Environmental Diplomacy: Transcending Borders to Protect Water

In a world where environmental institutions and agreements take center stage in international diplomacy, Gaza lags painfully behind as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is causing a water treatment stalemate.  

The Jordan river, once a clean water source for the entire Jordan valley has been reduced by 20 times through irrigation. What remains of the river is a polluted trickle, so saturated by human waste that it is not only useless but also detrimental to the Dead Sea, which has effectively become the dumping ground for both Palestinian and Israeli villages in the area. Because this environmental issue exists within the context of one of the oldest and most violent conflicts in recent history, environmental diplomacy has taken on a whole other set of complexities that far transcends mere cooperative agreements on the earth’s behalf.  However, CU Boulder professor and US State Department Science Envoy appointee Bernard Amadei has shown that science and environmental policy may be the avenue for progress toward a mutually beneficial agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis.

The issue of water pollution in the Jordan River and Dead Sea has nothing to do with money or technology; water treatment is relatively inexpensive and quite simple to implement. And yet the water in the Gaza area remains unusable and flows out into the ocean untreated, a monumental problem for the health of the ocean.  The consequences on a macro level are obvious: a world with a fragile ecosystem which is 100% dependent on the health of its oceans cannot afford such pollution.  On a micro level, the pollution is significantly decreasing the quality of life for both Palestinians and Israelis.  Beyond the closure of multiple Israeli beaches, the lack of clean water in the area and surplus of raw sewage is causing massive sanitation issues in these age-old villages.  Health issues associated with raw sewage exposure include everything from diarrhea to gastroenteritis and conjunctivitis, causes by pathogens, bacteria, parasites, and viruses. The UN reports that 90% of water in the Gaza Strip is unsafe to drink, posing a massive problem for Gazzans, especially for young children more vulnerable to these health issues.  Reports show that water pollution accounts for 12% of children’s death in the Gaza Strip, despite the area being relatively developed and modernized. The issue goes beyond just the sewage pollution; the Gaza Strip has to pump ground water of the Coast Aquifer, and over pumping has led to further pollution and amplified the problem.  This situation represents the worst of environmental issues: a simple problem with massive consequences that could be solved with a simple and cheap solution, yet left unsolved due to the conflict between two neighboring populations. 

So what do environmentalists do? How do they transcend the political and social restraints of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to achieve a common solution? And how can we examine this issue through the lens of realism, liberalism, and constructivism? 

The Tragedy of Commons does not even begin to explain the stalemate with this given conflict.  The reason for non-cooperation extends far beyond one country feeling cheated that another isn’t participating and therefore not participating either.  Neither population cooperates because of a deep seeded hatred, mistrust, and history of noncooperation with the other.  

When realists say that the only way to achieve cooperation is to either offer large incentives or threaten with large consequences, neither option is all that simple.  Both Israel and Palestine would never offer the other incentives, that is against the very nature of their relationship.  Threats are not an option either, because the situation is already so tense that threatening to retaliate for noncooperation could have catastrophic consequences. However, if incentives or threats were presented by a third party nation, specifically a hegemon, then there is a possibility of cooperation, as long as it doesn’t involve Israel and Palestine entering into an agreement with each other, only with the third party state.

Liberalism would suggest a combination of threats and incentives, possibly trade benefits or a leadership position in an institution, or possibly cutting off military aid to Israel and enforcing stricter trade restrictions on the Gaza Strip.  However, this would escalade to a battle of marginal benefits: Palestinians would never agree if they felt like Israelis were getting the better end of the deal, and because of the distinct character of both areas, the same benefits and threats wouldn’t be applicable for both parties.  For example, the US couldn’t use the threat of cutting off military funding for both Palestine and Israel- we are only providing that funding to Israel.  So Israel would feel cheated, and not enter into an agreement to implement a solution to the issue.  Furthermore, it would be very difficult to find a hegemon who could be unbiased in enforcing these incentives and threats- US is allied with Israel, and China and India tend to lean toward Israel because of its high tech sector. On the other hand, the EU leans towards Palestine for the most part.  Regardless of if a third party hegemon was yet to ally themselves with one side or the other, they would face serious consequences if Israel’s allies felt like Israel was getting cheated, as is the same for Palestine. 

What does constructivism have to bring to the table? It is clear that the option of trying to get Palestine and Israel to see the collective good as the same as their own individual good is not an option; the environment unfortunately does not take president above this age-old conflict.  However, employing nationalism or religious affinity might be a viable option.  Considering how strong both nationalism and religion are in this conflict, it seems that they could be turned around and used to encourage both parties to work towards a solution to the water pollution problem. This could manifest itself in the form of a national pride campaign to protect the health and natural resources of the respective areas, or through the use of fear tactics by showing the potentially catastrophic results of this pollution.   

The current solution in the works a complex structure of regimes and nongovernmental authority, which cloaks the cooperation of enemies in a facade of scientific progress.  Bernard Amadei and other scientists, both Palestinians and Israelis are currently using the regime of scientific cooperation to come to a consensus about how to implement a plan for water treatment.  What they have concluded is that by keeping the solution under the authority of scientists and not politicians, they can transcend national borders and conflicts by entering into the negotiation room as scientists rather than Palestinians, Americans, or Israelis.  This cooperation operates under a regime of the safety of our oceans and the future of our planet, rather than under a defined institution which would insinuate formal cooperation between both groups. Multiple small water treatment rigs are being set up on both the Israeli and Palestinian shores of the river, so that each feels that it has jurisdiction over its own water treatment, and is not being controlled by the other party, however the scientists remain as the final authority over the plan.

  

This solution brings to the table many questions: what does this mean for state authority? How is this any different than formal diplomatic cooperation? How long until the collective action problem resurfaces?

All of these questions are legitimate and will need to be addressed in the future if this solution is going to be sustainable.  However, until then, Bernard Amadei and the other scientists working on this simple problem with a complex backdrop only need to keep up the facade that somehow scientific diplomacy is different than formal diplomacy and cooperation between these neighboring enemies.   

Works Cited

A War of Water. The Guardian, 6 June 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/06/ gaza-strip-water-supply>. 

Disease Risks and Sewage Exposure. Tri-County Health Department, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.tchd.org/pdfs/ sewage_exposure.pdf>.

Helping Engineer a Better World. Colorado Public Radio, 19 Nov. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.cpr.org/article/ Helping_Engineer_a_Better_World>. 

Israel Foreign Relations. Country Studies, 14 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://countrystudies.us/israel/106.htm>. 

Water pollution puts Gazans' health in danger. Press TV, 3 Aug. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.<http://presstv.com/detail/ 2012/08/03/254145/water-pollution-gazan-health/>. 

Water supplied in Gaza unfit for drinking; Israel prevents entry of materials needed to repair system. B'Tselem, 23 Aug. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.btselem.org/ gaza_strip/20100823_gaza_water_crisis>. 

*I apologize for the lack of in text citations: footnotes do not transfer over from Pages onto the blog but if you are interested in the specific sources for facts feel free to email me and I can email you the word document with in-text footnotes. (jd1737a@student.american.edu)