An interesting article; but I would argue that the commitment of those countries that do join the intergovernmental processes is a more important factor in determining success than the absence of those that don’t. In the case of the Mekong, the major issue hobbling progress in is not the absence of China from the MRC, but the reluctance of member countries to commit to a genuinely shared process. Only around 16% of Mekong flows originate in China, and the fate of the river, in terms of both flows and politics, rests mainly with the downstream countries. Blaming China misses the point, and just provides a convenient scapegoat and excuse for inaction. While the situation in terms of flows may be different in the Zambezi, I think the principle will still apply.
An interesting article; but I would argue that the commitment of those countries that do join the intergovernmental processes is a more important factor in determining success than the absence of those that don’t. In the case of the Mekong, the major issue hobbling progress in is not the absence of China from the MRC, but the reluctance of member countries to commit to a genuinely shared process. Only around 16% of Mekong flows originate in China, and the fate of the river, in terms of both flows and politics, rests mainly with the downstream countries. Blaming China misses the point, and just provides a convenient scapegoat and excuse for inaction. While the situation in terms of flows may be different in the Zambezi, I think the principle will still apply.