The New Scientist this week carries the headline ‘Is this the beginning of water wars?’ for its report on the story of Spain importing water from France, via the Port of Marseilles, to help alleviate the pain of drought in the Catalan region around Barcelona.
The article continues to discuss the other global pressure points concerning water, its contribution to tensions, and the potential for stoking ‘wars’ between nations. The article refers quite correctly to the control of water in the Middle East, where Israel controls 90% of the water supply to both Israeli and Palestinian territory:
“People will not fight over water,” says Mark Zeitoun, from the London School of Economics’ Centre for Environmental Policy and Governance in the UK. “But that’s not to say water shortages will not contributing to existing tensions.” This is already happening. Zeitoun advises the Palestinian authorities in their water negotiations with Israel. The latter controls 90% of the two territories’ shared water resources. “The fact that the Palestinians are deprived of their water doesn’t help the situation,” Zeitoun says. Like Spain, the Palestinian authorities are considering their options…
Bit of an understatement, that, “can’t help the situation”. If people can’t drink water… So, two things on this article.
1. If people will not fight over water, are they ‘wars’? Have we not seen the mistaken and propagandist use of this term too much recently (‘war on terror’; ‘the long war’). Why not water apartheid, when the situation is one of one country controlling the other’s supply?
2. Is it clear that people and countries are not fighting over resources such as water, or say oil?
Yes, water management is going to be an increasingly important global issue. Which is why we need to be responsible with the rhetoric and use of the term ‘war’. Immediately, this article is about economic and agreed trade between two countries, Spain and France. It is not the start of a ‘war’ but of a means, as the quoted Zeitoun goes on to emphasise, of ‘efficient water management’ through trade. Not that I’m a big fan of turning to trade, but that’s besides the point and I’m wrong here anyway, still thinking of my Marxist ideals.
Anyway, let’s not use ‘war’ where it’s not the correct referent for that particular story, otherwise we muddy the waters, if you’ll pardon the metaphor.
Second, and critically, water ‘is’ the cause of clashes already, ‘water riots’ as Zeitoun’s colleague Elena Lopez-Gunn calls them, and are happening now… in Tibet.
One of the most underreported factors of the China-Tibet debate is the ‘why’ China is in Tibet. There are a number of reports that would seem to suggest or provide evidence that water is one of the key factors. For example, China’s plan to divert water from the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau to the Yellow River (this from the Chinese Government’s official news source, Xinhua). It is also the cause of clashes (political at the moment) between India and China. Others believe the issue will not remain political for long: that the issue is a ticking time-bomb. And the Tibetans get no say?? For a statement from the Goverment of Tibet in Exile on their environmental issues, this is their white paper on the environment: Tibet is the watershed of Asia.
Well done the Independent for covering the story at the time, back in Nov 2006. But why not now, as part of the background to the Tibetan clashes?
And I can’t help worrying about the ‘nothing here’ message found at www.tibet.net, when Google searches clearly show that the issue of water is debated on the site: ‘Tibet is China’s Saudi Arabia for water’ is one such headline.
Popularity: unranked [?]
