November 5  Example answers


2. Aaron Wolf claims, "War over water seems neither strategically rational, hydrographically e€ective, nor economically viable."  By what reasoning does he support this claim?

A. (M.R.) Strategically ,it is not rational because the only way it makes sense is if a downstream retional hegemon attacks an upstream state.  (I think he pointed out that a downstream regional hegemon doesn't exist.)  Another possibility would have to be an upstream state provoking a downstream state into attacking.  Again, this isn't probable since the downstream state would have to consider its inferior place in the region.  A third option is a downstream power attacking an upstream project.  This would not result well.  if it attacked, for instance a dam, the water would come flooding towards them.
Hydrographically this isn't possible.  Of the 200+ international wtaersheds only a few are in a region where armed conflict might arise.  And of those areas there are treaties in place or the countriees are in the process of negotiating a treaty.
Economically, war is expensive.  A quote that he used (paraphrased) states that 7 days of war could build 5 desalination plants, without the loss of life, international pressure, and it would not be in hostile territory.

B. (T.F.) One of World's main  reasons is based on the stragetic and economical bases.  If a country were to wage war on antoher it would need to be a regional hegemon, and its opponent wouldhave to be upstreat and much weaker.  Wolf also added that such a war would be economically stupid, for the price of a war desalinization plants or other means of g aining water would be cheaper, more effective and not involved the loss of life.  The war would also include necessary occupation of the upstream locale.  Wolf's final point is that water tends ot be a peaceful lcommodity, one that does not incite war but encourages communal cooperation.  With this he proposes that cooperation is more strategically viable than war.