[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WATER AS A GEOPOLITICAL THREAT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 16, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-127
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-300PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
TED POE, Texas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PAUL COOK, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs,
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Congressional
Research Service............................................... 7
Ms. Maura Moynihan, author & activist............................ 13
Mr. Gordon G. Chang, author...................................... 56
Mr. David Goodtree, co-chair and founder, Symposium on Water
Innovation..................................................... 62
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Jeremy M. Sharp: Prepared statement.......................... 10
Ms. Maura Moynihan: Prepared statement........................... 18
Mr. Gordon G. Chang: Prepared statement.......................... 58
Mr. David Goodtree: Prepared statement........................... 64
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 82
Hearing minutes.................................................. 83
WATER AS A GEOPOLITICAL THREAT
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock
a.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana
Rohrabacher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Good morning. This is the Subcommittee on
Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats and we are now in
session. And I would first and foremost like to ask my
colleagues, with unanimous consent, that Mr. Blumenauer, who
has spent such considerable time and effort on this issue of
water and the importance of it and world affairs today, and
then the standard of living of our people, that he be permitted
to participate on the same status as any other member of the
committee. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
It is the Chair's intention to have a short opening
statement. The ranking member will have an opening statement.
And I will give also time to Mr. Blumenaurer, as well as our
other members, for short opening statements.
So good morning. The subcommittee has convened and we
welcome our witnesses today as part of our emerging threats
which is--that is within the title in our portfolio. We examine
the topic of water as a strategic resource and its potential
use as a threat. Those of us who have lived around water our
whole lives may be unaware of how water may be manipulated
maliciously for both material gain and for political coercion.
Although in our country's history, I think it is very clear
that there were water wars and people in conflict or people in
great accomplishments of people working together, that our
country's history is filled with focusing on the issue of
water.
Our witnesses today made clear such conduct is routine when
it comes to countries like Communist China that routine conduct
is manipulation of water for power's sake. As our witness
today, Gordon Chang will explain, China's illegal occupation of
Tibet puts it in control of the roof of the world and thus, the
headwaters that service half the world's population. We could
be confident that resulting water disputes would be handled
responsibly and reasonably, perhaps solved in international
forums or in agreements like many other countries do, if that
is we could be confident in that if China were a country that
wasn't the world's worst human rights abuser that has had no
political reform whatsoever in these last 20 years when we have
seen such incredible reform in other and former communist
countries.
Our Congressional Research Service testimony makes clear
that most of these matters in terms of water are resolved
through negotiations and peaceably and I might say remarkably
these issues are solved by people acting responsibly and
providing leadership and reaching out to people and to find
solutions. Some of the 300 agreements over the last 70 years
have unfolded in that way. Today, a warning alarm is sounding
about China's control of such water resources because we have
seen that China, even in the last few months, is not so
reasonable when it is making its territorial claims.
China isn't the only flash point for the water issue,
however, and water controversies are nothing new. Water is a
volatile issue in the Middle East today, for example, but let
us take a look. If you read the history, water played a very
significant role in, for example, creating the environment that
led to the Six Day War back in 1967. Basically, that conflict
began when the Syrian Government decided to dam up waters that
were flowing into Israel followed by an Israeli air attack
which destroyed those dams. Then Egypt and other Arab neighbors
were called into the conflict and it almost led to a superpower
confrontation which would have been a disaster for the whole
planet. And that all began with what, a water controversy over
how much water was going to be flowing into Israel and the
attempt by Syria to dam up that water.
Today, there are heartening signs, however, of cooperation
in that same region between otherwise adversarial parties. The
Red Sea to Dead Sea canal project is one that has potential of
supplying water to Jordan, a country suffering from extreme
water scarcity. Last month, Israel and Jordan and the
Palestinian Authority, signed an agreement setting the path for
a Red to Dead canal that would allow a desalinization plant in
Aqaba, Jordan. Israel agreed to increase its fresh water that
it sends to Jordan from the Sea of Galilee and the Palestinians
will be able to buy cheaper water from Israel. It seems like a
very good deal all the way around, but let me note it took a
long time and a lot of serious negotiations and a lot of
sincerity on both sides, or all three sides of that negotiating
table, to reach that agreement.
And let me just note one of the first assignments, and many
people know that I was a speech writer for President Reagan,
and my first assignment was to welcome and work with the
President on his welcoming remarks for President Hussein, King
Hussein of Jordan. And King Hussein of Jordan was the first
visit to the Reagan White House, the first official visit. And
I was supposed to work for the President on welcoming remarks
and that was the first remarks that I have ever written for a
President of the United States, I might add, or anybody else.
And the State Department sent me over a stack of things to
look at, like that, and their sample of what they would want
the President to say which I, of course, discarded immediately.
But I studied everything that was in front of me, and there was
one piece of paper in that big stack of papers of things to
look at that jumped out at me. And it was that there were
negotiations going on about the Red Sea to Dead Sea project
that had just started at that time which was 1981 and so I
looked at this and I said this is really a significant thing,
that we have people who are politically so separated who are
willing to sit down at a table because of how important water
is and work together to try and find a solution. Perhaps we can
use this as an example of the type of cooperation we should
encourage.
And so I decided I was going to write that into the
President's speech myself. And I had no idea that I could when
I was hired on as a speechwriter that I would have this type of
personal contact with the President of the United States. And
it finally dawned on me when they said well, sure if you have
got a good idea put it in there and we will see what the
President says. And of course, he liked it very much and it was
part of his welcoming remarks. But at that point, I really
found out I had a pretty good job after all.
We can take a look at what has happened, however. It has
taken all of these years to come to an agreement. And I will
say this, we should all encourage this process between Jordan,
the Palestinians, and the Israelis because it might take long,
but it is symbolic, as Ronald Reagan noted in his welcoming
remarks to King Hussein, it is very symbolic of what can be
accomplished by people even when they have other disagreements
of how they can work together.
The situation involving the basin countries in the Nile
River, for example, deserves watching and we need to look at
this very closely because the Nile, of course, flows through
ten different countries and Egypt is one of the final ones and
basically Egypt views the Nile as its primary national security
and economic lifeline. So with so many countries upstream, that
is an area we have got to look and try to work with these
powers to make sure that there are again efforts made for
cooperation, rather than confrontation.
This subcommittee held a hearing in July of last year on
the dam controversy between Tajikistan and Uzebekistan and that
was a controversy that is now at the high level international
conference of water cooperation which opened up in August. The
Uzbeks are arguing that the proposed Rogun Dam in Tajikistan
would cost them some $600 million a year. Since this issue has
not been resolved, we will continue to monitor it closely but
that shows you again how significant just an idea of how we are
going to control the flow of water can be. Six hundred million
dollars to Uzebekistan means, I would imagine, it has more--
whether their kids are going to get educated, whether they are
going to have a proper healthcare system in that country is
being challenged by the fact that water is being controlled.
One positive story deals with our border relations with
Mexico. The United States and Mexico in 1944 signed a water
treaty that has allowed us to resolve most of our border water
issues relative to the Rio Grande and Colorado River. And let
me note for the record that I have been--being from California,
I have studied the--not studied as much as some of our
witnesses have, I am sure--the history of water between
California and the other border states and Mexico. And I think
we have played pretty hardball with the Mexicans on this. And I
think there have been very legitimate complaints on the part of
Mexico in the past that the United States was not operating
with them with the same type of sincerity and the same type of
respect that we should have been doing to a country that is our
neighbor that we wanted to maintain a peaceful relationship
with. The 1944 agreement has gone a long way to try to clear up
some of those problems that were around for a long time and we
still have some issues of water that we need to work out with
Mexico.
Water is a significant issue and a potential geopolitical
threat to much of the world. Our witnesses are a distinguished
group of witnesses today. Jeremy Sharp is a specialist in
Middle East affairs with the Congressional Research Service.
Gordon Chang is an author and a lawyer who lived in China for
many years and has traveled regularly there since. David
Goodtree at the Symposium for Water Innovation from
Massachusetts is certainly a guest of our ranking member. We
are looking forward to his testimony. And like most Americans,
I have a great admiration for our witness's father, and Maura
Moynihan's dad was, of course, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
who my generation of Americans looked up to tremendously. He
sometimes gave the Reagan White House a few fits and I remember
those as well, but his opinions were always respected and he
had a major influence on political thinking in the United
States. He was, of course, in my way of thinking, he was a
heroic champion of human rights at the United Nations and as
well as an Ambassador to India. Ms. Moynihan, of course, was
with him in India and has done a great deal of work on her own
in terms of the issue of Tibet and China and we are very happy
to have her today to share her understanding of maybe the
threat that we face with China still occupying Tibet after 60
years.
So again, with unanimous consent I put the rest of the--
insert into the record a bio of all of our witnesses. So
ordered without hearing an objection. And I turn to Mr. Keating
for his opening statement.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this timely and important hearing. I am also
pleased that Mr. Blumenauer is able to join us today. Mr.
Blumenauer and our fellow subcommittee member, Mr. Poe, have
done an awful lot of work together on global water security,
both in terms of increasing access to clean water and in
promoting mitigation of conflicts stemming from water scarcity.
I would also like to join the chairman in thanking our
witnesses who are appearing today, particularly Mr. David
Goodtree. It is a pleasure to see him. Almost as great a
pleasure to see the cap that he has brought with him and placed
on the desk of the Boston Red Sox. For those of you on the
panel and in the room, that is the world champion Boston Red
Sox and thank you for that thoughtfulness as well. Mr. Goodtree
is the co-chair and founder of the Symposium on Water
Innovation in my home state of Massachusetts, an association of
water technology industry executives focused on bringing clean,
abundant water to global markets through technology created in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Mr. Chairman, it is clearly in the U.S. interest to work
and reduce tensions caused by water scarcity and promote access
to clean water around the entire world. In 2011, the national
intelligence estimate, the U.S. intelligence community reported
that over the next 10 years, many countries important to the
United States will experience water shortages, poor water
quality, floods, and other water problems that will risk
instability and even state failure. It will also increase
tensions between neighbors and distract partners from working
with the United States on important policy objectives.
While disagreements over water are inevitable, the good
news is that the international community has an impressive
track record of resolving water tensions through negotiation
and cooperation. In the last 70 years, there have been 37
reported incidents of water conflicts involving violence.
During that same period, roughly 300 international water
agreements were negotiated and signed. Indeed, recent history
shows that the peaceful resolution of water disputes can be a
useful diplomatic tool for building trust and cooperation.
Looking forward, the key will be to find ways to promote
cooperation between countries in cases where water is or has
the potential to become a source of tension. Admittedly, this
is not easy. Most countries view water as a sovereign issue and
there are many cases where outside intervention is not
warranted at all. Moreover, water problems are often connected
to a broader set of political, developmental, and financial
challenges. In the future, international efforts to increase
access to clean water and promote sanitation will be just as
important.
According to the State Department, nearly 800 million
people around the world do not have access to clean water. More
than 1.5 billion still lack access to improved sanitation
facilities. Each year, more than 4 billion cases of diarrhea
caused 2.2 million deaths. Most are in children under the age
of 5. In addition to the lives lost, the total economic losses
associated with inadequate clean water supply and sanitation is
estimated at more than $250 billion annually. The scarcity of
clean water and sanitation disproportionately affects women and
children. In many countries, women and young girls bear
responsibility for meeting the water needs of the entire
family. Collecting water can consume up to 5 hours a day, time
that could be spent in school or improving their families'
livelihoods.
Addressing water problems is a daunting challenge, but the
international community's successful track record and the
growth of new and innovative technologies give us even greater
reason to hope. As such, I am interested in hearing our
witnesses' views on the effectiveness of U.S. diplomatic and
development efforts to promote dialogue, capacity building, and
the development and use of new water technologies, but also
welcome our witnesses' view on the role that regional
initiatives could play in promoting cooperation, thereby
reducing water-related tensions.
One example is the new Silk Road initiative which aims to
improve energy and trade linkages between countries in Central
and South Asia. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back and
again, thank all of you for being here.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Mr. Marino. Colonel
Cook. And I would welcome remarks from Mr. Blumenauer and
again, appreciate the leadership that he is showing on this
issue, not only Republicans and Democrats, trying to get us
focused on this issue. Your leadership, I think, has inspired
me and the ranking member to call this hearing today. So thank
you very much for being with us.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I deeply
appreciate the courtesy of the subcommittee for being able to
join you. I guess it is obligatory in a water hearing at some
point somebody has to quote Mark Twain that ``whiskey was for
drinking and water is for fighting.'' And your willingness to
focus on water as an area of conflict, threat to the United
States and others, is deeply appreciated. As I appreciate the
support that you and the ranking member have given to the
latest legislation that Judge Poe and I have introduced, the
Water for the World Act which, if enacted, would help in some
way address some of these issues.
