Emotionality in Transboundary Water: A Case Study of Helmand River

While a substantial body of literature perceives rationality as the only path for negotiations over the use of the transboundary shared watercourse, recent scholarship has unveiled the role of emotion in decision-making processes over the use of the shared water. This research aims to challenge the conventional approach—rationality—by exploring affective dynamics of the riparian nations of the Helmand River (shared between upstream Afghanistan and downstream Iran) and how decisions over the use of the shared Helmand River are ingrained in the emotional dispositions of the riparian nations. Taking an integrated approach combining emotional political ecology and neoclassical realism, this research unravels the intricate emotional dynamics of the riparian nations to the flow of the Helmand River. The staggering increase in water withdrawal—both surface and groundwater resources— coupled with the population growth, and adverse effects of climate changes has stimulated the negative emotional dispositions of the borderland communities— the sufferings of farming communities due to lack of access to water—resulting in water conflict escalation in the Helmand River Basin. Finally, it is asserted that negotiations over the use of Helmand River are considered to be ill-equipped unless emotionality and rationality—a pluralistic approach— are equally weighed or gauged in water allocation and utilization by the co-riparian nations.