Water resources are essential for ecology and society. Food production, energy generation, industrial development, human health is very much related to freshwater.  Scientific researches show that much of water on earth (%98) is salty. This clause tries to imply that only 2 percent is available for people’s usage in any area. %10 of available world water is used for domestic purposes, 20 percent is for industrial use and %70 of it is used for irrigated agriculture[1]. Addition to available small percentage of water, freshwater resources is also unfairly distributed in the world. Some parts of world are abundant in water; however, some have been confronting severe water shortages due to both environmental and political factors. Figure 1.1 clearly illustrates that intensity of water scarcity could be different from one region to another. 

Apart from environmental perspective of water, its shortages can not only lead to local, national, international or global conflict- it can vary one region to another- but also result in cooperative action among the users of it. The most disputed water conflicts are faced in Middle East and Africa since there are demand-induced scarcity arisen from mainly increase in population, supply induced scarcity driven by depletion and degradation of a resources and structural- induced scarcity resulting from unequal distribution of water resources[2]. According to my point of view Israel-Palestinians relations about the water can be hotly debated with different IR theories. Before start with the how the theories – namely realism, political economists and liberal institutionalists- approach the issue I give brief summary about history of the Israeli-Palestinians water conflict in order to be clear on the topic. 

The research question of this paper is that “does water simply means conflict or cooperation in Jordan Basin among its riparians”.  At the first part I answer the question of why Israeli and Palestinians water conflict had emerged with the historical background with different perspectives. Then, at the second part I clash and compare the different IR Theories approaches to the issue. At the last part, my point of view about the topic can be clearly seen.

 

Before explaining the reasons of conflict among the riparians (Israel, Jordan, Palestinians, Syria) of Jordan transboundary river basin it will be more beneficial to draw the geo-hydrological  picture of Jordan basin.  

 

Jordan River originates from Hasbani, Banias flows to Sea of Galilee and at that point Yarmouk River – important tributary of it- feeds it and continues to flow to Dead Sea. Jordan basin generally has very limited water resources in terms of ground water and surface water.  Annual discharge of Jordan River into Dead Sea is approximately 1.300 million cubic meters per year. [5] Yet, these numbers can change from season to season. Due to the Israel’s rough pumping policy from Sea of Galilee (Lake of Tiberians) no more than half of 1.300 million m3 can reach to Dead Sea. It means that since majority of the water is used by Israel, Jordan is very much deprived of the water resources. As a result of this, water level of Dead Sea is getting lower and lower. However, addition to surface water resources, there are two significant underground water resources which are Coastal Aquifer and Mountain Aquifer. 

 

Israeli - Arabs conflict is ongoing debate that arises from different issues; namely, border security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, land rights, legalities concerning refugees etc. For this part I take the water as a reason for conflict between Israelis and Arabs. It is needed to examine the end of the previous century to see the roots of Arab-Israel conflict. Before the foundation of Jewish state there had been already started the Zionist Movement for the purpose of establishment of Jewish state.  At the beginning of 1900s they wanted to divert water from Nile but could not manage. Yet, step by step the organization was increasing its position and gained large concessions from colonial powers, -French, Britain- up until the establishment of State of Israel. At that times conflict begun to escalate. So as to decrease the tension between Zionists and Arabs America introduced Lowdermilk and Hays Plan. Aim of this plan was to irrigate both banks of Jordan (East-West) and diversion of Jordan to coast and Negev Desert. In this way they attempted to open new and efficient land for the coming Jewish immigrants. Arabs were very much opposed this plan due to the fear of losing their own lands. After the period of 1948 when Israel was founded this Lowdermilk-Hays Plan became main guide for Israel’s hydro-politics. In this period also Israel clearly started to show not only territorial ambitions but also taking the control of natural resources. Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion explained that “we must go to the borders or the borders come to us”. Main policy was to manage development of newly established state via agricultural development. Thus, he began the dreamed diversion plan from Jordan to coastal area to irrigate the west bank in 1953. This is later called National Water Career. Skirmishes were increasing between parties; thus; US interfered with this issue and sent formal envoy (Eric Johnston) to investigate situation in the basin to mitigate the sides. Finally, he succeeded to create a plan which targeted to prevent conflict in the region and apply one water distribution plan for this basin; however there was one problem. Before Johnston’s works each side let him to search information about the ongoing issue and appoint their men to committee. The problem was although technical committee accepted Johnston’s Plan the government of 4 riparians, namely, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan completely rejected it.  From their perspective, first of all there had been growing annoyance toward Israel. Second, regarding the plan, sharing same policy means that regarding recognition of State of Israel which was unacceptable for riparians of Jordan. Third, Arabs also feared the plan that it would make the more idle lands available for the new Jewish immigrants. Fourth, accepting this plan also implied that no possibility for 450.000 Palestinian immigrants to return their own land. Hence, the Plan failed. From now on each side let their own plans to come into true. While Jordan began to build their own Canal – King Abdullah- , Israel executed the establishment of National Water -Career to divert water to coastal area and Negev desert. As a response to this, Arabs got angry; thus, they made counter plan. The plan was diversion from Hasbani and Banias river through Golan Heights to the Yarmouk river(major Tributary of Jordan). After the period from 1959 to beginning of Six-Days War, skirmishes were going up at an increasing level. The armed first attack occurred towards National Water Career but it was not successful. Not only border but also air attacks started then led to 1967 “Six Days War” or “June War”.  Finally, Arabs were defeated heavily. As a result of the war, Israel very much reinforced its military, political position in the region. It took the control of Golan Heights; so Israelis avoided implementation of dam project of Arabs. West Bank and Mountain Aquifer and many other places, resources now were in the hands of Israel. Since the position of Israel was strengthened it began to apply suppressive policy towards the use of water by Palestinians. Every passing day Israel increased the pressure on them. 

