To What Extent Are Resource Conflicts over Oil and over Water Comparable or Dissimilar - Case Study Example

To what extent are resource conflicts over oil and over water comparable or dissimilar Introduction Many wars fought in history, especially in the Middle East, were over oil (Pelletiere, 2004). But once, alternative energy sources like bio-diesel and ethanol were invented, the hunt for oil got slowed down. Now, apparently, it is the water conflicts, which are supposed to become the cause of new wars in the world (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.20; Starr, 1991, p.19). It is a fact that water scarcity is increasing day by day. For oil, there are available substitutes while for water, there are none so far (Simon, 2001, A17). Phenomena like global warming have raised alarm about an impending depletion of existing water sources (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.3). The rate of contamination of the fresh water now is the highest in history (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.133). Hence the hypothesis of future water wars has gained many takers among, international observers, politicians and even social scientists, who lead the international water discourses (Selby, 2005, p.200-201). 2. Politics of Resource Wars In line with the thesis of oil and water wars, it is generalized that environmental scarcity is triggering, and will trigger, all the major conflicts in the present and in the future (Homer-Dixon, 2001, p.177). Such an assumption is bound to have serious political implications. Major one is, the nations adopting the practice of correlating environmental security with national security (Floyd, 2008, p.51-53). For example, the United States has already linked its national security paradigm with environmental security (Floyd, 2008, p.53). Such a scenario, if emulated by other nations also, can eventually lead to environmental wars being fought with weapons, just like political wars. It is at such a crossroads that this investigation intents to explore the similarities and dissimilarities between conflicts over water and conflicts over oil so as to understand in what direction, resource conflicts are moving. 3. History and background Any theoretical exercise in relation to valuable natural resources has to begin from the premise that there is a “wide disparity in the consumption patterns between developed and developing countries” (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.2). The main feature of this disparity has been that developed world is marked by “overconsumption” of resources, including water (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.2). 3.1. History of Water Wars In contradiction to the over-consumption of resources by developed nations, it is revealed, “one billion people in low- and middle-income countries lack access to safe water for drinking” (Mullerat, 2009, p.197). It is also a fact that “80% of all diseases and over one third of deaths in developing countries are caused by the consumption of contaminated water” (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.11). To put this whole scenario in simple words, developed countries have less water (because of urbanization) but they over-consume, while the developing countries have more water but it is contaminated or inaccessible to the low- and middle-income groups. Another important point to note is that water is not just a resource that is necessary for humans to exist, but also is a resource that has become “the basis for development” (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.11). Now, if we look into the major water wars that have raged in the past and the present, the Palestine-Israel conflict, The Indo-Pak Siachen Glacier conflict, the Iraq-Syria standoff of 1975, the Turkey-Syria impasse of 1989, conflicts among the “ten riparian states of the Nile river”, and the Texas-Mexico conflict of 1992 come to the fore (Starr, 1991; Nolan, 1994, p.465; Johnson and Turner, 2009, p.459; Wolf, 1998, p.251). All these disputes had erupted based on the water needs and developmental aspirations of the involved nations. No direct corporate involvement was visible in any of these conflicts. But now the picture is slightly changing as local water conflicts have been emerging between big industrial corporations including multinationals, and the local communities. An example is the protest that happened in Plachimada, a small hamlet of south India, against the bottling plant of Coca-Cola, which was causing water scarcity in the area (Johnson and Turner, 2009, p.459). By 2006, all the Coca-Cola products had been officially banned in this locality and by 2010, the bottling plant had to be closed down (Johnson and Turner, 2009, p.459). Coca- Cola was also alleged to be causing water shortage and contamination in El Salvador (Johnson and Turner, 2009, p.459). 3.1.1. Commodification of Water Conflicts arise from the realization that water is no more a free gift of nature to humans. It has now become a saleable thing, and the private property of humans alone. This is part of a major paradigm shift in the perception about natural resources. The global water business has been born out of this changing paradigm. It is now dominated by three corporate companies, Suez, Veolia and RWE and as a culmination of the corporatization of water as a commodity, they have plans to sell their “water assets” even (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox, 2007, p.8). All these instances are signs of water becoming a commodity rather than a common resource for all. This is the real connection with water, and the current notions of development promoted by globalization. The disparity in access to water discussed in the beginning of this essay and this connection of water with so-called development, are the two key factors that impart a political dimension to water conflicts. 