Terror Defense No Al Qaida Terror
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Turn- Water scarcity incentivizes cooperation, decreasing the chance of conflicts
- Even if water conflicts do occur, they remain localized and are short lived
- Water wars are just media hype
- No water wars escalation- institutions check
- No water wars- Experts prove and their authors are looking to assert conflict to get headlines
- Don’t believe in water wars- their authors reduce the complexity and jump to extremes
Resources DefenseWaterNO water wars- their authors don’t account for structural checksDunn 13- staff writer for the Harvard International Review (Gregory, “Water Wars: A Surprisingly Rare Source of Conflict,” Harvard International Review, Nov. 20, 2013. http://hir.harvard.edu/archives/10414). WM A Familiar Concern However, this analysis does not take into account the economic, geopolitical, and governmental contexts that such changes will occur in. Economic growth, international organizations, and political leaders are powerful forces that dampen the tendency for water scarcity to cause conflict. The most powerful reason why the future does not hold water wars is the reason typically used to refute Malthusian arguments—technological and economic growth. Malthus correctly predicted the explosion in human population, and the amount of humans on earth would increase by five billion by the year 2000. However, the collapse of society Malthus envisioned failed to occur. The failure of human society to collapse was largely due to the economic and technological developments that occurred around the world. Economic growth allowed more access to resources, thus enabling people to invest in technology to increase their productivity. This investment in technology enabled incredible leaps in the productivity of farmers, thanks to devices like tractors, new practices in irrigation and crop rotation, and improvements in crops due to breeding and genetic modification. Although the data is somewhat inconclusive, estimates in literature reviewing the increase in farming productivity agree that farm productivity has increased many times over since the publication of the Essay on the Principle of Population, thus averting the collapse Malthus predicted. A similar line of thought can be applied to water. Currently, many people access water from wells or rivers, sources that are susceptible to environmental changes. However, technological and economic growth allows for the development of aqueducts to service areas with little water, and the adoption of more efficient methods of using water (notably, watering plants with drip irrigation results in substantially less water loss), resulting in greater water availability. As evidenced by the development of the arid West of the United States, a lack of water does not necessarily mean that humans cannot survive, it merely means that technology and capital is required for survival. As nations continue to grow economically, they can acquire more resources and develop new technologies , such as water sanitation and treatment or desalination, to give their people better access to water, thus decreasing water scarcity over time. In fact, the University of California, San Diego’s Erik Gartzke notes that global warming is associated with a reduction, rather than increase, in interstate conflict. He goes on to note that while resource depletion associated with global warming may contribute to instability, the economic growth that is associated with it results in an overall reduction of crime. Gartzke concludes that the only way climate-induced conflict might come about is if efforts to stem global warming at the expense of economic growth lead to a loss of wealth, and thus conflict. Although water scarcity may be a factor that can cause conflict, the economic development associated with modern water scarcity results in more peace, not more war. As nations develop, they gain the technology by which they can mitigate the effects of climate change, and the capital with which to implement these technological advances. Modern times are associated with increasing rates of water depletion, but also with a rise of international institutions, diplomacy, and conflict mediation. History has shown that these forces are not always powerful enough to overcome wars fought for political or strategic reasons (notably, the Iraq war was launched to destroy the military threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction). However, water scarcity is a problem related to economic development. Thus, wars associated with water scarcity are not based in the wishes of leaders, but rather a failure of environment or leadership. International organizations are able to respond to a nation’s failures, and leaders are generally willing to receive aid to complete tasks they have been unable to accomplish. Failures in water supply and distribution can be remedied with aid, which can install wells, aqueducts, and water purification facilities to improve access to clean water. Additionally, educational aid can help develop better practices for water use and conservation in an area of water scarcity. A large proportion of drinkable water is wasted or contaminated before it is available to those who need it to survive, a problem