 

All these resulted in unequal distribution of resources it created insecurity in term of political, economic, food. Due the fact that Arabs could not develop themselves in a normal way they put more pressure on the resources that had been left. They were getting more degraded and depleted every passing day. It caused drought, fragile regions, and unhealthy conditions. Since they could not find available resources they had to immigrate. Ecological refugees lead to further problems. On the other hand, water is source of conflict or cooperation debate will be analyzed in the coming parts with theoretical approaches.

 

 

There are many analyses of the situations of Middle East region in terms of conflict or cooperation over the use of scarce water resources of the MENA (Middle East North Africa). This paper is going to take account for conditions of region from the perspective of well-known IR theories which are Realism, Institutionalism and Political Economy. Realists strongly claim that the decisions on how to use limited (scarce) water resources have been a major source of conflict with the concept of “water wars”. Cooperative measures to avoid the skirmishes between parties are unlikely due to the nature of international system. However, liberal institutionalists and structuralists(liberal political economists) draw more optimistic and cooperative pictures toward the use of scarce water resources. While institutionalists believe solution can be overcomed through building institutions among parties structuralists use the concept of “virtual water” to deal with the possible conflicts over the water issues.

 

 

The dominant theory of  international relations, realists, underline that relations among states are defined in terms of power and their capabilities[6] Basic assumptions of this school are that states are rational, major actors, the structure of international system is anarchic since there is no sovereign above the states to enforce common rules. Anarchical order decreases the trust level that is main pre-condition to achieve cooperation among states. Security and survival are main concern of states; hence, each state is responsible for providing their own security and survival.

 

Under the light of basic assumptions of realism, as water is getting scarce and scarce every passing year it will become a principal cause of conflict in the MENA region. Since water is a matter of life or death and has great economic and political implications which are very much important for survival of state, it may escalate the possible conflicts. The rhetoric’s of leaders have been very much used for the justifications of realists’ claims.  World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin expressed that “ The wars of the next century will be about the water” [7] Among the environmental security scholars future “water wars” claim is very much common, Myers(1993)[8] and Homer –Dixon(1994)[9] use the Jordan Basin and other water conflicts to explain the water- oriented wars.  When 6 Days War and invasion of Lebanon are analyzed we can see that two approaches dominance. First, the one who sees water as the principal reason of 1967 Arab- Israeli conflict and 1982 Invasion whereas, second view touches the issue that water can be counted as a flash point of conflict but not major reason. However as a result of empirical dataset -apart from the water-rooted reasons- it’s concluded that there were more important reasons that water behind Arab- Israel conflicts. For instance, Jan Selby highlights that there were well-known political factors which resulted in 6 Days War and invasion of Lebanon. The prominent factors are disturbing of Israel’s existence after decolonization, bipolarity during the Cold War, rivalries among radical Arab states, increasing level of conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis 1964-1967, the desire of Israel to destroy the Nasser’s nationalism and to gain more territory.[10] Under the umbrella of these explanations Jan Selby do not believe in that water was major reason of Six Days War.  Furthermore, J. Wilkenfeld and M.Brecher collected data related to politics of transboundary water resources called International Crisis Data Set.[11] It opened the way for academicians to study objectively the hydropolitics of transboundary- water issues. Besides, Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database prepared by Aaron T. Wolf and his team rejected the idea of water wars literature claim that water is source of conflict/war. It illustrates that in the modern history there are seven armed conflict on the transboundary river basins and -apart from desire to control the especially upstream regions of  rivers- there were many other reasons behind these seven conflicts. [12]