It is too often a hidden issue in foreign policy and the
detail that you went through, both of you went through a moment
ago, I think is very important and I wish somehow that it got
more attention here in Congress. And this subcommittee meeting
is moving in the right direction.
The threats go beyond the shared river basin. As my friend,
ranking member pointed out, in terms of the instability and
threat by the staggering number of people that still, despite
intensive efforts over the last 20 years, almost 1 billion with
safe drinking water, more than 2 billion without access to
sanitation, and the ripple effects that that can have. And I
think it is so important to focus on the impact of families in
these areas. And I do appreciate Mr. Keating talking about the
fact that this is primarily a burden that falls on women and
girls in families. There will, today, because of that up to 5
hours spent globally, 200 million hours will be spent by women
and girls gathering water and putting by the way often
themselves at risk as they go from the village.
The spotlight on China I think is so important and is
welcome, as well as the--I didn't realize the long history of
this Red to Dead, but it is an example of where these can be
positive. What we are seeing in Syria today, the experts tell
us, is in no small measure a result of sustained drought that
drove almost 1 million farmers to migrate to urban areas,
hungry, jobless, and was a flash point for that initial protest
against the regime as Assad had no interest or ability to deal
with it.
Over the next 20 years, we are going to see more urban
instability due to population increase, disease, poverty, and
social unrest. We have been working with the United States and
international partners making some progress, but we risk
reversing that progress that we have made due to the explosive
population growth that is going to occur in sprawling urban
slums which is difficult and expensive to provide sanitation,
quickly leading to pollution and disease.
It was exciting yesterday to see our friends in the
appropriations committee in a difficult budget climate
responding to the challenge that a number of us have been
working on with a 20 percent increase to give leverage to the
State Department. I hope that the hearing will help spotlight
what we might be able to do with the passage of the Paul Simon
Water for the World Act which is also moving its way through
the Senate. Elevate the existing position of the State
Department to better coordinate diplomatic policy; develop a
coherent policy framework that will drive our policy in the
right direction; build the capacity within the
State Department to handle both the bureau and mission
level issues and make sure that water sanitation and hygiene is
reflected in broader development and strategic planning
documents.
The leadership of this subcommittee is deeply appreciated.
It is timely and it is an opportunity for us to take an
important step to encourage some of the related committees,
appropriations, defense authorization, as well as foreign
affairs, to refine our policies and protect our progress.
As you pointed out in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman,
it is not only a threat, but it is potentially a solution and I
look forward to this discussion. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I appreciate that opening statement. And I
also appreciate the mentioning of Senator Paul Simon who worked
so hard when Mr. Moynihan was known for his work on human
rights, but Mr. Simon was a person who saw the water issue as
so significant. I remember when I was a young freshman, a long
time ago, I got a call from Paul Simon when I mentioned that I
thought water was an important issue and he took time to call
me up and talk to me on the phone about how he thought that I
had some insights that would be useful and be very important to
follow up on on those insights.
Mr. Blumenauer. Begging your leave, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Blumenauer. And both those gentlemen were charter
members of the Senate bow tie Caucus.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right, with that I would ask the
witnesses if they could condense their testimony to about 5
minutes and then we will ask questions. We will have panel
dialogue and some questions afterwards.
Mr. Sharp, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. JEREMY M. SHARP, SPECIALIST IN MIDDLE EASTERN
AFFAIRS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENSE, AND TRADE DIVISION,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Mr. Sharp. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating,
and other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for
inviting CRS here today. I will provide an overview of the so-
called Red-Dead Canal and its potential implications for U.S.
policy.
To the surprise of many outside observers, just over a
month ago, the World Bank Headquarters here in Washington,
Israeli, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon, and the Palestinian
Authority signed a tri-lateral Memorandum of Understanding, or
MOU. This MOU outlines a series of water-sharing agreements
which includes the initial phase construction of what has been
informally referred to as the Red-Dead Canal. The Red-Dead
Canal is a decades-old plan to provide fresh water to water-
scarce countries in the surrounding area while simultaneously
restoring the Dead Sea, which has been shrinking at an alarming
rate. The original Red-Dead concept was to pump water from the
Red Sea and desalinate it for use by the participating
countries. The leftover brine would then be gradually
channelled to the Dead Sea, helping restore the sea's receding
water levels.
Regional environmentalists have long criticized plans to
restore the Dead Sea using Red Sea water. They warn that the
transfusion of water from the Red Sea into the Dead Sea could
have serious ecological consequences that would negatively
impact both Dead Sea tourism and industry. In 2005, the World
Bank sponsored what became an 8-year-long feasibility study of
the Red-Dead Canal concept. Almost a year ago to the day,
various media outlets reported that construction firms involved
in the feasibility study had declared that the project was
technically feasible, although it would come with a steep price
tag, costing at least $10 billion and take years to construct.
The Kingdom of Jordan has vigorously pursued the Red-Dead
Canal concept. Jordan is one of the most water-deprived
countries in the world and is constantly searching for new
water resources. The civil war in neighboring Syria is
exacerbating Jordan's water crisis as over \1/2\ million Syrian
refugees have fled to Jordan increasing the population by 9
percent within just 2 years.
In August 2013, the Jordanian Government announced its
intent to construct a scaled-down version of the canal entirely
on Jordanian territory. In terms of scale and cost what the
Jordanians have announced and agreed on with Israel and the
Palestinian Authority is far less ambitious than the initial
Red-Dead concept. Estimates suggest that construction of the
desalinization plan and pipeline under the new MOU may cost
between $450 million to $1 billion. However, it is unclear who
will pay for the new project.
In essence, under the new MOU, Israel, Jordan, and the
Palestinian Authority have agreed to a water swap. Half of the
water pumped from the Red Sea will be desalinated in a plant to
be constructed in Aquaba, Jordan. Some of this water will then
be used in southern Jordan. The rest will be sold to Israel for
use in the Negev Desert. In return, Israel will sell fresh
water from the Sea of Galilee to northern Jordan and sell the
Palestinian Authority discounted fresh water produced by
existing Israeli desalination plants. The other half of the
water, or the leftover brine, pumped from the Red Sea will be
channeled to the Dead Sea where its environmental impact will
be monitored by an international consortium of scientists.
