A potentially severe problem is emerging in the Middle East—the threat of major water shortages. This developing issue is likely to exacerbate already strained relations between states in the region. A number of aspects of this crisis can be illustrated through an examination of one river system, the Jordan. Proceeding from this example, the first steps can be taken toward an effective theory of issues and water conflicts. Application of this theoretical framework reveals that the water issue means different things to different actors. Water is a highly complex, fragmented issue, which possesses special qualities that distinguish it from other foreign relations determinants. While water is not usually an issue to some actors, under conditions of severe shortage it is highly conflict-prone. Yet the water issue paradoxically is also a possibly unique vehicle for cooperation if the parties view that as the only possible solution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. For a fuller exposition, see Thomas Naff and Ruth C. Matson, eds., Water in the Middle East: Conflict or Cooperation? (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984).
2.
2, See, e.g., John K. Cooley, “The War over Water,”Foreign Policy, 54: 3-26 (Spring 1984); Joe Stork, “Water and Israel's Occupation Strategy,”MERIP Reports, 13(6): 19-24 (1983); and Thomas Stauffer, “The Price of Peace, the Spoils of War,”American-Arab Affairs, 1:43-54 (1982).
3.
3. Naff and Matson, eds., Water in the Middle East, pp. 1-15, 158-180.
4.
4. Muzafer Sherif, “Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict,”American Journal of Sociology, 63(4): 349-356 (Jan. 1958).
5.
Uri Davis , E. I. Antonia, and John Richardson, “Israel's Water Policies,”Journal of Palestine Studies, 9(2): 1-27 (Winter 1980); Itzhak Galnoor, “Water Policymaking in Israel,”Policy Analysis, 4: 339-344, 354 (1978); and Leslie Schmida, “Israel's Drive for Water,”Link, 17(4): 1-2 (Nov. 1984).
6.
6. Haaretz, 10 Nov. 1983; ibid., 19 Feb. 1984; Maariv, 21 Dec. 1983; Davar, 15 Dec. 1983; Aldustur, 6 Mar. 1984; ibid., 8 Mar. 1984; ibid., 17 June 1984; Jerusalem Post, 1 Mar. 1984.
7.
According to a 1983 report by the Middle East Institute, Washington, DC, Jordan is critically dependent on so few water facilities that “four successful Israeli air raids would cripple its economy.”Christian Science Monitor, 25 May 1983.
8.
The Israeli government's view of these policies is illustrated in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Briefing (Jerusalem: Government of Israel, 14 Feb. 1982).
9.
9. Naff and Matson, eds., Water in the Middle East, pp. 30-53, contains a fuller examination of the various plans for the Jordan River system and the policies of the riparian states.
10.
10. Seymour Martin Lipset, “Whatever Happened to the Proletariat?”Encounter, 56: 18-34, esp. 24-30 (June 1981).
11.
and Roy Forward, “Issue Analysis in Community Power Studies,”Australian Journal of Politics and History, 15: 26-44 (Dec. 1969).
12.
and William C. Potter and Joel King, “Issue Area and the Comparative Study of Foreign Policy: An Empirical Approach” (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, 18-20Mar. 1976).
13.
idem , “Making Democracy Safe for the World: National Politics,” in Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, ed. Rosenau, pp. 285-331.
14.
14. On the semantic differential, see Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957). The adjectival scales—e.g., routine to crisis—presented here are mixed in directionality, as presented to respondents. Factor analysis might reveal more basic groupings of scales, such as the well-established factors of evaluation, power, and activity. However, for issue analysis, particular dimensions—or scales—will probably also retain their individual significance.
15.
and Potter and King, “Issue Area and the Comparative Study of Foreign Policy,” pp. 15ff.
16.
16. The critical distinction here is that between an issue and a situation, a distinction generally and unfortunately confused in most analyses. The former is, by definition, a psychological variable; the latter is any set of circumstances that an actor may perceive. A situation becomes an issue for an actor if and only if that actor perceives it to involve blockage of felt interests by another actor. Situations may sometimes have the inherent properties that certain analysts mistakenly suggest for issues, although the idea raises difficult philosophic questions. Issues, however, are always determined by the perceiver, and the same situation may generate quite different perceptions—and therefore different likelihoods of being an issue—for various actors. The general relationships between situations and issues are a crucial concern of cognitive political psychology. When we say that patterns of power vary from issue to issue we actually mean from situation to situation and assume—often wrongly—that issues vary correspondingly.
17.
17. Robert Axelrod, Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976).
18.
18. Itzhak Galnoor, “Water Policymaking in Israel,” pp. 339-365.
19.
quoting from Divrei Ha-knesset [Official records of the Knesset], 17: 495 (3 Jan. 1955).
20.
20. A. H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954), pp. 80-122. Maslow's classic work distinguishes concentric levels of motivation. From inner to outer these are: physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness and love, esteem, and self-actualization. If the inner needs are satisfied, the outer needs dominate behavior; if the inner needs are not satisfied, they dominate.
21.
21. The discussion in this section of this article borrows from, and is somewhat more fully developed in, Naff and Matson, eds., Water in the Middle East, pp. 192-195.
22.
Jerusalem Post, 16 Oct. 1982; ibid., 13 Feb. 1983; ibid., 22 July 1984; ibid., 12 Aug. 1984.
23.
23. For the notion of projected power, see W. Scott Thompson, Power Projection: A Net Assessment of U.S. and Soviet Capabilities (New York: National Strategy Information Center, 1978).
