Reconceptualizing hegemony: the circle of hydro-hegemony

This paper proposes a partial reconceptualization and a redesign of the Framework of Hydro-Hegemony, an analytical tool devised to study how power, hegemony, and power asymmetries can influence transboundary water politics. This is done by presenting the original Circle of Hydro-Hegemony (CHH), an analytical framework that places the neo-Gramscian notion of hegemony at the centre of its structure, to illustrate how various forms of power are connective in the function of hegemony. Following a theoretical discussion on how the concepts of power and hegemony can interact, the case of the Aral Sea basin in Central Asia will provide a practical application of the CHH to transboundary water politics

Domestic and international dimensions of transboundary water politics

A considerable amount of research in the field of International Relations (IR) has acknowledged the interplay between domestic politics and foreign policy. Few studies, however, have investigated this phenomenon in the narrower field of transboundary water politics. There is also a general lack of research exploring how the formation of a national identity can overlap with the construction of a large hydraulic infrastructure, and how this can have repercussions at the international level. This paper draws on Robert Putnam’s (1988) two-level game theory to illustrate how the interrelation between the domestic and the international dimensions matters in transboundary water politics. Perspectives from IR, political geography, and water politics serve to present a conceptual framework which is then linked to studies on nationalism. This helps to highlight the analytical relevance of such a perspective to understand the issue of large dams. The paper takes the cases of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia and the Rogun Dam in Tajikistan as examples

The Evolution of Transboundary Water Politics in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria

The program will begin with a public address and keynote lecture by Aysegul Kibaroglu, world expert on Turkish water policy issues and the history of cooperation across political boundaries in the Euphrates-Tigris region. The purpose of this two-day workshop is to uncover the intersections between technical and traditional knowledge bases, and address the misunderstanding that arise due to conflicting epistemic perspectives. The objective of the workshop is to uncover cases in which local wisdom has the potential to aid proper implementation of technical solutions, as well as the pitfalls that should be avoided. Current issues, such as the impending evacuation around the Tigris due to issues with the Mosul dam, make this workshop particularly salient.Euphrates-Tigris Initiative for CooperationOhio State University. Mershon Center for International Security SeriesOhio State University. Global Water InitiativeEvent web pag

The circle of hydro-hegemony between riparian states, development policies and borderlands: evidence from the Talas waterscape (Kyrgyzstan-Kazakhstan)

Since the 1990s, transboundary water management has come to play a key role both in global environmental politics debates and in the shaping of international development policies, specifically in the Global South. As a consequence, a growing body of literature in the framework of critical hydropolitics has emerged reflecting on the role that power, discourses, and strategies play in shaping transboundary water policies and in influencing riparian relations. The focus on a state-centric perspective, however, often has led to neglect of the role of international development actors in shaping these policies. Through a critical application of the Circle of Hydro-Hegemony (CHH) and ethnographic qualitative field research in borderlands, this contribution aims to analyse how the establishment of a development initiative known as the Chu-Talas Commission, supported by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and other donors, has influenced and shaped transboundary water politics in the Talas waterscape, which is shared by Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. The evidence shows that despite the international narration of the Chu-Talas Commission as a success story for water cooperation in Central Asia, Kazakhstan, through the deployment of both material and bargaining power strategies, has been able to shape UNECE development policies in its favour, impose its agenda on Kyrgyzstan, and emerge as the basin hydro-hegemon

Where Is the Power? Transnational Networks, Authority and the Dispute over the Xayaburi Dam on the Lower Mekong Mainstream

Accounts of hydro-hegemony and counter hydro-hegemony provide state-based conceptions of power in international river basins. However, authority should be seen as transnationalized as small states develop coping strategies to augment their authority over decision-making processes. The article engages Rosenau’s spheres of authority concept to argue that hydro-hegemony is exercised by actors embedded in spheres of authority that reshape actor configurations as they emerge. These spheres consist of complex networks challenging customary notions of the local-global dichotomy and hydro-hegemony. Hydro-hegemony is therefore not fixed. The article examines these processes by analysing the dispute over the Xayaburi Dam in the Mekong Basin

Transboundary water governance in the euphrates-tigris river basin: hydropolitical history and current challenges

Since the second half of the 20th century, trans-boundary water governance in the Euphrates-Tigris river system has evolved with competitive power dynamics and cooperative institutional development. Dr. Kibaroğlu’s speech will focus on the evolution of transboundary water politics in the basin over a series of consecutive periods. Overarching political problems, namely, the Syrian civil war and the deterioration of bilateral political relations between any pair of the riparians constitute to disable political background for the implementation of good water governance in the Euphrates- Tigris river basin.Currently a visiting professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, Dr. Aysegül Kibaroğlu is professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at MEF University in Istanbul, Turkey. She has published extensively on the politics of water resources, with an emphasis on the Euphrates Tigris river basin, contributing articles to the International Negotiation Journal, Water International, Journal of International Affairs, and Global Governance

Hydropolis: reinterpreting the polis in water politics

The construction of a large dam is often a contested and controversial matter. Delicate aspects related to the dam construction business such as the resettlement of peoples, environmental impact and financial costs, can trigger popular discontent and hinder the realisation of a particular project. By advancing the notion of the hydropolis, a reinterpretation of Hannah Arendt (1958) definition of the polis, this paper will explore how ruling elites can manipulate the public opinion to politically construct a large dam as a foreign policy matter. This, it will be argued, serves to conceal the negative consequences of a dam so that issues related to its social and environmental impact are removed from the national political debate. Specifically, the case of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) in Ethiopia will be used to illustrate how a large dam can become a geopolitical object grounded on the friend/enemy distinction, in the context of the longstanding geopolitical tensions in the Nile River Basin

An Enhanced notion of power for inter-state and transnational hydropolitics: An Analysis of Turkish- Syrian Water Relations and the Ilısu Dam Conflict between the Opponents and Proponents of the Dam

This study analyses Turkey’s relations with states and non-state actors on transboundary water issues by examining hydropolitics at the inter-state and transnational layers from 1923 to 2011. The cases investigated are Turkish – Syrian relations primarily over the Euphrates and Tigris basin, and relations between opponents and proponents over the construction of the Ilısu Dam, which is currently underway. Turkey is fully engaged in its ‘hydraulic mission’, very extensively and rapidly ‘developing’ water resources throughout its territory. Some of these flows cross international borders, specifically the very heavily contested Euphrates and Tigris basin. This large basin has attracted considerable academic attention, notably in regards to Turkey’s relations with downstream neighbours Syria, Iraq. Yet, the great bulk of the existing analysis falls prey to two broader weaknesses: a) it has narrowly applied the recently developed literature regarding the role of power in transboundary water politics, and b) it has also neglected or under-emphasised how non-state actors enrol in hydropolitical processes. Informed by deep investigation of the cases, the study develops and applies the distinct theoretical framework referred to as “An Enhanced Analytical Framework of Power in Hydropolitics”. The theoretical framework includes the conceptual frameworks that critically look at the role of power in transboundary water basins in terms of material and discursive power capabilities of actors. It also enhances the existing conceptual frameworks by demonstrating the following key elements of power: a) scalar dynamics (where actors are located and they interact with one another) and its linkage with power and b) the role of values and norms in terms of conflictual/cooperative hydropolitical relations and their linkage with power. Thus, the broader notion of power employed and elaborated upon here enables the analyst to understand how power influences the outcome of interactions, conflictual and cooperative relations between the actors in question. Constructivist approaches in the theories of international relations and its application to hydropolitics and other critical conceptual approaches to transboundary water politics have been used in making the analysis. The theoretical framework makes an original contribution to existing conceptual frameworks, as it widens understanding and role of power in hydropolitics. The application of the theoretical framework to Turkish-Syrian hydropolitical relations and relations between the III opponents and proponents over the construction of the Ilısu dam provides an empirical contribution to knowledge. The analysis shows how power dynamics as well as conflictual and cooperative relations dramatically change in different hydropolitical eras. By highlighting the influence the transnational anti-dam activist networks, the study shows the relevance of including non-state actors into the analysis. One of the several conclusions drawn is that such actors lack material power but are able to use discursive (ideational and bargaining) power very effectively to meet their interests

Turkey’s foreign policy orientation in the water context and the Orontes basin

This chapter will basically aim at understanding, explaining and analyzing the foreign policy orientation of Turkey in the transboundary waters context. Turkey’s state practices include a rich history of treaty practices, as well as political statements and actions which culminated in regional water governance trends displaying consensus, but in most cases disagreements. The chapter will analyze how harmonizationwiththeEuropeanUnion(EU)hashadimpactsonthetransboundary water policy discourses and practices in Turkey, and how these changes have been reflected in the country’s relations with its neighbors in the Middle East. The Orontes River Basin is presented as a case-study with its geographical features and hydro-political history. In this context, transboundary water politics in the Orontes will be examined with its entrenched complexities. The chapter will focus on the divergent views of Syria and Turkey over the Orontes, the cooperation initiatives taken in the last decade, specifically the proposed “Friendship Dam” project which came to a standstill after the civil war in Syria and consequent deterioration of relations between Turkey and Syria. The chapter will also briefly present the need for a reappraisal of the transboundary water management practices in the basin so that they would favor greater participation of stakeholders which have traditionally been excluded in the region, such as women

Transboundary ‘hydro-hegemony’: 10 years later

This article places the theorization and analysis of hydro‐hegemony in the context of the scholarship on transboundary water conflict and cooperation. We discuss critiques, developments, and debates in this domain over the past 10 years, focusing particularly on the contributions of the London Water Research Group, showing how thinking on the theorization and analysis of hydro‐hegemony—and hydropolitics—has moved beyond the state‐centricity, the tendency to see hegemony as solely negative, and the conceptually hegemonic potential of hydro‐hegemony itself. Various strands of international relations theory (realism, neo‐institutionalism, critical theory) have left their mark on the London School. Intense interaction between analysts and pragmatic practitioners is found to invite (or incite) eclecticism as well as promote vibrancy. WIREs Water 2017, 4:e1242. doi: 10.1002/wat2.124