 

According to one of the Realists principles cooperation is unlikely to achieve since states are in self-help system and security dilemma prevents states from taking part in cooperative action. The debate on relative- absolute gains also avoids reaching cooperative outcomes. It is highly possible that water can simply lead to conflict rather than cooperation as realists assert. Even so realists also accepted cooperation -although it is very difficult to do – and they focus on certain conditions for cooperation and coordination. From the point of realists so as to reach cooperative results there has to be one powerful hegemony to initiate the action. It’s major prerequisite for the durability of initiative. Meanwhile, upstream riparians are always in advantegous position; if upstream country becomes hegemony, takes the leading figure for cooperation it can be uneven for mid and downstream riparians. On the other hand, if the upstream riparian is also militarily, economically and politically powerful so from the realist perspective there is no need to sit the table for cooperation.  It’s clear that Palestinians has suffered the suppressive policy of Israel at the time of Israel’s relatively more powerful in the region. However, after 1980s due to severe drought, bad management of water distribution and public awareness over the what’s going on in Middle East and the end of Cold War(from bipolarity to unipolarity) pave the way Middle East Peace Process in 1991.  Between 1990-2000s there have been many agreements between riparians of Jordan Basin. Oppose to Realist claim Israel showed its willingness to cooperate and to alleviate the negative impact of water scarcity, to provide more secure environment. Whether or not the treaties are effective we should take into consideration that “water” showed itself as a means of cooperative solutions.

 

 

Transboundary river conflicts are examined on the ground of political ecology and political economy. Liberal political economists are mainly concerned with perfect function of market economy and free-trade system. Production efficiency and specialization are other important concepts of IPE (International Political Economy). When the scholars study the issue of importance of water in Middle East they see the water as being very much part of not only national but also international political economies of MENA. Both liberal political economists and liberal institutionalists have very many close ideas towards the issue of water. However, liberal intuitionalists will be detailed in the next part. Liberal theory claims that economic specialization, efficiency in production process is the major contributor to national income. Liberal political theorists further assert that comparative advantage of one country such as capital, labour force, management means export of comparatively advantaged goods and services. If the country has little or suffers the scarcity of goods and services it imports from foreign market. Liberal political economists apply these ideas to transboundary water conflicts. 

 

Agricultural sector is main national- income generated sector for many countries. In order to produce agricultural activities necessitate the great amount of water. This situation leds to deepen the water scarcity in arid and semi-arid regions. For instance, although there is supply and demand induced scarcity in the Middle East MENA countries continue to exhaust the water resources for the purpose of agricultural production which is very much important for their survival. At that point the concept of “Virtual Water” began to be used to prevent making more pressure on scarce water resources. “Virtual Water” is a term which explains that the countries that has comparatively disadvantage to produce food, food deficiencies have to integrate themselves to international food trade (import food from comparatively advantaged countries) and divert water priority from agricultural purpose to domestic and industrial development such as drinking water, tourism. By doing this Middle Eastern states can provide more water for their citizens. From the perspective of J.A. Allan the policies support “Virtual Water” concept are the best way to tackle with water deficiencies.[13] Allan further underlines that in spite of very intensive scarcity  in the region there has been no hot conflict arisen from water among states since 1970s. This shows failure of realists claim (water wars literature) and success of “Virtual Water” policies. Until the establishment of World Trade Organization hydro politics of Middle East was very much supported and they could import the foods more easily; yet, after 1995 sharp increase in price of food harmed the vulnerable economy of the Middle East. However, liberal political economists highlight that desalinization and efficient water pricing also may result in additional supply and effective water demand management for the future.  James Winnpenny is very much supporter of water pricing system. He scores that underpriced water has caused wasting of resources. Thus, he offers effective price management, by doing this people become more careful while using water.  On the other hand, desalination is also supply-sided solution to water scarcity. According to the supporters of desalinated water, it is claimed that investment in desalination systems brings more water rather than engaging war. Nachmani focuses that instead of spending 100 million dollar everyday for war arsenals 2 billion dollar can solve the water problems of Jordan Basin.[13]

