The Role of Ideas in the China–India Water Dispute
The Role of Ideas in the China–India Water Dispute
Both the Chinese and Indian governments have made assiduous efforts to desecuritise their water dispute. This is puzzling, because both countries have securitised most of the disputes between them, including the border dispute, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama issue. The triggers for securitisation exist in the China–India water dispute. Both countries are water-scarce, prone to floods and droughts in their shared river basins, and the water dispute is inextricably linked to their border dispute. Power asymmetries between the two countries also incentivise both sides to securitise their water dispute. China, the upstream riparian and more powerful of the two, could use water as leverage in border negotiations, while India could use securitisation as a tactic to gain attention and offset China's greater aggregate power. The tendency is also for water disputes around the world to be painted as existential threats. Why, then, do China and India desecuritise their water dispute? Furthermore, despite desecuritisation, cooperation between them has remained low, confined to an expert-level mechanism, and memorandums of understandings on sharing hydrological data. This refutes the conventional view that desecuritisation is a normative good that can lead to genuine cooperation. This paper uses the Q methodology, which is a quantitative measure of ideas and perceptions, to address these puzzles. Based on a Q survey of Chinese and Indian experts on the water conflict, we argue that ideas are essential to shaping Chinese and Indian behaviour. Material explanations do not adequately explicate the complexities and nuances of the water dispute because they are too broad and general to be useful. The Q survey revealed in depth the myriad of ideas and debates surrounding the water dispute. These views and beliefs explain why the Chinese and Indian governments desecuritise their water dispute and why, despite desecuritisation, cooperation remains low.
263-294
Ho, Selina
16e96113-deab-41c6-a74c-cb7ebf712d2a
Qian, Neng
8cbd4b74-2cd4-47c2-b19b-4dd2e708b511
Yan, Yifei
58cf8978-8af4-4efb-ba84-2437ee5fca11
30 May 2019
Ho, Selina
16e96113-deab-41c6-a74c-cb7ebf712d2a
Qian, Neng
8cbd4b74-2cd4-47c2-b19b-4dd2e708b511
Yan, Yifei
58cf8978-8af4-4efb-ba84-2437ee5fca11
Ho, Selina, Qian, Neng and Yan, Yifei
(2019)
The Role of Ideas in the China–India Water Dispute.
The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 12 (2), .
Abstract
Both the Chinese and Indian governments have made assiduous efforts to desecuritise their water dispute. This is puzzling, because both countries have securitised most of the disputes between them, including the border dispute, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama issue. The triggers for securitisation exist in the China–India water dispute. Both countries are water-scarce, prone to floods and droughts in their shared river basins, and the water dispute is inextricably linked to their border dispute. Power asymmetries between the two countries also incentivise both sides to securitise their water dispute. China, the upstream riparian and more powerful of the two, could use water as leverage in border negotiations, while India could use securitisation as a tactic to gain attention and offset China's greater aggregate power. The tendency is also for water disputes around the world to be painted as existential threats. Why, then, do China and India desecuritise their water dispute? Furthermore, despite desecuritisation, cooperation between them has remained low, confined to an expert-level mechanism, and memorandums of understandings on sharing hydrological data. This refutes the conventional view that desecuritisation is a normative good that can lead to genuine cooperation. This paper uses the Q methodology, which is a quantitative measure of ideas and perceptions, to address these puzzles. Based on a Q survey of Chinese and Indian experts on the water conflict, we argue that ideas are essential to shaping Chinese and Indian behaviour. Material explanations do not adequately explicate the complexities and nuances of the water dispute because they are too broad and general to be useful. The Q survey revealed in depth the myriad of ideas and debates surrounding the water dispute. These views and beliefs explain why the Chinese and Indian governments desecuritise their water dispute and why, despite desecuritisation, cooperation remains low.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 11 April 2019
Published date: 30 May 2019
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 479302
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/479302
ISSN: 1750-8916
PURE UUID: b193f0fe-0d7d-42c4-944e-f8935c7b042e
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 20 Jul 2023 16:54
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:18
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Selina Ho
Author:
Neng Qian
Author:
Yifei Yan
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics