Unanswered [1] | Urgent [0]
  

Home / Writing Feedback   % width   Posts: 2


The right to water and its global implications-- very rough draft-- lacks conclusion



nicole321 1 / -  
Nov 18, 2011   #1
The right to water is the right to life. Everyone has needs. Some needs are met and others are not. The difference between the need for water and many other needs is that without water a human will surely die. Withholding water from any human is comparable to murder. In fact, today's state of one-sixth of the global population without access to clean water could be considered water genocide ( ..) Guaranteeing the right to water means restructuring global policies that are currently allowing people to die. All water management problems have the same root: corrupt market influences that limit humane public control. The effects of water privatization are distinct. Political manipulation, exclusion of people's access to water, and violent uprisings all result from the switch to private control of water management systems. The problems caused by the privatization of water and political corruption display the need for change. By addressing recent economic and political problems in water management, restrictions on the water to water can be addressed and removed.

Currently, political representatives put money over working toward a global right to water. Corporations bribe political bodies to gain control of water management systems. All levels are corrupted global, national, and municipal levels of government. The documentary Blue Gold exposes corruption of the water system even at the global level. The filmmakers claim the World Bank has required certain governments to privatize their water supply -- make it a corporate commodity answerable only to stockholders -- as a condition to getting a loan. A quote by senior World bank executive, Lawrence Summers, exposes the intention behind these loans, "For every $1 the U.S. contributes to the World Bank, US corporations receive $1.30 in procurement contracts". Corporate control extends into municipal American water systems as well. After the Suez water management in Atlanta, Georgia, started having "almost immediate service problems", it was discovered that their mayor, Bill Campbell, was treated to a trip to Paris by Suez and a $6,500 campaign contribution when he was not running for office (Blue Gold). These instances show that water corporations have the power to expand on all scales of government, unaffected by the entity's level of political power or wealth. Corporate water is becoming a powerful force that will only lead to more corrupt politicians who chose money over providing water for their people.

Privatized water management withholds people from their right to water. The main intention of water corporations is to make money. Water corporations already set the price of water out of many people's price range, but increasing population and water scarcity will drive prices up even more. In The Blue Covenant, Maude Barlowe states that when the United Kingdom switched to privatized water millions of people had their water cut off when they could not afford their bills. Water must be publicly regulated to prevent this from happening. Brian Fagan, the author of Elixir, which takes a historian's approach to today's water problems, argues that subjecting water to market forces may encourage "water-rich counters to produce water-rich goods and arid ones to make those that are water light". Even though Fagan does not openly endorse privatization of water, he does fail to note that dry countries with corporately controlled water still use a lot of their water producing crops instead of sustaining their people. In The Blue Covenant, Maude Barlowe argues that privatization in poor countries leads to the export of water intensive crops to make money, often used to pay debt to the World Bank (18). This leads to less water to supply people in need. Management of water cannot be in corporate domains that exclude people from their water right.

When people face the deprivation of water due to privatization, they often resort to uprising and violence. Without the right to water, violence is an effective way to make their voices heard. In the documentary "Even the Rain", Bolivia's switch to privatization made it illegal to even collect rainwater. Facing water deprivation, the people rose up against the government and many were killed. In Japan a farmers' revolt due to high costs of privatized water and resulting crop failure ended with the death of Lee Kyang Hae who publicly stabbed himself (Blue Gold). In Indonesia the severity of the water situation causes farmers to bring "axes, saws, and hammers" when they go to water their fields. Instances like these leads some to the idea of global water wars, futurists claim as "a certainty in coming centuries" (Fagan, 346). The implication of global water wars if current water use continues mandates change. Violence outbreaks occur when governments fail to provide for their people's need for water. If these needs continue to be unmet, the violence will continue and expand. The global right to water would stop this violence. The only way to do that is to separate economic interest from political responsibility.

The first step in guaranteeing water for all is to stop private control of water management, but subsequent political reform is necessary. The global right to water requires a combination of economic incentive and government accountability.

Government accountability in water management is crucial to the global right to water. Maude Barlowe presents the idea of a "The Blue Covenant": a globally recognized treaty that mandates water for all, promises to conserve, and unites efforts of water rich and water poor regions (156). The three tenets of Barlowe's global agreement effectively address the need for global collaboration to prioritize human rights over economic gain. Less practically, she suggests "public-public partnerships" and "public-private partnerships"- a type of economic collaboration where wealthy countries and corporations assume set up water management systems for municipalities with incompetent resources and political organization. Unfortunately, her plan gives little incentive for governments and water companies who expect to cash in on growing water prices. Promoted in The Big Thirst, Mike Young's "water glass" theory could satisfy those craving economic gain and could easily be implemented into Barlowe's global consortium. His plan guarantees everyone a certain amount of water to live on with a low base price and subsidized according to need. For those who want more, excess water is placed on regional markets in a "cap and trade system". For this to work globally, the markets need to be allocated to specific regions that would be based on global agreement and relatively equal water resources. Although water is still bought and sold under this system, public control and limitations on corporate power make it the most successful solution. Although advocates of water management arranged directly by the people may be opposed to this plan, it actually coincides with Through this global plan, the politics and economics of water will be regulated, and most importantly, humans will enjoy the unwavering right to water.

Jennyflower81 - / 674  
Nov 23, 2011   #2
A few suggestions:

Withholding water from any human is comparable to murder. This sounds odd, being the reader, I wonder how long it would take for a person to die from lack of water. If a caretaker of a person is responsible for supplying water, and does not, it is neglect, if the person dies, then yes this is voluntary manslaughter.

political representatives put money over working toward a global right to water This statement is a bit vague, I don't understand what you are saying here.

Although advocates of water management arranged directly by the people may be opposed to this plan, it actually coincides with Through this global plan, the politics and economics of water will be regulated, and most importantly, humans will enjoy the unwavering right to water. This sentence is too long.

You have excellent writing ability, and you make intelligent and have applied critical thinking very well. Good job with your paper!


Home / Writing Feedback / The right to water and its global implications-- very rough draft-- lacks conclusion
Need Writing or Editing Help?
Fill out one of these forms:

Graduate Writing / Editing:
GraduateWriter form ◳

Best Essay Service:
CustomPapers form ◳

Excellence in Editing:
Rose Editing ◳

AI-Paper Rewriting:
Robot Rewrite ◳

Academic AI Writer:
Custom AI Writer ◳