that can be solved through proper education and infrastructure development. Examples of the power of aid to solve water issues are plentiful. In the United States, the state of California used federal assistance to construct an aqueduct from the wet North of the state to the arid South, allowing the city of Los Angeles to prosper as well as providing water to farmers along the fertile Central Valley of California. The international Non-Governmental Organization WaterAid approached the city of Takkas, in Nigeria. They installed wells, latrines, and instructed locals in best practices with regards to sanitation, resulting in a decrease in waterborne disease and an increase in water availability and thus quality of life. However, doubts about the long-term sustainability of water development projects remain since many nations do not have the capability to perform maintenance on the facilities provided to them. Thus, in terms of development, aid serves as a stopgap measure, providing critical water resources until economic growth allows nations to develop the infrastructure to indigenously refine and maintain water infrastructure. However, with regards to war, water aid is extremely effective, since temporary aid can be used to reduce tempers in the short term. Although a series of stop-gap measures is not substitute for indigenous production and maintenance of water supplies, stop-gap measures can prevent the humanitarian issue of water scarcity from causing international conflicts. Although international aid and involvement are effective tools in development assistance, international aid is perhaps even more effective in aiding negotiations regarding the provision of water. Conflict over water is relatively easy to detect, since water scarcity builds over time. International tensions regarding water trigger a series of escalating diplomatic incidents and concerns that are easy to identify and thus resolve. Since the potential conflict is over a future where one or more parties lack access to water, rather than a nation’s immediate needs, international organizations can foster negotiations to solve the problem before it gets out of hand. Turn- Water scarcity incentivizes cooperation, decreasing the chance of conflictsDunn 13- staff writer for the Harvard International Review (Gregory, “Water Wars: A Surprisingly Rare Source of Conflict,” Harvard International Review, Nov. 20, 2013. http://hir.harvard.edu/archives/10414). WM Not Water Wars, Water Deals Perhaps the best example of international organization facilitating water resource allocation is the Indus Waters Treaty. The Indus River, a key source of water for Pakistan, has headwaters and tributaries in both Pakistan and India. When the partition between India and Pakistan occurred, there was great animosity between the two nations, which eventually led to a series of wars. One future source of conflict was the Indus River, a river whose resources were contested by two bitter rivals. While in the late 1950s Pakistan and India were not at war, there was great potential for water to play a role in future hostilities between the nations, perhaps exacerbating conflict. At the time, the World Bank was playing an active role in the region, seeking to aid the development of the new countries. They held substantial sway in the region thanks to their ability to provide loans to the new nations, and were therefore able to bring both India and Pakistan to the negotiating table to determine use of the river. Pakistan was concerned that India could use water as a weapon in future conflict, while India was concerned that Indians (especially those in the north of the country) would be unable to access water resources that had historically been theirs. Over a period of six years from 1954 to 1960, the World Bank helped orchestrate talks which determined which river systems were under control of India, which systems were under control of Pakistan, and how infrastructure necessary for the control of water in the river system was to be developed and funded. In 1960, thanks in part to development assistance provided by the United States and the United Kingdom, an agreement was found and the treaty was signed. After the signing of the treaty, three wars occurred, but the treaty was not broken, a testament to the power of the international agreement. Water allocation difficulties are a problem of developing nations, since developed nations can make up for scarcity with infrastructure. Thus, developing nations are most prone to water conflict, but they are also in the most need of staying in the good graces of the international community. Therefore, these countries are quick to negotiate with international organizations, making treaties and negotiation a powerful tool in addressing water conflict. Furthermore, the involvement of international organizations can redirect anger, turning potential conflicts into political matters. In 2000, the World Bank compelled Bolivia to privatize the water provider in Cochabamba, a large Bolivian city, to fund the construction of a dam. This move proved massively unpopular, sparking widespread riots. This anger over the provision of water was not directed at the Bolivian government, but instead the anger was directed at the World Bank, an international