 

However,  according to Marxist political economists the contribution of agricultural sector(so, water) to national income of Middle Eastern countries and macroeconomic development has been going down.[14] According to Jan Selby’s article’s statistics taken from Figure for Israel from Economist Intelligence(2003)  agriculture’s contribution to GDP is ever decreasing such that it now stands at only 16.8% in Egypt(down from 20.1% in 1981), 2.1%  in Jordan(6.1% previously), and only 2.8% in Israel.[14] Also, exported agricultural products and employed workers in this sector has been diminishing. Although agricultural activities have been losing their importance (however, still important) it is still valid that sphere of agriculture in the economies of Middle East has been major contribution to regional economic growth. The decrease the share of water in the agricultural production water means less dependency on agriculture (so water supply) for economic growth and political and social stability from the perspective of international relations. Because having instable relations with neighboring countries or relations with other states is not profitable.  However, in domestic affairs the picture is quiet different, quality and quantity of water determine the situations within the society. The West Bank case reflects this idea very well. Occupation of West Bank by Israel and discriminatory water systems applied on Palestinians led to conflicts within the society. Waters can be stolen from the pipe lines they can harm the system; thus, water resources get more deteriorated. As a result of all, water related diseases may occur and among the people who have good quality of water supplies and have not it is highly possible to have skirmishes.

 

Since liberal political economists are proponent of integration of international food trade we can clearly conclude that their main attitude towards cooperation is quite optimistic. Because in order to make international trade it is needed to create interdependency. Thus, this interdependency can promote cooperative actions. Maybe it is possible to say that after 1990s the cooperative actions have taken place due to the clear increasing interdependency so third party mediation. On the other hand, Marxist view towards water is quiet realistic since the current picture justifies their idea which is that water is more likely to cause local conflicts.

 

This school of thought has come out during the post- cold war period. It is a combination of realism and liberalism leading figures of this thought R.O. Keohane, J.S Nye, S.D Krasner, J.G Stein. Neo-liberals accept the basic assumptions of realism and liberalism which are anarchical international system, states being main actors, national-interested states, survival, and security dilemma. However, neo-liberals reject the idea of cooperation being unlikely in the international system. According to them, except for zero-sum game, states are willing to not only cooperate but also coordinate on the specific issues (especially on economic matters) through international institutions, regimes, norms. These international institutions are created by sovereign states who shares common interests. Presence of this kind of institutions tries to solve conflicts arisen out between countries, increase the exchange of information on the specific issues, and enhance the coordination. According to neo- liberal thoughts through international regimes, institutions, norms it is easier than the time of cold war to predict the state’s possible behavior on the common subjects.

Institutions can create common points among states and help for efficient and effective management of water resources. Realists see the water very much important because of its potential to generate conflict; however, neo-liberal institutionalists claim that water should be regarded as an economic matter. From the perspective of liberal institutionalists conflict over water does not bring about armed skirmishes but it can be the major reason of creation of cooperation and political confrontations. (Kibaroğlu,2002). Water wars are unlikely in the region in the minds of liberal institutionalists. The core of water crisis in the MENA regions is arisen from inefficient national water-planning policy. On the other hand, they refute the idea comes from realists that upstream countries or headwater countries are only hegemony who can take unilateral action without any permission from other downstream countries. This does not reflect the reality since it does not take into account interdependency arisen from the complex economic and political relationships on the ground of neo-liberals. Institutionalists underlined that there is increasing willingness in the transboundary river basins -after the collapse of Soviet Union- to cooperate on the exchange of hydrological data, studies of flood and drought, establishment of common hydroelectric and water recovery ventures. 