So what are the implications for U.S. policy and issues for
Congress? With the Obama administration and Secretary of State
John Kerry engrossed in seeking an Israeli-Palestinian final
status agreement, the timing of the MOU could complement
overall U.S. peace-brokering efforts, though the agreement was
between the parties themselves with reportedly minimal U.S.
involvement. According to Silvan Shalom, Israel's Water and
Energy minister, ``This is a historic agreement that realizes a
dream of many years. The agreement is of the highest
diplomatic, economic, environmental, and strategic
importance.''
For Jordan, the MOU could be considered a major diplomatic
achievement. Though the current plan is a scaled-down version
of the original concept, the Kingdom will receive additional
fresh water resources at a time of heightened scarcity, owing
to the Syrian civil war. Nevertheless, as the title of this
hearing suggests, security and political challenges remain.
Arab cooperative infrastructure projects with Israel could be
possible targets for extremist violence as has been the case in
Egypt, where gas pipelines traversing the Sinai peninsula to
Israel and Jordan have been repeatedly sabotaged by terrorists.
In the water-scarce Middle East region, water sharing
agreements in the absence of a comprehensive Israeli-
Palestinian peace may be considered risky. But there are also
risks associated with doing nothing. If living conditions in
Jordan deteriorated further, one could argue that the stability
of a dependable Arab partner for the United States and reliable
peace partner for Israel would be jeopardized. It is possible
that Congress could be asked to consider appropriating funds to
support the implementation of the Red-Dead Canal. Lawmakers
could pose the following questions among others. To what extent
will the project address water needs in Jordan, Israel, and the
West Bank? What are the security risks and costs? Is the cost
of the project on target? How will scientists monitor the
environmental impact? And is the project scalable beyond the
initial construction?
Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharp follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Moynihan.
STATEMENT OF MS. MAURA MOYNIHAN, AUTHOR & ACTIVIST
Ms. Moynihan. Thank you so much. I have prepared a
PowerPoint. First of all, I want to thank Congressman
Rohrabacher for your kind remarks about my late father, Senator
Moynihan, and the distinguished panel. It means a lot. He was,
of course, a great supporter of the rights of the Tibetan
people and he took me to Communist China in 1975 during the
Cultural Revolution when Mao was alive after we had lived in
India. So I had a unique perspective on the nature of the
Chinese state. And I have always believed if you really want to
understand the nature of Communist China, study Tibet. And so I
will proceed with the PowerPoint.
Next. This is a NASA astronaut photograph of Tibet. One
great success of Chinese propaganda is to persuade the world
that Tibet is insignificant, that it is a lot smaller than it
is, but it wasn't until the 20th century, the era of armed
warfare, airplane, and the tank that Tibet could be conquered.
Even Ghengis Khan failed.
So here is another NASA astronaut photograph of the Tibetan
Plateau which is considered the third pole. It is the third
largest ice mass concentration on planet Earth after the North
and the South Pole. And in Asian folklore, it is known as the
western treasure house because it is also one of the world's
largest suppliers of minerals.
Next slide. This is a 1920s British map of independent
Tibet and as you can see in the insert just how large the
Tibetan Plateau is. Tibetan Plateau is a unique geomorphic
entity with 46,000 glaciers comprising the world's third
largest ice mass, but what is significant about this in the age
of water scarcity is that it is the source of the great rivers
of Asia, the Yangtze, the Yellow, the Indus, the Ganges, the
Brahmaputra, the Chenab, the Sutleg, the Salween, and the
Mekong which flow through 11 nations, nourishing 3 billion
people from Peshawar to Beijing. They all rise in Tibet. And
the preservation and the management of Tibet's glaciers and the
rivers they sustain is one of the greatest challenges facing
humanity in the 21st century because Asia is the most populist
nation and industrial development and population growth is
projected to double within the next 50 years. The combined
effects of rapid development, decertification, and water
scarcity has already create cycles of droughts and flood, food
shortages and pandemics. But what is China doing about this?
Shrinking glaciers, depleting aquifers.
I am going to skip over some of this in the interest of
time, but it will be available. Asia is now facing a very
serious water crisis. Let us move to--today, all of Asia's
rivers except one, the Ganges, are controlled at their sources
by the Chinese Communist party. There are very few
international agreements that exist for sharing data and
coordinating usage of these rivers. As developing nations
manage water supplies as an economic commodity in the age of
scarcity, water rights and laws must be appraises. However,
China has refused to engage in any negotiations with the
downstream riparian nations on the use of Tibet's waters.
Here is a map which shows where the major rivers come from.
There is four that come from eastern Tibet and four that come
from western Tibet from Mount Kailash. Again, the Ganges
originates just a few kilometers outside of control of the
Chinese Communist Party.
Now, most maps will only show U-Tsang Province which is in
yellow as being Tibet, but in the 1950s and into the early
1960s, the Chinese partitioned Tibet as it moved from east to
west. Amdo Province, Kham Province have all been partitioned
into Quinghai, into Ganze, into all these other provinces, but
this is historical Tibet, so you can see how large it is. It
comprises almost one third of Communist China's land mass.
As you can see, this is another important map. It shows
China's grip on Asia and the occupation of Tibet gives China an
enormous strategic and resource advantage. This is a map I got
next from a Japanese Web site which--next slide, which shows
the major ethnic regions. And of course, China learned a lesson
from the collapse of the Soviet Union which my father predicted
would happen through the forces of ethnicity. China is, in
fact, a multi-ethnic state. The one star of the Han and the
four stars of the other groups declares that it is a multi-
ethnic state. And as you can see in yellow that is East
Turkestan, the Uighur people; Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and
Manchuria. So there is potential for ethnic conflict also again
over exploitation of resources.
There are the three main faces of the Chinese Communist
occupation of Tibet. Phase 1, 1960s, military invasion. And
that is when the deforestation, especially of eastern Tibet
began. Millions upon millions of acres of first-growth forest
were destroyed at this time which had for many centuries
functioned also as a barrier to prevent flooding into Southeast
Asia and Southwest China. Phase 2, the death of Mao, the rise
of Deng and these are details you can go into later when you
have more time.
