When we look at the accumulative power of water as a resource, we will find “neutral” in the sense that does not affect the fragile balance of power among potential rivals.

On the other hand, the second objective of the article is different but associated. Water is a slightly different kind of SNR. Not only does it create conflict, but it also creates rivalries among those who perceive that they are going to face access problems to the resource; while at the same time, it does not push to resolve the situation violently, primarily in interstate conflict. A little bit more intense is the conflict around the resource when we look specific countries, but the difference in how they are solved is looking at the state capacity. If in interstate conflict, its accumulation is neutral, in an internal conflict, the accumulation power could be positive or negative, affecting the internal balance, creating more space for internal war.

As a methodology, we use a descriptive and qualitative analysis of previously published works with the recent data around the issue to create a bright and differentiated view when we discuss war for water resources. Water is not the best case to argue in favor of views that emphasize a world prone to war. Moreover, we can say that there are fewer incentives to go to war for water than other resources. But the reader should be aware that the kind of insight we extract should not lead to develop a liberal approach to water governance. A realist approach to finite cooperation it is more useful to maintain stability. Water is strategic and related to territoriality, so identity considerations apply to hydropolitics, so states are important stakeholders in this issue.

Nevertheless, we can think that some tension could arise between neighbors who share it. Much more difficult is a Great power taking steps into war for water. If they need it, they can buy their access to it. Even so, internally, the states could face conflicts around it. This difference is significant because we put too much time to talk and think about the international dimension of the problem when we should look at the internal dimension of it. With these in mind, the international discussion around water will be different and possibly better. consider, for example, the water contamination as a result of corporate activities. Neighbor states create a regime to overlook how, when and in which degree they pollute the shared resource. They establish limits around the river and coastal activities, they enforce it, and they get in around the table to deal with previous unconsidered situations. Furthermore, when differences arise, they stick to their commitments, even when the military balance is in favor of one part.

We will divide the following article into three short and related discussions. The first part sets out to put in perspective the discussion around conflict and resources, giving water the specific place that it deserves. The second part turns around the geopolitics due location, availability, and scarcity are at the center of the discussion. Within this section, we will put the hydropolitics view to talk about the use of water. That is important because we will end our discussion looking at the differences between this resource and the others, for example, energy.

With that in mind, this article serves as an introductory reading around how we think, act, and develop policy related to natural resources, showing that war is not the only possible result in resource competition.