While there are similarities between neo-liberal institutionalists and liberal political economists, each also criticizes in terms of different conditions. Institutionalists main aim to promote institutionalised patterns of behaviour among the riparians of the disputed river. Notwithstanding, political economists see institutions as a necessary but not sufficient condition to be remedy for water-related crisis.(Kibaroglu, 2002)

 

Water is crucially important not only for people’s life but also continuation of state presence. From this perspective this paper analyzed that does water really produce cooperative or conflictual outcomes? With three different IR approaches. 

According to my point of view realists who support water war literature is quite right. Because, current dominant order is realist oriented. We can clearly see that whereever there is interest of one state it acts for promoting its profits. Especially, the places; namely MENA region, where suffer supply and demand sided water scarcities water is highly possible to cause in conflicts. The reason behind the Six Days War can be clearly seen the within the outcomes of war (basically, taking control of majority of water resources). However, since states always pursue their interest they sometimes enter into cooperative relations with other states. The aim is always to enhance their gains. 1990s show that Israel was ready to make treaties with Jordan and Palestinians but not to develop opposite side but to find solutions for only State of Israel. The debate on whether the Middle East Peace Process and its “alleged useful treaties” are effective or not, can be another topic for article. On the other hand, although I do not believe in that as Jan Selby claimed water and agriculture are losing its importance I very much advocate that water can be reason of local conflicts within the same societies that is also alleged by Selby. However, “virtual water”, asserted by Liberal Political Economists, is also very much controversial for Middle Eastern societies from my perspective. Because if the developing middle eastern states engage in intensive international food trade it will create very much dependency to exporting countries which will be very much destructive for importing countries. Also, without agricultural production MENA region countries cannot acquire profits to develop themselves since there is no enough capital to promote the other sectors. This will create further problems in the region. As a result water can cause not only establishment of cooperative inititiatives but also conflicts among states.

 

 

[1] OECD, Development Assistance Committee. (2005). Water and Violent Conflict Retrieved from http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/

pdfs/052605waterconflict.pdf.

[2] Kibaroğlu, Ayşegül. (2007). Politics of Water Resources in the Jordan, Nile, and Tigris-Euphrates: Three River Basins, Three Narratives. Perceptions, 12, 143-164.

[3] Stockholm Environment Institute, (1997). Comprehensive Assessment of the Fresh-Water Resources of the World Retrieved from http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/2006/c_l_and

_w_bureau/01_worldwater/images/c_001_1_zu.gif

[4] Nielsen, Ole. (2009, MArch 21). Rivers run dry and the dead sea dies [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://my.opera.com/nielsol/

blog/2009/03/21/rivers-run-dry-and-the-dead-sea-dies

[5] Lowi, Miriam. (1994). Water and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[6] Morgenthau, Hans. (1966). Politics among nations. Newyork.

[7] Barnaby, Wendy. (2009). Do Nations Go to War Over Water? Nature, Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/

v458/n7236/full/458282a.html#References

[8] Myers, Norman. (1993). Ultimate Security: Environmental Basis of Political Stability . New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

[9] Homer-Dixon, Thomas. (1994). Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press.

[10] Selby, Jan.(2005). “The Geopolitics of Water in the  Middle East: Fantasies and Realities”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.2, pp 329-340.

[11] Brecher, M. , Wilkenfeld, J. (1997). A study of Crisis,  Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

[12] Aaron T., Wolf. (1999) “Criteria for Equitable Allocations: The Heart of International Water Conflict”.

[13] Nachmani, Amikam (1997), 'Water Jitters in the Middle East', Studies in Conflict and Terrorism,Vol.20, No.l, pp.67-93.

[14] Ayşegül Kibaroğlu ve Vakur Sümer. (2007) “Sınıraşan Nehirlerdeki Su Uyuşmazlıklarına Farklı Yaklaşımlar: Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplini Ne Sunabilir?” Uluslararası İlişkiler Akademik Dergi, Cilt 3, Sayı 12, ss. 21-48.

[15] Selby, Jan.(2005). “The Geopolitics of Water in the Middle East: Fantasies and Realities”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.2, pp 329-340.