organization that mainly interacted with Bolivia through financial, rather than physical means. The World Bank and the privatized companies it endorsed became the targets, and thus rage was harmlessly fired at an international organization, rather than targeted upon the Bolivian government. In this way, international organizations served as a scapegoat, absorbing criticism in the place of the government, which was left alone to maintain the peace. Even if water conflicts do occur, they remain localized and are short livedDunn 13- staff writer for the Harvard International Review (Gregory, “Water Wars: A Surprisingly Rare Source of Conflict,” Harvard International Review, Nov. 20, 2013. http://hir.harvard.edu/archives/10414). WM The government of Bolivia, like many governments in region susceptible to water conflict, was not itself affected by the water scarcity. Governments have the power, resources, and authority to find and secure water in their country, and a water shortage is generally unlikely to severely affect those within a government. Rather, a water shortage is felt most acutely by those with almost no power, little money, and few resources. Water shortages hit the poorest hard, and the government is slow to respond since governmental officials are generally not impacted by such shortages. While this might seem at first consideration like a factor that is more likely to exacerbate water conflicts by allowing scarcity to rise undetected, it is ultimately a major dampener on the chances of water war. While individual citizens may protest their condition, and in extreme cases mount an insurgency, these actions are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the country. The most powerless in a country already have much to protest about, and the addition of water scarcity is unlikely to dramatically alter the frequency or fervor of protest. The government of a nation must expect that some citizens cannot be fully provided for, and therefore protests are inevitable. The propensity of water shortages to impact this segment of the population means that the net effect of water shortage will be relatively small, reducing the necessity of the government to respond to the crisis. Even an insurgency will be mounted by those with many grievances and few resources, which makes the insurgency comparatively simple to combat. Critically, the government has little incentive to start a war over water shortages impacting those the state is already failing—their protests are inevitable, and the shortages do not impact the government. While water shortages will of course trigger mass protest if enough of the population is impacted, the tendency of water shortages to prey upon the most vulnerable makes the onset of such mass protest less likely. The idea of water wars fits many contemporary narratives well. In an era where we are forced to face the consequences of economic growth—pollution, climate change, and unrest—water wars seems a convenient instance of our failure to properly safeguard our natural resources. While it is easy to think of local consequences of the corruption of natural resources (for example, lung cancer resulting from air pollution), it is more difficult to give examples of widespread social change spurred by pollution. Despite a litany of international conferences issuing increasingly urgent manifestos demanding dramatic change, society has changed its patterns of consumption comparatively little, with seemingly few more widespread societal (rather than local) consequences. Although global warming threatens to destroy our way of life, society has not responded to the impacts of a warmer climate. Water wars seem to make up for this lack of action, since they are a powerful social problem easily attributable to the degradation of national resources. However, they have so far failed to meaningfully transpire, thanks to the very forces—the international geopolitical order and economic growth—that would presumably cause water wars in the first place. While the degradation of natural resources is a serious problem with modern society, the lack of water wars serves as a reminder of the power of the forces of peace and prosperity that are an inherent part of the modern world. Water wars are just media hypeWolf and Jarvis 15— Project Director of the Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation, and Associate Director of the Institute for Water and Watersheds at Oregon State University (Aaron T. and W. Todd, “Water Wars: Hydropotential or Hydrohype?,” Hydropolitic Academy, 22 February 2015, http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/en/water-wars-hydropotential-or-hydrohype.html). WM The terms “Water War” and “Water Wars” are media darlings. The famous quote apocryphally attributed to U.S. humorist Mark Twain “[w]hiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over” is so overused that many water professionals are pleading to ban its use. To get a feel as to when the hysteria over water wars began, we explored Google labs tool Books Ngram Viewer which revealed that geographers were using the terms to describe water situations in the U.S. and Middle East as early as the late 1800s with an exponential increase in the use of these terms starting in 1988. Our European colleagues Mark