Now we are into Phase 3 which is mines, dams, and war
games. In Phase 2, a lot of military roads were built across
Tibet. I have traveled over Tibet several times. As my friend
and colleague, Paul Berkowitz said, it is very, very remote and
you can see that there is no one to stop the Chinese. There
will be no NATO. There will no NATO troops. There will be no
U.N. peacekeeping forces. They control the roof of the world.
And now because of the population transfer of Han Chinese onto
the Tibetan Plateau, and the military infrastructure that they
installed, they have been able to now in Phase 3 build
thousands upon thousands of hydro-electric dams and mines and
military airstrips and military garrisons.
In 2000, China launched a vast development project called
Xi Bu Dai Fa, opening a development of the western regions of
Xizang and Tibet which together comprise half of Communist
China's land mass. And to date, at least 131 people inside
Tibet have self-immolated to protest Chinese Communist assaults
on their land and culture.
Could we move to the next? Some images manage to reach the
Internet, but Time Magazine described the self-immolation in
Tibet as the most under reported story of 2013. Next phase,
here is a farmer that has self-immolated. What is one of the
sources of this conflict? It is not just assaults on Tibetan
culture and the Buddhist faith, it is the desecration of
Tibet's ancestral lands.
Go to the next. Here is a hydro dam on the Sengye Kabab
which means mouth of the lion. Before these were Chinese
rivers, Indian rivers, they were Tibetan rivers and there is an
enormous body of folklore and mythology associated with all
these rivers. Sengye Kabab means mouth of the lion. This is the
Indus which flows through India and Pakistan. This is one of
the many, many--okay, this is one of the most serious sources
of conflict between Communist China and democratic India which
is diverting the Yarlung Tsangpo, a Tibetan name, which is the
Brahmaputra in the north-south water transfer program. The
Chinese are building a tunnel to divert the waters of the
Brahmaputra to northern China which has been suffering from
extreme drought conditions for many, many years. And it is
through an earthquake-prone zone. There are many complications.
Chinese scientists have also said they----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you please repeat where you said the
water is being diverted from where to where?
Ms. Moynihan. From the bend in the Brahmaputra as it flows
down into northern India and into Bangladesh. That is where
they are building this very, very long tunnel project. The
Chinese are building tunnels so fast, mostly with Canadian
engineers and I can go to the next. Here is some more of the
dams. We can go into that more in detail. Here is a dam on the
Mekong. There are over seven hydro-electric dams on the Mekong
which is the main source of fresh water for all of Southeast
Asia.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is that actually affecting the amount of
water that flows into Southeast Asia then?
Ms. Moynihan. Absolutely. Water flows on the Mekong are
said to be down 40 to 50 percent and fish stocks have also
declined dramatically. And I met with several Thai senators who
were flown by the Chinese Government to northern Tibet to look
at the dam projects of which they are very proud and the Thai
senators----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And that water is going to be used in
China?
Ms. Moynihan. Pardon?
Mr. Rohrabacher. The water then, rather than flowing into
the Mekong which is a very wide river, now you say the water is
being diverted from there to and it is staying in China then?
Ms. Moynihan. Yes. It is being used to create reservoirs
that mostly serve southern Tibet and southwestern China and to
create hydro-electric. And in the interest of time we will
continue. Here is another power station on the Brahmaputra. We
skipped ahead. That is okay.
This is a very important map created by my friend, Michael
Buckley, whose Web site meltdown in Tibet, I encourage
everybody to visit. This shows some of the hydro dams on the
Drichu, the Zachu, and the Gyalmo Ngulchu which are the Mekong,
the Salween and the Yangtze. Just look how many hydro-electric
dams. There are dams that are 10 to 15 feet high and the
tallest dam in the world is on the Mekong. The widest dam is at
Three Gorges on the Yangtze. But you can ese this is creating a
looming environmental crisis in all of South and Southeast
Asia.
Next slide. China has over 300,000 dams. It is the world's
number one dam builder. You can see most of the concentration
of dams are in Tibet, the four rivers of eastern Tibet. Tibet
was always called in the nation's folklore the western treasure
house because of the mineral, oil, gas, and salt deposits.
Again, you can study these maps in detail.
Another important issue is the decline of permafrost in
Tibet which will release methane gas and the shrinking glaciers
are also of tremendous concern. If we go to the next, there is
the map of the melting permafrost.
Next slide. This is a glacial lake created near the Rongbuk
glacier on the northern side of Mount Everest in Chinese-
occupied Tibet. In the last 90 years, the glacier's tail has
lost 90 vertical meters in depth.
Go to the next slide. This was an exhibit at the Asia
Society called ``Rivers of Ice'' by the famous American
mountaineer David Breashears. You can see since the 1930s when
the top photograph was taken how much ice mass has been lost on
the north face of Everest. Here are some more images. I
encourage you to go to the Asia Society Web site. You can see
more.
Now why is this one of the most under reported stories in
the world? China spends so much time attacking the Dalai Lama,
the distinguished Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has lived for
almost 55 years in exile in India. What has this done? It
confused diplomats * (10:51:22) deg., but it subverts
all discussions of the exploitation of Tibet's resources. My
dad always said the Chinese have a perverse obsession with the
Dalai Lama, but it works because it diverts everyone's
attention to this strange obsession they have and we are not
talking about what is going on in Tibet--next slide, please--
because Tibet is a war zone.
In 2012, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie said,
``In the coming 5 years, our military will push forward
with preparations for military conflict in every
strategic direction. We may be living in peaceful
times, but we can never forget war, never send the
horses south or put the bayonets and guns away.''
So the Chinese are not about to engage in any negotiation,
which you see are possible in the Middle East and other
conflict zones, about the use of Tibet's waters. There is a map
next of China's military investment and expansion. Tibet is
also a strategic launching pad for drones. The Chinese have
stolen drone technology from American firms and an American
State Department official went to an air show in southern China
and was alarmed to see all these drones. And they have
installed many of these drones in six new military airports
they have built in southern Tibet. They can reach India. They
can reach New Delhi in 20 minutes.
The Chinese Communist Party, however, is facing a crisis of
legitimacy at home and abroad. My colleague, Gordon Chang, can
speak to this.
Next slide.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We should probably move on to the next
testimony.
