After
announcing on Sunday the largest-ever joint proposal between Jordan and Israel
during a special session at the World Summit for Sustainable Development on the
Dead Sea, the Jordanian government has backed off from the proposal as a result
of pressure from Arab governments who argued that the proposal is against the
Arab League’s stance to cut ties with Israel.
According
to a report from Islamonline, Jordan’s foreign minister, Marwan Alma’shar,
told reporters in a joint press conference with Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed
Maher Tuesday (9/3/2002) that the time wasn’t right to proceed with the
proposal (Islamonline p.1).
The
plan was to build a canal along the Jordanian-Israeli border from the Red Sea to
the Dead Sea and then to desalinate seawater from Jordan. Israel had argued for
a pipeline as a cheaper option. Informal contacts were made through the World
Bank and USAID to facilitate the process earlier this year (Halaby p.1, 2).
The
$800 million pipeline was intended to save the shrinking Dead Sea from
environmental devastation.
According
to Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), there is a 25m drop in the level of
the Dead Sea at a rate of 1m every year due largely to diversions in the River
Jordan from both the Israeli and the Jordanian sides resulting in only 10% of
the Jordan reaching the Dead Sea. Work on the Dead Sea has been an
ambition of Jordan’s since the peace treaty with Israel in 1994 (Halaby p.1).
The
Arab group met daily during the Summit to coordinate the fragile Arab stance on
all issues and Jordan at the time seemed to be ignoring that stance. An
environmental catastrophe in itself, the canal was apparently proposed by
Israeli foreign minister Shimon Perez eight years ago during the peace process
between Jordan and Israel to be jointly carried out by Jordan, Palestine and
Israel (IPS p.1).
Faruq
Qaddumi of the PLO had said, “ [the proposal] involves drawing a new border
between Israel and Jordan at the expense of the Palestinian people” (Josummit
p.1). On the fourth day of the Summit, Syria stated that it had abided by its
water agreements with Jordan and rejected the project along with Lebanon and
Iraq. Meanwhile, the Palestinian delegation not only rejected the project but
said they were not a party to the project in the first place and that Jordan’s
announcement of the project political rather than environmental (Ghanim p.2).
Jordan
had sought to revive cooperation on the Dead Sea with Israel in order to boost
the falling water levels. Zafer Alem, Secretary-General of the Jordan Valley
Authority sees “the Dead Sea as a unique heritage not only to the countries
that border it but to the whole world, and it’s the world’s responsibility
to take decisive action immediately to save us from a human catastrophe”.
To
cooperate with Israel while it is killing your neighbors and intentionally
destabilizing the region and the world-at-large is not a comfortable position to
be in. One can look at Saudi Arabia’s solution to produce desalinated water.
As the world’s largest producer at 30% of global production, last year Saudi
Arabia was able to produce 857.4 mcm equal to 60% increase on the previous year.
This has become the sole source of drinking water. It is transported by 2,500 km
of pipeline network, 21 pumping stations, 131 depots and 10 stations for mixing
desalinated water with underground water. This supply of water also generates
3,600 mgw of electricity (Menareport p.1). Fortunately, Saudi Arabia does not
have Israel as a neighbor. Jordan, however, is a neighbor of Saudi Arabia. Would
it be too unreasonable to assume cooperation here?
The
River Jordan Occupied
|
|
|
The River Jordan’s
headwaters are under full Israeli control.
|
Since
the end of South African apartheid in 1994, 10 million South Africans have
gained access to clean drinking water. The Summit viewed this as an exemplary
measure for the rest of the world. Their free water program allows for 600
liters of free water monthly with the affluent paying at a higher rate with
their large gardens and swimming pools. The poor get their water free (Engineeringnews.
p.3). For Palestine, the affluent are the Israelis with 85% of Palestinian water
from the West Bank aquifers taken by Israel accounting for 25% of Israeli consumption. The Jordan River, an international
river basin, is the only permanent source of surface water in Palestine. Usage
of the Jordan is a reflection of power, not agreements, with headwaters under
full Israeli control. Much of this water has therefore been diverted by Israel
through its national water carriers to irrigate the Negev desert. In 1953 the
Jordan’s average flow was 1250 mcm annually, now it is a mere 152 – 203 mcm
(Jad p.19, 26).
Israeli Industries Drain the Dead Sea
The
Dead Sea – Bahr Lut- lies at the mouth of the River Jordan between Jordan,
Israel and Palestine. It is a site of great economic value in terms of minerals
and tourism. The Dead Sea has 21 different minerals with a concentration at 32%
compared to only 3% in sea and ocean water and is under environmental
regulations set out by Israel (Compusmart p. 1, 2). Environmentalists in Jordan
are warning that the Dead Sea will disappear by the year 2050 if its level
continues to drop at the current rate.
|
|
|
The Dead Sea has a mineral
concentration of 32%.
|
EcoPeace reports that "between 25-30 percent of the total evaporation of
the Dead Sea waters can be attributed to the solar ponds." Mineral
extraction from the Dead Sea and its processing consume vast amounts of water,
and as the sea declines in volume, the remaining waters evaporate more
quickly.” Under the Geneva Convention for the Protection of the Ozone
Layer, Israel was to stop production of ozone-depleting bromide from these ponds
by the year 2001. But neighboring Jordan, as a developing country, has until
2011 to phase out its bromide production. To circumvent the Geneva Convention,
Israel signed a pact to move its bromide plant inside Jordan's border and extend
plant operations for an additional decade (earthisland p. 1).
Israel’s
Dead Sea Bromine Group produces as much as 30 percent of the world’s output of
methyl bromide, which it exports to Europe, Africa, the United States and China.
Ninety percent of Dead Sea Bromine's shares are owned by Israel Chemicals,
formerly a state-owned enterprise and now a private holding company for as many
as 21 corporations. Israeli entrepreneur Shoul Eisenberg owns 25 percent of
Israel Chemicals.
Dead
Sea Bromine, in turn, owns a number of subsidiaries, including Ameribrom and
Eurobrom, through which it markets its bromine products, including methyl
bromide. In the US, Ameribrom is one of four companies that are permitted to
produce or distribute methyl bromide under Clean Air Act restrictions.
It
is interesting to note that the night before the sale of Israel Chemicals to
Shoul Eisenberg, the Israeli Knesset passed a law exempting some of Israel
Chemical's subsidiaries from building, planning and environmental laws in future
projects (corpwatch p.1).
The
industry has a huge impact on the surrounding landscape in terms of excavation
of land and disposal of unwanted minerals.
The
company’s main product, methyl bromine, is colorless and odorless but highly
toxic to a wide range of organisms including humans. California has wanted to
ban methyl bromine because it causes neurological and reproductive damage. Under
the US Clean Air Act, methyl bromine is classified as a Class I Ozone Depletor.
The UN Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer aim to phase
it out on a global scale (Karliner p.1).
The
industry also has negative effects on air quality in the region by emitting dust
and combustion gases. The burning of heavy fuel oil in power and steam
generators emits carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitric
oxide (foeme p.4).
Bromine
is also extracted by Jordan’s Arab Potash Company in addition to other
minerals (Bennett p.1 – 3).
The
International Development Research Center (IDRC) report “Water Management in
Islam” argued that water sustainability is more likely if one follows Islamic
teachings (IDRC #2 p.1). Surely we do not need such a report to reach that
conclusion. Why then would one of our governments thus consider
cooperation with an occupier of Arab land and water?
Sources:
Read
Also:
