Transboundary water interaction II: the influence of ‘soft’ power

Abstract

This paper seeks to broaden the analysis of transboundary water interaction, by examining and interpreting the influence of 'soft' power therein. The 'soft' power of persuasion is understood to be exercised through discursive and to a lesser extent ideational means, and is interpreted in terms of compliance related to distributive (conflictual) or integrative (consensual) ends (after Scott (1994)). The focus is on inter-state water conflicts in hegemonic political contexts, where, it is found, the 'first among equals' has a greater ability to exploit 'soft' power and to determine the outcome. 'Soft' power is also seen to influence the choices states make or avoid in their transboundary water interaction, which explains in part how treaties intending to manage conflict may in fact delay or perpetuate it. For example, 'soft' power can be used by the basin hegemon to frame inequitable forms of cooperation in a cooperative light, such that unfair and ultimately unsustainable transboundary arrangements are replicated by the international donor community. Non-hegemonic riparian states also employ their capacity of 'soft' power, though may find themselves with little choice other than to comply with the arrangement established by the basin hegemon. The findings stress the importance of analysts questioning claims of interaction promoted as 'cooperative', and of examining the 'soft' power plays that underlie all transboundary water arrangements. Exemplification is provided through transboundary river basins and aquifers around the globe.

Flows of change: dynamic water rights and water access in peri-urban Kathmandu

“…Each case represents a key dimension of waterrelated changes: the first concerns developments around a canal irrigation system (kulo) in Dadhikot; the second looks into increasing groundwater exploitation in Jhaukhel. These are In the study of "water conflicts" more specifically, attention shifted from "water wars" (conspicuously absent) to local water conflicts, which are abounding (Wolf 2007, Joy et al 2008, and from the conflict-cooperation dichotomy and the assumption of their being mutually exclusive (Zeitoun et al 2011). Further, a critical perspective of water scarcity as socially and politically produced rather than "natural," and an understanding of how scarcities are locally experienced and lived with are crucial in understanding water conflicts (Mehta 2007).…”

Powering or sharing water in the Brahmaputra River basin

“…This soft dimension of power creates a situation where inequitable or unsustainable water allocation arrangements are undisputed; they seem to represent a cooperative riparian relationship (Zeitoun, Mirumachi, & Warner, 2011).…”

“…The greater the symmetry in power, the better will be the outcome (equitable and sustainable) of transboundary negotiations. But, again, the effectiveness of strategies to confront power asymmetries varies from basin to basin (Zeitoun et al, 2011).…”

Where is the power? Transnational networks, authority and the dispute over the Xayaburi Dam on the Lower Mekong Mainstream

“…In their article on hydro-hegemony, Zeitoun and Warner (2006) (and later Zeitoun and Allan 2008;Zeitoun et al 2011) systematize the role of power in transboundary water relations by identifying strategies a hegemonic country can devise in order to realize its policy goals. However, while advancing the power-based analysis of transboundary water politics, the hydro-hegemony framework leaves the state as a black box, with imprecise analysis of how power works and taking preferences for granted.…”