Ms. Moynihan. This is my last slide. What is the price of
appeasement? For six decades the People's Republic of China has
raped and pillaged Tibet without impediment or penalty, but the
world will pay a high price for ignoring the Chinese Communist
occupation of Tibet. Ghengis Khan is said to have uttered the
famous phrase, ``He who controls Tibet, controls the world.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moynihan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chang.
STATEMENT OF MR. GORDON G. CHANG, AUTHOR
Mr. Chang. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating,
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much
for the opportunity to appear before you today. My testimony
will focus on how in a very unexpected way China's water
problems are affecting the United States.
The People's Republic of China, over the course of decades,
has mismanaged and misused its lakes, rivers, and streams and
the resulting fresh water crisis has, in the words of senior
Beijing leaders created doubt about the future of the Chinese
state. As a former Chinese water minister has recently said,
``To fight for every drop of water or die, that is the
challenge for China.''
Beijing officials, unfortunately, have been fighting their
neighbors over water. As Chairman Rohrabacher noted in his
opening statement, China is the source of river water for more
countries than any other nation, controlling the headwaters
needed by almost half of the world's population.
People's Republic of China has 14 land neighbors, 13 of
them co-riparians and as Ranking Member Keating has noted there
are hundreds of water-sharing agreements in the world. China,
however, is not a party to any of them, even refusing to begin
negotiations. The Chinese have commandeered Asia's great rivers
by building on average one large dam a day since 1949. And now
Beijing is seeking to harness the river resources of a
neighbor, Burma, for its own benefit.
Since 2009, China has been building the Myitsone Dam,
located at the headwaters of the Irrawadday River. It will be
the first dam on that vital waterway, part of a seven-dam
cascade, a $20 billion undertaking.
Myitsone has been called China's attempt to export the
Three Gorges Dam, and it is more unpopular in Burma than that
massive project is in China. The country's former military
government negotiated the deal with China without public
consultation. So therefore, those who dislike the junta and
that was the overwhelming majority of people in Burma, dislike
the dam. The project has also become a symbol of China's
exploitation of Burma. Now the Burmese junta renamed the
country Myanmar. In a power-starved nation, about 90 percent of
the electricity produced by the dam will be exported to
southern China.
Now the Burmese believe that Myitsone is unpopular also for
other reasons. It will displace tens of thousands of the ethnic
Kachin minority. It will flood historical and cultural sites,
including what is believed to be the birthplace of Burma. It
will destroy one of the world's important biodiversity hot
spots. It will rob the river of crucial sediments that
therefore threaten the livelihood of downstream rice farms and
it will sit near a major fault line. It would be hard to design
a project that would be more unpopular. So it is no surprise
that in September 2011, President Thein Sein suspended work on
the dam.
So why do we care? Well, within days, Beijing found
somebody to blame. And that somebody is the United States.
People's Daily, which is the Communist Party's flagship
publication started the attack by suggesting that the United
States and other Western countries had pressured the Burmese
Government to suspend work on the dam. Beijing has a general
view this anti-China sentiment that was bubbling up in Burma
not as something that was indigenous, but was something that
was a conspiracy in the West between our governments and
certainly between pro-Western NGOs and we were all doing this,
China believes, to undercut Beijing's national interests.
Unfortunately, the Chinese have not changed their views
since then.
``Following its opening up, Myanmar has become a main
battleground for the world's major powers, and the
Myitsone project has become a bargaining chip in the
resulting geopolitical struggle.''
This came from People's Daily on September 2, 2013 of last
year.
``Some analyses point out that Western countries, like
the United States and Japan, will first have to ruin
the Sino-Myanmar relationship in order to expand their
influence in Myanmar and demonizing the Myitsone
project is an opening.''
The Chinese have still not figured out that they are
operating in a new context in Burma. Instead, they see the U.S.
lurking in the shadows causing it misery. Now, of course, the
Myitsone project, despite what People's Daily tries to say, is
not an American issue, but what is important for us though is
that Beijing's first instinct was to blame the United States
for its own failings in Burma. That certainly affects us and it
is a warning that as long as the Communist Party rules China,
it may not be possible to have good relations with the Chinese
people.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chang follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Goodtree.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GOODTREE, CO-CHAIR AND FOUNDER,
SYMPOSIUM ON WATER INNOVATION
Mr. Goodtree. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating,
and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on about global water
security.
Is the mismatch between fresh water supply and rising
demand inevitable and eternal? Or can it be brought into better
balance, thereby reducing a primary reason for water conflict?
While it is often taken as a given that water supply is
unchangeable and that per capita demand can only increase,
neither is true. Today, I would like to share with you an
example of where both the supply and the demand curves for
water have been bent. This new approach successfully changes
the paradigm of water relationships from the historic approach
of dividing up scarce resources to a new approach which
achieves water independence, fosters on-going cooperation, and
enables mutual economic empowerment.
The solution I am describing is water technology or
watertech. Watertech is biology, chemistry, physics, mechanical
engineering and information technology deployed in novel ways
to increase the supply and manage the demand of water.
Watertech is a multi-billion dollar industry in my State of
Massachusetts that serves global markets. I would like to speak
about how our industry and countries like Israel use watertech
to increase international security.
Israel has remarkably changed the supply and demand curves
of water for itself and for its neighbors. Recognized as the
world's leading watertech innovator, the modern state of Israel
was founded in a land of sand and swamp. Famously, Israel made
the desert bloom through novel water management and the
creation of drip irrigation. Today, Israel exports carrots to
Russia because it can do so cheaper and with less resource
consumption than Russia can itself. But Israel's rapid economic
growth continued to tax its limited natural water sources,
while demand from its neighbors for the same water remained a
serious source of conflict as mentioned by the chairman today
and my distinguished fellow panelists.
Israel made the decision to satisfy all its water needs by
changing the rules of supply and demand through the deployment
of multiple forms of technology. Today, Israel is the world's
number one recycling country, reclaiming 75 percent of its
water. Number two country, Spain, reclaims 17 percent. In
desalination, 85 percent of Israel's domestic consumption is
supplied by turning Mediterranean sea water into drinking water
and I can tell you it tastes great.