Zeitoun and Naho Miramachi at the University of East Anglia in Norwich chronicled the proclamations from United Nations Secretary Generals Boutros Boutros-Ghali known for his 1991 quote “the next war will be fought over water, not politics,” and Kofi Annan for his 2001 quote “[f]ierce competition for freshwater may well become a source of conflict and wars in the future.” In an article published in 2011 in Global Environment Politics, David Katz addresses the important question of whether or not the “water war hypothesis” is “Hydro-political Hyperbole”. In other words, is there a potential threat of water wars or is this media hype? Water Wars: Myth or Reality? The history of international water treaties regarding surface water is robust. Over 400 treaties have been inventoried by the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database hosted by Oregon State University. The earliest treaty dates back to 2500 BC, following the only documented war over water in history, in Mesopotamia along the Tigris River. Our students’ research on the history of cooperation over groundwater resources is much less robust, with only one treaty specifically addressing transboundary groundwater; only a small percentage of the international water treaties have any provisions for groundwater. Our research at Oregon State University on conflict “events” described in newspapers and other media over the last fifty years reveals that countries have engaged in more than 500 conflicts over water, far outweighed by more than 1,200 cooperative events. Peter Gleick of the U.S. water think tank, the Pacific Institute, mapped the conflicts and showed that every continent has experienced a water conflict, save Antarctica. Violent conflict has occurred at sub-national levels, but there has been no international violent conflict over transboundary waters since the mid-1960s. No water wars escalation- institutions checkWolf and Jarvis 15— Project Director of the Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation, and Associate Director of the Institute for Water and Watersheds at Oregon State University (Aaron T. and W. Todd, “Water Wars: Hydropotential or Hydrohype?,” Hydropolitic Academy, 22 February 2015, http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/en/water-wars-hydropotential-or-hydrohype.html). WM Why Don’t We Have Water Wars? Conflicts over water can best be described as a “wicked” planning problem that has uncertain boundaries, defies absolute solutions, and can be a symptom of larger problems. And yet even in the international arena there are indicators of cooperation. For example, the Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses was adopted by the United Nations in 1997. The UN drafted the document to help conserve and manage water resources for present and future generations. To enter into force, the document required ratification by 35 countries, and as of 2011 received 22 parties to the instrument. Regardless of the number of signatory parties, the document is considered an important step towards reaching an international law to govern water. Likewise, the UN General Assembly adopted the Law of Transboundary Aquifers by consensus in 2008. International experts in water law and hydrogeologists worked together since 2003 to create a common language in the formulation of new sets of laws on groundwater resources, and more specifically, on the value of the immense storage capabilities of aquifers. Both the Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and the Law of Transboundary Aquifers are concrete steps towards the peaceful sharing of water resources. But what do others have to say about the potential of water wars? In his preeminent blogAguanomics, resource economist Dr. David Zetland states in his article on ‘Why We Don’t Have Water Wars’: If the war is over water, then their [winners] enjoyment can be spoiled by the losers, who have many and easy ways of destroying the quality of water. […] If this should happen, then both sides lose, changing war from a zero-sum game into a negative sum game. […] This is basically an ancient form of mutual assured destruction. Stockholm Water Prize Winner Professor J. A. “Tony” Allan pioneered the concept of “virtual” water – the invisible water embedded in traded commodities – and argues that water wars are unlikely because “trading virtual water has invisible and politically silent conflict-reducing impacts”. The concept of virtual water has been debated in the scientific literature for almost 20 years, and has become increasingly part of the international and national political discourse for about five. Allan claims that “[f]uture transboundary hydropolitics that take into account the political economy of water as well as the role of virtual water will operate differently from current transboundary international relations.” He indicates that the dependence on international trade to achieve water security is normal as most economies are net food importers. Jerry Delli Priscoli, a 30-year veteran mediator with the US Army Corps of Engineers helped us to understand that water compels us to think regionally, that (1) the price for control over an agreement over water is sharing ownership and cooperating in both the process and outcome of the agreement, (2) the