3.2. History of Oil Wars When it comes to the international dynamics of oil as a resource, the backdrop is different. The major oil producing and exporting nations of the world are situated in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America (OPEC, 2011). On the other hand, the most developed countries like the US and the European countries have only meager oil resources of their own. But until the 1960s, these nations had commanded the oil fields of the world through their corporate companies, which flourished under colonial rule (OPEC, 2011). In 1960, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries was formed, at the dawn of de-colonialization of the world, and at the instance of securing the oil sovereignty of the major oil producing nations from the clutches of colonial multinational companies, called, the “seven sisters” (OPEC, 2011). 3.2.1. Oil wars and the US involvement These oil companies were “an important vehicle of U.S. foreign policy” (Ridgeway, 2004, p.16). When the Iranian nationalist government nationalized the “assets of the Anglo-Iranian oil company” in 1951, America despised its loosing ground over the oil “jackpot” (Ridgeway, 2004, p.16). Hence, the US staged a coup using CIA in Iran (Ridgeway, 2004, p.16). But America could not retain its oil concessions for long by this and eventually the Iranian Parliament amended the laws in favor of national interests (Ridgeway, 2004, p.17). This was the beginning of a tussle between the oil producing countries and the US. Consequently, it was the establishment of oil import quotas by the US in order “to keep out foreign oil” that later resulted in an economic crisis in the Middle East. And it was this crisis that became the underlying cause of the wars which were called, oil wars (Pelletiere, 2004). In the 1970s, the cards had turned and “OPEC countries combined in a boycott that strangled the US economy” (Ridgeway, 2004, p.17). And the US was waiting for the right opportunity to regain its control over oil. The major oil conflicts of the world had its origins in the 1990s and one theory is that when hostilities emerged among OPEC nations in this period, the US started manipulating those conflicts to further its oil interests (Pelletiere, 2004, p.2). Pelletiere (2004) has also reminded that initially though the conflicts in the Middle East were of a religious nature, there had been a role for America to play in escalating the situation (p.2). But the beginning of the unrest has been attributed to the international economic crisis and the consequent fall in oil prices that resulted in growing unemployment among the youth in the Middle East (Pelletiere, 2004, p.2). The Iran-Iraq war, the Kuwait-Iraq war, and the second Iraq war directly waged by America, followed. Now, in the aftermath of a series of Middle Eastern wars, “the control of Iraqi oil… (has opened up)…a larger reservoir of oil for the United States” (Ridgeway, 2004, p.17). As a result, the United States has become “a major counterweight to OPEC” in the international oil market” (Ridgeway, 2004, p.17). From the above discussion, it is evident that the major factor that precipitated the oil conflict had been the corporate interests of the developed world. 4. Emerging Patterns in Oil and Water Wars: community versus corporatism The basic differences between oil conflicts and water conflicts are clear in the above discussion. While the disparity in water access, and the role of water as a ‘development’ agent are important in water conflicts, it is the corporate interests of the developed countries that govern oil conflicts. But the recent development of commodification of water is bringing water to a position at par with oil, politically. And this is why water is called, “the oil of the 21st century” (Joshi and Kapadia, 2010, p.92). Resource-conflicts over water and oil have become similar to such an extent that in both, the livelihood of the real owners of the land- the community- has been largely ignored and the corporate interests are allowed to take advantage. But they differ in that in water conflicts, at least some of the clashes had been between equal stakeholders but in all oil conflicts, it was always the corporate industry that commanded the situation. The scenario is changing, indicating that the real conflict will be between the community and the big corporate houses or between the nations and the multinationals (supported clandestinely by developed countries like the US). 4.1. Water corporatization or water wars? Happenings suggestive of a change in perception are seen everywhere. The corporate companies, Halliburton and Bechtel were awarded “big contracts in occupied Iraq in 2003…to fix and run Iraq’s ruined water systems” (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox, 2007, p.8). Here the right of the Iraqi community over its natural resource is handed over to a foreign company, that too by an invading nation. There are also instances when the democratic government of a nation hands over the right over its water resources to a private entity. For example, in India, the state of Chattisgargh officially had decided to give away a stretch of the river, Sheonath, to a private company in 2007, an attempt, which was thwarted by public outrage (Putul, February 2008). Corporatization is indeed giving a new dimension to the water issues. But the power centers of the world have still been conveniently holding on to the water war hypothesis. In the “mid-1980s, (the) US government intelligence services estimated that there were at