When completed, the project - also known as the Motuo Hydropower Station - will overtake the Three Gorges dam as the world's largest, and could generate three times more energy.
Experts and officials have flagged concerns that the new dam would empower China to control or divert the trans-border Yarlung Tsangpo, which flows south into India's Arunachal Pradesh and Assam states as well as Bangladesh, where it feeds into the Siang, Brahmaputra and Jamuna rivers.
A 2020 report published by the Lowy Institute, an Australian-based think tank, noted that "control over these rivers [in the Tibetan Plateau] effectively gives China a chokehold on India's economy".
...
India plans to build a hydropower dam on the Siang river, which would act as a buffer against sudden water releases from China's dam and prevent flooding in their areas.
...
Chinese authorities have long eyed the hydropower potential of the dam's location in the Tibet Autonomous Region.
It's in a massive canyon that is said to be the world's deepest and longest on land, along a section where the Yarlung Tsangpo - Tibet's longest river - makes a sharp U-turn around the Namcha Barwa mountain.
In the process of making this turn - which has been termed "the Great Bend" - the river drops hundreds of metres in its elevation.
...
China has been eyeing the steep valleys and mighty rivers in the rural west - where Tibetan territories are located - to build mega-dams and hydropower stations that can sustain the country's electricity-hungry eastern metropolises. President Xi Jinping has personally pushed for this in a policy called "xidiandongsong", or "sending western electricity eastwards".
I can see why India is concerned. Also, why Pakistan is concerned when India does it. Water is life, and anywhere that the whole watershed isn't under a country's control there's opportunities for...
I can see why India is concerned. Also, why Pakistan is concerned when India does it. Water is life, and anywhere that the whole watershed isn't under a country's control there's opportunities for use of the water as a point of power in any disagreement.
Doesn’t even have to be a watershed in one country— in the US there is plenty of consternation over water rights between states and counties and between homes and businesses.
Doesn’t even have to be a watershed in one country— in the US there is plenty of consternation over water rights between states and counties and between homes and businesses.
China's historical record with its Mekong River dams lends credence to India's concerns. It would be nice if there was a functioning international body with the power to effectively penalize...
China's historical record with its Mekong River dams lends credence to India's concerns.
It would be nice if there was a functioning international body with the power to effectively penalize infringements on local water rights, but we can't have nice things that might result in peaceful solutions.
I kinda half-assedly pay attention to this stuff, because I live near a large body of water that straddles international and tribal land borders. Polluters want to risk the lakes, and thirsty U.S. states keep proposing to pipe the water away. The history of U.S. international water management isn't promising, and China's past geopolitical strategies aren't encouraging, either. Neither the U.S. nor China is signatory to the U.N. laws mentioned above.
The fundamental issue with any kind of “international” body is that no entity has extra national authority. Anyone can wag your finger at China, but in the end they’re the second international...
It would be nice if there was a functioning international body with the power to effectively penalize infringements on local water rights, but we can't have nice things that might result in peaceful solutions.
The fundamental issue with any kind of “international” body is that no entity has extra national authority. Anyone can wag your finger at China, but in the end they’re the second international superpower and when they tell you to pound sand there’s not much you can do about it. People bemoan the ineffectiveness of the UN, but that misses that the UN is merely a forum and channel for great powers to discuss items.
Because we live under the rule of law and layers of cascading authority, it’s easy to assume it’s law all the way up - you live in a local government, that reports to a municipal government, that reports to a state or provincial government, that reports to a national government. Surely, then, that the UN is what’s above the national government? But the buck stops at national government. From here, there is no law, just quid pro quos.
When you ignore the water laws in your local country, the government has a monopoly on violence and will send the police to exert violence until you comply. No such things exists for nation states, especially superpowers.
That's true, but but national governments only have power over smaller jurisdictions because those smaller jurisdictions grant them that power. If every municipality would stop paying state and...
That's true, but but national governments only have power over smaller jurisdictions because those smaller jurisdictions grant them that power. If every municipality would stop paying state and national taxes, governments would be as powerless as the UN. It's social contracts all the way down.
And it doesn't really stop at national governments either. International organizations like the European Union or BRICS have some power over their members states.
Look at Europe a few hundred years ago compared to today. When people whine about the toothless UN, they want that on a global scale. Some kind of governing body that can make decisions that everyone will accept because they can't go to war with everybody else. Just like no village is refusing to accept national law because they can't afford to go to war with every other village.
From the article:
...
...
...
I can see why India is concerned. Also, why Pakistan is concerned when India does it. Water is life, and anywhere that the whole watershed isn't under a country's control there's opportunities for use of the water as a point of power in any disagreement.
Doesn’t even have to be a watershed in one country— in the US there is plenty of consternation over water rights between states and counties and between homes and businesses.
China's historical record with its Mekong River dams lends credence to India's concerns.
It would be nice if there was a functioning international body with the power to effectively penalize infringements on local water rights, but we can't have nice things that might result in peaceful solutions.
I kinda half-assedly pay attention to this stuff, because I live near a large body of water that straddles international and tribal land borders. Polluters want to risk the lakes, and thirsty U.S. states keep proposing to pipe the water away. The history of U.S. international water management isn't promising, and China's past geopolitical strategies aren't encouraging, either. Neither the U.S. nor China is signatory to the U.N. laws mentioned above.
The fundamental issue with any kind of “international” body is that no entity has extra national authority. Anyone can wag your finger at China, but in the end they’re the second international superpower and when they tell you to pound sand there’s not much you can do about it. People bemoan the ineffectiveness of the UN, but that misses that the UN is merely a forum and channel for great powers to discuss items.
Because we live under the rule of law and layers of cascading authority, it’s easy to assume it’s law all the way up - you live in a local government, that reports to a municipal government, that reports to a state or provincial government, that reports to a national government. Surely, then, that the UN is what’s above the national government? But the buck stops at national government. From here, there is no law, just quid pro quos.
When you ignore the water laws in your local country, the government has a monopoly on violence and will send the police to exert violence until you comply. No such things exists for nation states, especially superpowers.
Is what it is.
That's true, but but national governments only have power over smaller jurisdictions because those smaller jurisdictions grant them that power. If every municipality would stop paying state and national taxes, governments would be as powerless as the UN. It's social contracts all the way down.
And it doesn't really stop at national governments either. International organizations like the European Union or BRICS have some power over their members states.
Look at Europe a few hundred years ago compared to today. When people whine about the toothless UN, they want that on a global scale. Some kind of governing body that can make decisions that everyone will accept because they can't go to war with everybody else. Just like no village is refusing to accept national law because they can't afford to go to war with every other village.