transaction costs are escalating beyond traditional management methods, (3) the available money to identify needs is contracting, (4) the public awareness of water resources is growing and changing, and (5) the traditional legal systems are unable to cope with change. We are strong proponents that water ignores all separations and boundaries save for those of the watershed, both the seen and unseen parts. As such, it offers a vehicle to bring those who share it together. Since it touches all we do and experience, water creates a language through which we may discuss our common future. Much of the hype about water wars is good business for conflict beneficiaries and book sales, but in reality conflicts over transboundary waters are normal, and managing that conflict offers constant opportunities for dialogue and cooperation. No water wars- Experts prove and their authors are looking to assert conflict to get headlinesKatz 11- Director of the Akirov Institute for Business and Environment at Tel Aviv University (David ,“Hydro-Political Hyperbole: Examining Incentives for Overemphasizing the Risks of Water Wars,” MIT Press, Feb. 2011, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/GLEP_a_00041). WM Incentives to the Media and Popular Press Provide Gripping Headlines: Simon’s claim that “bad news sells” more than good news92 seems to have ample empirical support. Cottle provides numerous examples in which the press focuses on exceptional or violent behavior,93 and New York Times reporter Max Frankel stated that among the news media “conflict is our favorite kind of news.”94 Disagreements over water allocations may be considered mundane, and thus not newsworthy, while violence over such allocations is. The need for gripping headlines ensures that the media is predisposed to favor presenting the possibility of water wars over more moderate, less dramatic positions. For example, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle was titled “Future of War Will Go with the Flow” with the subtitle “Water Promises to be Flash Point;” this, despite the fact that experts quoted in the article actually stated that they felt water was unlikely to lead to violence and that such prognostications were “media hype.”95 Watkins and Berntell, development and water experts respectively, wrote an article provocatively headlined “A Global Problem: How to Avoid War Over Water.” However, while the article warned that water shortages can lead to conºict, the authors themselves surmised that “cooperation tends to attract less news than violent conflict. Perhaps that is why ‘water wars’ get such exaggerated coverage.”96 Don’t believe in water wars- their authors reduce the complexity and jump to extremesKatz 11- Director of the Akirov Institute for Business and Environment at Tel Aviv University (David ,“Hydro-Political Hyperbole: Examining Incentives for Overemphasizing the Risks of Water Wars,” MIT Press, Feb. 2011, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/GLEP_a_00041). WM Shorten Analysis into Sound-bite or Article-length Segment: Because the media are increasingly structured around presenting brief sound-bites or catchy headlines,97 they frequently reduce complex issues into memorable catchphrases and simplistic storylines, at the expense of nuanced explanation and accuracy. Furthermore, Bird and Dardenne contend that the media often present what they feel the story should be, rather than what the facts actually depict.98 Aubin details how pressures to provide pithy coverage of complex security issues have resulted in inaccurate media coverage and how, once established, this misinformation has managed to persist in subsequent coverage.99 The connection between water and conflict is complex and context-dependent, with several intervening and mitigating variables. An explanation of this complex relationship, however, is not amenable to short press articles or brief news segments. Give Equal Coverage to Opposing Views: The quest for “balanced coverage” itself may contribute to the amount of media exposure granted to the risk of water wars. When confronted with differing expert opinions regarding highly specialized or technical issues, the merits of which the press is not competent to evaluate, journalists often attempt to provide equal coverage, regardless of how the weight of expert opinion is distributed.100 Dunwoody and Peters refer to such a strategy of balance as “a surrogate for validity checks.”101 This provision of equal coverage, ostensibly done in the spirit of fairness and balance, can result in disproportionate representation of minority viewpoints. One survey of scientists found that 76 percent felt that news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not.102 Press coverage of climate change is a well-documented example, in which the minority viewpoint among climate scientists that climate change is not occurring has been given disproportionately prominent media coverage.103 While no extensive content analysis of media coverage of conºict over war was undertaken for this study, numerous examples exist of articles that either present the potential for conºict or cooperation over water on equal footing or simply quote experts with a range of opinions.104 Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|