least 10 places in the world, where war could break out over dwindling shared water- the majority in the Middle East” (Starr, 1991, p.17). A set of officially published research findings indicated that “Algeria, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Tunisia, and Yemen are already facing a "water barrier" requiring accelerated efforts, investments, regulations, and controls just to keep apace of spiraling populations” and diminishing water resources (Starr, 1991, p.17). World Bank had also observed, “the Middle East has the highest median cost of water supply and sanitation in the world” (qtd. in Starr, 1991, p.18). But all these observations are extremely cautious not to stray into the corporate versus community equation of water conflicts and tries to posit water issues as inter-state conflicts only. 4.2. Resource securitization or desecuritization? As described in the beginning of this essay, a niche has already been carved in the environment topic for the military. The wars that the US has waged in the Middle East are already called oil wars by many (Pelletiere, 2004). But in the future, if environmental security becomes a matter of national security, any resource war could become military-supported. In this context, sociologists have refuted the theorization of water as a security issue (Hartmann, 1998; Floyd, 2008). The very terminology of water security is being questioned. Political ecologists argue that the notion of scarcity is faulty as it ignores the issue of “social distribution of resources” (Hartmann, 117). The scarcity approach has also been criticized for being “human-centric” (Floyd, 57). Another interesting position taken has been that securitization is just a prologue to reinforce the rights of certain individuals and groups to take certain extraordinary actions in the name of averting or opposing a threat (qtd. in Floyd, 58). This could result in authoritarian and undemocratic actions. Desecuritization is put forth as an alternative to securitization and is defined as a state in which there is not a need for security at all (qtd. in Floyd, 58). Desecuritization is envisaged here, as a situation in which, there is democratic sharing and conservation by the community- the real stakeholders- of all natural resources (qtd. in Floyd, 58). 4.3. Water: through conflict or through sharing? It is opined that the democratization process of this whole discourse should go along with the proposal for the creation of innovative water-sharing arrangements both in the community-versus-development situation and in the nation-versus-nation situation (Joshi and Kapadia, 2010). But it is also demanded that, “a water-sharing rationale based merely on the argument for the “life-sustaining value” of water may not yield workable treaties and, apart from drinking needs, water, although a flowing resource, may be required to be shared on the basis of economic principles” (Joshi and Kapadia, 2010, p.92). The opposite position of this argument will be that “access to safe and sufficient water is a human right under international law” (Joshi and Kapadia, 2010, p.94). The balance that has to be created between these two approaches makes water conflicts a more complex issue than oil conflicts. 5. Water and Oil: Management Issues There are some other basic premises in which water differs from oil. For example, one difference is that “water is mobile” and “recyclable” while oil is not (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.17). The mobility of water is along “restricted and predictable pathways” (Young, Dooge and Rodda, 1994, p.17). Water is evaporated into the atmosphere and come back to earth as rain. But the rainfall and evaporation rates are almost constant for different places. In the context of global warming, a percentage of this predictability is found to be lost also. Another dimension of this mobility is that water is a “flowing resource” that moves beyond political boundaries (Joshi and Kapadia, 2010, p.92). Upstream and downstream nations of a river will face disparity in their access to the water of the same river and also in the quality of the water that they receive. The magnitude of this aspect of water management is evident when we see that “more than 200 river systems are shared by two or more countries” (Toset, Gleditsch and Hegre, 2000, p.971). All these make resolving of water conflicts a very difficult venture as compared to oil conflicts. 5.1. Renewable or Non-renewable? A hope-giving aspect of water as compared to oil is that water under proper management could be partially replenished. It is a known fact that methods like rainwater harvesting, forest conservation, planting of trees, steps to control global warming, soil conservation measures etc. can make a positive impact on the quantity of fresh water available in a particular locality. Another ray of hope in the horizon, which again proves that water is a renewable resource unlike oil, is the technology for desalination of seawater. If this possibility is taken into account, the alarm raised about depleting fresh water resources could be written off as a false threat. But desalination of seawater will only solve the problem from the angle of the immediate survival of humans. The long-term impact of depletion of fresh water resources is bound to question the livelihood of humans by affecting the food chain. 