Here is the bonus of this transformation which accrues to
international relations. Just last month, as ably described
today, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority announced
an agreement to exchange fresh water, saltwater and desalinated
water from where it exists or can be built to where it is
needed. This Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal improves the lives of
Jordanians, Palestinians and Israelis. There were two key
enablers, going back 30 years, and more recently the will to
get it done and the other enabler, watertech. Notably, it was
arranged by the principals primarily themselves without the
glare of international mediators, albeit with important project
finance from the World Bank. Watertech has enabled Israel to
satisfy its water needs, diminished conflict, and enabled to
form agreements with its neighbors based on opportunity, not
just avoiding hardship.
Here is a second bonus of Israel's success that goes well
beyond its borders. Israeli companies are now bringing their
demonstrated expertise around the world, changing the supply-
demand balance globally: Using desalination in California, drip
irrigation in India and China, smart water network
installations on four continents. Israeli water technology is
increasing availability and quality and reducing demand, while
removing the remote cause of water conflict.
A particular favorite technology of mine is that the water
in most bottles of Coca Cola in Europe is purified by an
Israeli-invented treatment and we know that Coca Cola is
necessary for global peace.
In Massachusetts, we bring our state's strength in
innovation: Our multi-billion dollar watertech industry,
academic research, and dozens of watertech startups to meet the
needs of a thirsty world. We believe, in Massachusetts, that
watertech is both good business and a strategically important
national export. In the Q and A, I will be happy to identify
some non-budgetary means that Congress can consider to enable
water technology in service of global security interests.
It has been appropriately noted that the American export of
social media has enabled open communication among oppressed
people and thereby fosters freedom. In a similar vein, I submit
today that water technology sustains life by creating clean and
abundant supply while enabling economic opportunity and
diffusing one of the most enduring sources of human conflict.
Distinguished members, let us bend the water curve of
supply and demand in the interest of peace and prosperity.
Thank you for your interest.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodtree follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much and thanks to all the
witnesses today.
This has been very thought-provoking testimony and it is
the Chair's intent to have 3 minute questioning of our
witnesses and then we will have a second round. Votes were
scheduled in about 15 minutes.
Ms. Moynihan, could you tell us what impact does China's
occupation of Tibet and thus the control of this water, how
does that impact on India and India-China conflict?
Ms. Moynihan. Well, the north-south water diversion program
that you had questioned, saw the slide, would be an absolute
catastrophe for the people of India and Bangladesh because the
Brahmaputra is one of the main sources of fresh water for
eastern Indian and for all of Bangladesh. The Chinese, as
Gordon also noted, refused to engage in any negotiations. They
refused to sign any treaties for water sharing. India and
Pakistan have for many years had a treaty on sharing of the
Indus River. But China won't engage and they continue to
demonize the Dalai Lama and I forgot to mention over 200
military incursions into India in 2013 from Tibet.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And Mr. Goodtree, just to note that in
Orange County, California, we have one of the most
sophisticated, technologically sophisticated water companies,
water commitments, public and private, but we reclaim our water
and use it nine times before it actually goes into the ocean.
That type of reclamation, is any of that going on in Jordan or
any of these other places that we have been talking about?
Mr. Goodtree. There is water reclamation certainly going on
throughout the world. It requires an investment, but to your
point it is reused over and over and over again. So in essence
it is called new water. Singapore is a particularly excellent
case that has used reclamation as one of its four taps or
sources of water to reduce its dependence and separate itself
from Malaysia in terms of conflict. So yes, reclamation is
growing significantly. For example, in Spain, Singapore and
places throughout the world including Southern California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. You have covered so much ground. I just want
to hit on a couple of points.
Mr. Goodtree, you mentioned that the U.S. can be of
assistance in non-budgetary ways. I am curious about that and
also to our panelists, I am concerned, too, two of the
panelists referenced natural disasters, earthquakes. Can you
comment on what some of those--the results of those would be.
So if I could quickly have the answers to those questions.
Mr. Goodtree. Thank you, Congressman Keating. The U.S. is a
tough market for new water technology to succeed at home. And
as a result, we lag behind other nations in attracting water
technology entrepreneurs and exporting water technology to help
ameliorate water security crises. Briefly, here are four
methods that can enhance our ability to use water technology as
a tool to advance U.S. foreign policy interests.
First, the overall U.S. partnership with Israel around R&D
is an enormous benefit to our economy in life sciences,
information technology and social media, but not yet in water.
HR 3683, the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Act
expands the existing collaboration in energy R&D to include
water. The more we can leverage cooperative advances with
Israel in watertech to correct supply-demand imbalances around
the globe, the more we can diffuse global conflict. The bill
was approved last month by a voice vote in the House Energy and
Commerce Committee and it awaits a floor vote.
Second, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SRF,
administered by the EPA, has been enormously successful helping
states to build and maintain water infrastructure. But the loan
terms discourage the use of technology because penalties are
assessed for approaches that fail. Without risking the water
supply, terms can be made less onerous so that states will be
more likely to choose new approaches that have better results
versus sticking with inefficient methods. Once proven in the
U.S., watertech has a better chance of succeeding aborad in
water conflict hotspots.
Third, EPA review of new technology is necessary to protect
public heath and the environment, but often the Agency is
unable to approve new technology because it does not have
processes to evaluate them. As a result, the U.S. is often seen
as a less desirable place to invent or deploy watertech. To
rectify the situation, EPA evaluative mechanisms can be
streamlined to keep up with advances that meet our needs at
home while being promoted abroad.
Fourth, and finally, the Export-Import Bank is an essential
credit source for exporting American goods, but watertech is
not identified as one of its eight key industries and the key
countries it targets do not correspond closely to where water
conflict occurs. Congress can engage the Bank to align its
programs with U.S. foreign policy interests regarding water
security.
Mr. Chang. Ranking Member Keating, the Myitsone Dam is just
upstream from the largest city in Kachin state. There have been
various estimates about the number of people who would be
inundated and killed in a dam burst, somewhere to 100,000. I
don't know if the numbers are reliable, but we do know that,
for instance, the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province was
undoubtedly caused by the water in reservoir very close to the
fault line and that was absolutely devastating. So people
expect the same thing in Burma if the dam is allowed to
proceed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And from the testimony we have just had,
we see that China is obviously being perhaps reckless in their
location of these dams, much less reckless in terms of the
international peace, but also for the safety of the people who
live near the dams.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chang, whereas I
am not an expert on China, I have studied China most of my
life, been to China. China is a very wealthy country. It has
wrapped its arms around capitalism and loves it. Still a
dictatorship, a brutal country. Constantly violates human
rights, has no concern for the environment. Possesses one half
of the U.S. outside debt, spending money all over the world,
investments we should call them, building its military at an
unbelievable rate and buying gold up by the boatloads.
