Acceso usuarios
Juan Erardo Battaleme Martínez
La idea del agua como recurso natural estratégico de la política internacional no es nueva, sin embargo, desde la primera década del corriente siglo el acceso a la misma ha cobrado especial intensidad. Por ello, el presente artículo pone en valor la idea del agua como recurso mediante el uso del concepto de hidropolítica, que separa al mito de las llamadas guerras por el agua de la realidad geopolítica que lo trasunta. Al enfatizar en la dinámica conflictiva, y en especial en la aspiración de las grandes potencias para hacerse del recurso, queda marginada la discusión más apremiante —al entender del autor— que es identificar cómo el recurso afecta a los procesos de la política regional y global de manera diferenciada a partir de ponderaciones completamente distintas entre los actores que tienen algún interés en este recurso. Siguiendo las premisas del realismo, existe una mayor probabilidad de que se produzcan conflictos en torno al agua a partir de su uso compartido que por la intervención directa de un actor extra regional para tomar el control de la misma. En efecto, este artículo tiene por objetivo discutir cuándo un recurso natural estratégico es considerado como un factor de conflicto armado, ya sea inter o intra estatal, para luego trasladar ese debate a la hidropolítica y comprobar si su importancia relativa hace o no que la dinámica que gira en torno a ella sea diferente a la existente alrededor de otros recursos.
En este sentido, esperamos demostrar al menos en las discusiones existentes y con la evidencia que muestra el relevamiento sobre lo reflexionado que, en relación al agua, la potencialidad existente por los juegos de suma cero parece ceder su lugar a construir regímenes internacionales que administren o encapsulen al conflicto. Si en un periodo determinado aparecen lecturas o percepciones que hacen temer por un futuro donde la escasez provoque conflictos, el cambio tecnológico y la arquitectura institucional permiten contemplar un espacio para la resolución de las divergencias que puedan surgir sin que la sangre llegue al río.
Are we close to facing 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 the unequal distribution of the resource, will create conditions and pressures that shape perceptions and will eventually affect 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 must be aware that they present different dynamics, affecting in different ways the political behavior of actors related to specific resources. War is not necessarily a consequence of resource necessity and access problems; 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, technological change and the capacity to create institutional ways to regulate its use, we can avoid the worst consequences of the scramble for resources. And even if access and necessity could be the causes of conflict, we will also find its roots in another parts of the dynamics of rivalries, as the conflict for the Golan Heights shows.
The present work tries to put into 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, what their role in geopolitical terms is, and 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 these issues, but in the case of water, perspectives can be a little bit different.
We should consider Hydropolitics as a topic within the geopolitical field of studies. In that sense, it shows how different the dynamics around water are, and even if many conflicts of interest surround it, most of the time political action 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 surrounding war over water, which acts as a political barrier most of the time, meaning they are able to prevent it.
The objectives of the present article are twofold, and they are interrelated. The first one is to advance the discussion around natural resources and how they become a problem that could lead to war. Geopolitics and Realist Theory are the best tools to obtain a comprehensive picture of how these resources become factors in war. We can thus tackle the issue of war for water, which is different from a conflict over water as such. When we look at security considerations, realism believes that resources are a contributing factor to the balance of power, but also that they do not affect the security problematic. When we look at the accumulative power of water as a resource, we will find it to be “neutral” in the sense that does not affect the fragile balance of power among potential rivals.
The second objective of the article is different, but related. 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. At the same time, however, it does not push to resolve the situation violently, through for instance interstate conflict. Conflict around the resource is a little bit more intense when we look at specific countries, but the differences in how this are solved stem from state capacity. If in an interstate conflict its accumulation is neutral, in an internal conflict the accumulation power could be positive or negative, affecting the internal balance and creating more space for internal war.
As a methodology, we use a descriptive and qualitative analysis of previously published work with the recent data around the issue to create a lucid and differentiated view when we discuss war over water resources. Water is not the best example to support 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 insights we extract here do not lead to a liberal approach to water governance. A realist approach to finite cooperation is more useful to maintain stability. Water is strategic and related to territoriality, so identity considerations apply to hydropolitics, meaning that states are important stakeholders in this issue.
Nevertheless, we could think that some tension would arise between neighbors who share water resources. It is much more difficult, however, for a great power to take steps towards war over water. If they need it, they can pay for access to it. Even so, internally, the states could face conflicts around the resource. This difference is significant because we spend too much time talking and thinking about the international dimension of the problem when we should look at the internal dimension of it. With this in mind, the international discussion around water will be different and possibly better. Consider, for example, water contamination as a result of corporate activities. Neighbor states create a regime to overlook how, when, and to what degree they pollute the shared resource. They establish limits around the river and coastal activities, they enforce it, and they get 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 side We will divide the following article into three short and related discussions. The first part puts into perspective the discussion around conflict and resources, giving water the specific place that it deserves. The second part revolves around the geopolitics of location, whereby availability and scarcity are at the center of the discussion. Within this section, we will take a hydropolitics perspective to talk about the use of water. This is important because we will end our discussion looking at the differences between this resource and 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 of resource competition.