6. Water wars? No, Water Sharing? Yes. In this backdrop and in view of the manifold possibilities that exist for peaceful water-sharing, researchers have contested the theory of water wars and have replaced it with models of water-sharing (Wolf, 1998). To reach at this alternative point of view, Wolf (1998) has first summarized the political underpinnings of water in its totality as given below: International water …(is).. a critical, non-substitutable resource, which flows and fluctuates across time and space, for which legal principles are vague and contradictory, and which is becoming relatively more scarce with every quantum of growth in population or standard of living (p.252). After summing up the causes of water wars like this, Wolf (1998) has refuted them by saying that no major armed conflict had been reported between nations in any of the important international water disputes and whatever violent water conflicts that had been reported, happened inside nations between different interest groups (p.255-56). Wolf (1998) has also drawn attention to the fact that there had only seven noticeable “skirmishes …been waged over international waters” while around “3,600 treaties have been signed historically over” water-sharing between nation states (p.256). The third argument put forth by Wolf (1998) against the concept of water wars is that a water war is not strategically and geographically possible in majority of instances because of the downstream-upstream positions of the nations (p.257). Finally, it is also pointed out that working out water sharing agreements imbibes less cost than waging a water war (Wolf, 1998, p.258). 7. The Enemy Inside These arguments have been gaining acceptance in the current discourses on water conflicts. But once the possibility of inter-state water wars is theoretically ruled out, the logic of putting water conflicts at par with oil conflicts may seem to end. But this is not the case. The observation made by Wolf (1998) that water-conflicts have more often happened inside nation states between different interest groups, is a notable proposition. This is also in agreement with the community versus corporate conflict of water that this author has pointed to, in the discussion above. Hence it can be more realistically concluded that though water has become a commodity at par with oil, water conflicts do not have the same dimensions of oil conflicts. In the case of water, the major stakeholder being the community, the conflict transforms into a clash between community and private entities or even community and the government. An inter-state conflict is only rarely probable. This is not to forget that certain oil conflicts have also witnessed community-versus- multinationals and community-versus-government equations. For example, in the Niger delta, the village people fought the oil companies to prevent their mega-scale oil extraction exercises, which was destroying the natural environment and the livelihood of the people (Frynas, 2000, p.1). The fight of the Ogony people against the Shell oil company thus became a legacy on its own, inspiring community movements against corporate giants, all over the world (Frynas, 2000, p.1). In this case, oil conflict achieved a dimension similar to water conflict but yet a notable difference is also there. In a community level water conflict, the protest is against taking water away, but in a similar oil conflict, the objection will be against the total environmental degradation being caused, than particularly against the oil extraction. But there is also a possibility in the future that the pollution caused by vast oil fields will be taken up by the local people as Ogony people did. This is a possibility indeed in the backdrop of rising environmental awareness all over the world. 8. Hopes for Future A “cooperation scenario” has also been emerging in both oil sharing (in the form of OPEC) and in water sharing (riparian agreements) (Toset, Gleditsch and Hegre, 2000, 976). This is largely at inter-state level. But the real political economy of oil has been playing up now at intra-state level, by becoming the “motor of industrial production and mass consumer capitalist societies”, “an inaccessible and unevenly distributed non-renewable resource”, “a strategic commodity and foreign policy concern for core capitalist power”, and an “oligopolistically organized and multinational corporation-dominated industry that generates extraordinary profits for companies and producer states.” (Selby, 2005, p.204). But the political economy of water as compared to this is very negligible, according to Selby (2005, p.204). He (Selby, 2005) has supported this by saying, water is “much less important as an input into industrial production and consumption”, is “a plentiful and relatively widely distributed renewable resource”, is “not a strategic resource or foreign policy concern for major capitalist powers”, the water industry is “generally organized until recently through public monopolies”, water industry is “not conducive to international monopoly or high profit rates”, and the profits from water industry are “unlikely to be a significant input into either economic development or state-building” (p.204). This argument also refutes a possibility of future water wars in the model of oil wars. 9. The US Scene At intra-state level, the conflicts are worsening as is seen in the United States itself. The supply of drinking water to the people by the government was started in the US as early as in the beginning of 20th century (Ridgeway, 2004, p.1). This was implemented by taking over the rights over water sources from private entities (Ridgeway, 2004, p.1). But the contradiction of history has been that once again, the water sources of US have come under the control of private corporate companies. And even the municipality water supplies that remain are getting polluted by industrial waste, produced by corporate houses (Ridgeway, 2004, p.2). On the other hand, community level conflicts have been emerging in US for the rights over water. For example, the Native Americans have raised their voices to assert their rights over water (Weinberg, 1997, p.8). There are also conflicts existing “between agricultural, urban, environmental and tribal uses of water” in the US (Weinberg, 1997, p.8). California’s central valley that is host to mega water projects has become an environmental hotpot caused by draught and water scarcity (Weinberg, 1997, p.9). Diversion of water into urban use from agrarian use has become a matter of dispute (Ridgeway, 2004, p.9). Another water conflict erupted in the Pacific Northwest “over how to manage the flow of the Columbia and the Snake rivers” (Weinberg, 1997, p.9). There is also water dispute existing between upper river basin and lower river basin of Colorado River (Weinberg, 1997, p.10). All these conflicts have been between the communities and the corporate or government level managers of water. Another curious convergence of water and oil issues can be seen in the United States. The scenario is such that: Because of deregulation in the United States, major oil companies, which also produce most of the world’s natural gas, have gone into the pipeline business, and now are positioning themselves to expand these utility holdings into water and even handling wastewater (Ridgeway, 2004, p.6). The companies that supply water are also preparing to bringing water from “Canada and Alaska to the lower 48 states” by way of supertankers, pipelines and huge water bottles (Ridgeway, 2004, p.6). This may give rise to protests against water exploitation in the countries from where water is being taken. Another alarming fact has been that “these water pipelines would lie close by existing gas and oil pipelines” which increases the danger of contamination (Ridgeway, 2004, p.6). And an offshoot of this new water acquisition strategy will be an increase in the price of water in both domestic and international fields. 10. Conclusion To conclude, the oil conflicts are still fuming on between nations resulting in total environmental and human destruction of the defeated nations. The very sovereignty of nations involved is under question. But the water conflicts, though not visible in such enormous proportions of death and devastation, are creating an equally dangerous situation- the rights of the people over water is being transferred silently into the hands of the multinational companies. The voices of protest are in this case, restricted to localized expressions and suppressed brutally at least in some instances (Selby, 2005, p.221). For example, the farmers of the Yellow river basin of Eastern China were beaten up by the police for protesting against government plan to divert local water to urban and industrial purposes (Selby, 2005, p.221). But the gravity of these local clashes are underestimated and the political underpinnings goes often undetected. It is high time the water wars imposed by the corporate companies on the people are understood at par with the oil wars raged with weapons of mass destruction. This is how both the resource conflicts are to be compared and correlated. References Floyd, R. (2008) The environmental security debate and its significance for climate change, The International Spectator, 43 (3), pp.51-65. Frynas, J.G. (2000) Oil in Nigeria: conflict and litigation between oil companies and village communities, Berlin: LIT Verlag Munster. Hartmann, B. (1998) Population, environment and security: a new trinity, Environment and Urbanisation, Vol.10, No.2. Homer-Dixon, T.F. (2001) Environment, scarcity and violence, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Johnson, D. and Turner, C. (2009) International business: themes and issues in the modern global economy, London: Taylor & Francis. Joshi, M.B. and Kapadia, V.P. (2010) Sharing water in the 21st century: rethinking the rationale?, Irrigation and Drainage, Vol. 59, pp.92-101. Mullerat, R. (2009) International corporate social responsibility: the role of corporations in the economic order of the 21st century, London: Kluwer Law International. Nolan, J.E. (1994) Global engagement: cooperation and security in the 21st century, Washington: Brookings Institution Press. OPEC, (2011) Member countries, www.opec.org, Retrieved 23 May 2011 from http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/17.htm Pelletiere, S.C. (2004) America’s oil wars, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Putul, A.P. (2008) Privatisation unlimited: Rivers for sale in Cahttisgarh, Infochange News and Features, Retrieved 22 May 2011 from http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Privatisation%20unlimited--%20Rivers%20for%20sale%20in%20Chhattisgarh,%20infochange.pdf Ridgeway, J. (2004) Its all for sale: the control of global resources, North Carolina: Duke University Press. Selby, J. (2005) Oil and water: the contrasting anatomies of resource conflicts, Government and Opposition Ltd., Oxford: Blackwell Publishing., pp.200-224. Simon, Paul, (14 August 2001), In an empty cup: a threat to peace, New York Times, p.A17. Snitow, A., Kaufman, D. and Fox, M. (2007) Thirst: fighting the corporate theft of our water, London: John Wiley and Sons. Starr, J. R. (1991) Water wars, Foreign Policy, Vol.82., Spring, pp.17-36. Toset, H.P.W, Gleditsch, N.P. and Hegre, H. (2000) Shared rivers and interstate conflict, Political Geography, Vol.19, pp.971-996. Young, G., Dooge, J. and Rodda, J. (1994) Global water resource issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wolf, A.T. (1998) Conflict and cooperation along international waterways, Water Policy, Vol.1, No.2, pp.251-265. Weinberg, M. (1997) Water use conflicts in the west: implications of reforming the Bureau of Reclamations water supply policies, Darby: DIANE Publishing. Read More