Given all that, it is 1.3 going on 1.4 billion people, the
Communist Party is still very strong and I think that in my
lifetime I will not see that change. What do we do, what does
the United States and its allies do to at least curtail the
activities of China on a wide variety of bases?
Mr. Chang. That is a very important question. It goes to
the core of American foreign policy because right now the
United States almost doesn't have a China policy. We are
reacting to the belligerence that we have seen in Beijing over
the last 2\1/2\ years, especially the last 3 or 4 months. But
essentially what I think goes to the core of what we should be
doing is to reassess our policy and approach to China because
for more than four decades we have tried to engage the Chinese
and bring them into the international system.
Mr. Marino. But can we do that alone? I think not. And
given the fact that the trade that goes on around the world,
the United States is one of the biggest importers of Chinese
products. I am at a loss at this point other than total non-
trade with China to have any impact whatsoever and I don't see
that in the future from the U.S.'s perspective. So what do we
get down to--let us get down to the nitty-gritty, let us get
down to the basics as to how do we approach this with China?
Mr. Chang. I think we need to reassess and understand that
our fundamental policies just have not been working. On a broad
array of issues, there are specific things we should be doing
and I would be more than pleased to work with your staff on
what I think needs to be done. But certainly, we need to
reassess things because China is moving in directions that are
extremely troubling and have not been predicted by the
architects of America's China policies.
Mr. Marino. They are like the bully on the elementary
playground. They are twice as big as everyone else. They really
do not care and there is no one who can at this point step up
to them and se them back.
Mr. Chang. We can do that if we have the will.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I
appreciate your courtesy. I am wondering just taking a page out
of the conclusion of the chairman's opening remarks, and Mr.
Marino's appropriate concern about China and what you all have
said, if there would be an opportunity for the United States to
focus on water technology and international agreements in South
Asia that whether it is what we do with the World Bank, it is
what we do in terms of initiatives through the United Nations,
through bilateral and multi-lateral efforts that we try and
focus more aggressive on water solutions, that we could work,
again globally, on the panoply of threats, not just with
climate change, but seismic events we have seen throughout the
region.
Is there a way that we could just sort of zero in in a
cooperative way with the partners, if as Ms. Moynihan pointed
out, if India and Pakistan, for heaven's sakes, can have an
agreement on the Indus River, is this an area that we could
deal with the Mekong, that we could promote more cooperation
and thoughtfulness and let the force of the ideas and about 2
billion people outside China who depend on this resource to be
able to build some momentum?
I welcome comments from any of you in this regard.
Ms. Moynihan. The problem is that the Chinese refuse to
discuss Tibet.
Mr. Blumenauer. I want to be clear. I am not talking about
China at this point. I am talking about moving with India, with
Pakistan, with Thailand, with Vietnam to try and develop both
the--refine the factual elements that you talked about in terms
of threats and opportunities and build some momentum and some
understanding in the region and the world stage.
Mr. Chang. I think the one thing that we can do is
certainly work with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,
ASEAN, because ASEAN has been trying to find issues upon which
it can cooperate. And this is one issue that affects most of
them. Of course, the big country outside of ASEAN that is
affected by these water-sharing issues is India, but it would
be very easy for ASEAN to form a partnership with India and the
United States, just as ASEAN has formed what is called ASEAN
plus three which is ASEAN, China, Japan, and South Korea. So
there is precedent for ASEAN to do this. It is the organization
that I think is in place and is perhaps the most willing to
take up issues of this sort.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We will continue probably until the vote
is called which should be within the 15 minutes, so we will
proceed with a second round of questions. And first of all, we
have noted here that India and Pakistan have been able to reach
an agreement. Thank you. India and Pakistan have reached an
agreement. The Palestinians, and Jordanians and the Israelis--
if we can have countries with that deep a difference and that
long-term conflict that has existed between these people reach
agreement, that is a comment, that itself is a comment on the
challenge we face with China who has been unwilling to reach
any agreements with any of these countries that we are talking
about. That is a comment on, I believe, the government and the
attitude of the ruling clique that runs Beijing.
About technology--well, first of all, let me ask Mr. Sharp,
how much water actually--fresh water, will be provided by the
Dead Sea to Red Sea project in proportion, is it 10 percent of
the water needs for Jordan and Israel? What are we talking
about here?
Mr. Sharp. Mr. Chairman, all the information that I have
been to glean about this project has been from open sources.
The actual agreement has not been publicly released just yet.
In essence, Jordan will be desalinating about 80 million cubic
meters, using 30 of it in its own country and sending 50 to
Israel.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What is that in reference to the entire
water consumption of Jordan?
Mr. Sharp. I don't know. I would have to get back to you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are we talking about 5 percent or 1
percent?
Mr. Sharp. I don't think it is insignificant, but I don't
think----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You can get to me on that. I think it
would be important for us to know that, if it is a significant
amount.
And Mr. Goodtree, in terms of technology development and
the availability of water, Lockheed Corporation, I believe it
was, announced several months ago of a breakthrough of water
desalinization technology. It is a new type of material that
can serve as part of the membrane in water desalinization
process. Have you looked at that at all and what impact do you
think that will have on some of these issues?
Mr. Goodtree. There is enormous development going on in
membrane technology which enables higher through-put when the
water goes through to filter out impurities. There is a number
of multi-billion dollar companies in my state, Lockheed is not
one of them so I am not familiar with its research. And in
particular, one of the most exciting new technologies, there
are a few of them. One is called forward osmosis which is a
different form of desalination which is being created in my
state by a company called Oasis Water. And also nanomaterial
membranes, a lot of great research and some commercialization
out of MIT is making a huge difference.
I would like to just state, if I can comment on Mr.
Blumenauer's last question which was the idea about neighbors
around China. It is not about the agreement with the Chinese or
let us say whatever country is holding on to or hoarding that
resource, but it is establishing water independence through
establishment of new sources of water through technology, new
water, which is whether desalination or recylination or
lowering demand through technology again such as drip
irrigation. So it is about establishing, we think, about oil
independence. This is water independence through independent
sources and basically break that link between the hoarding
country and the needy country.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, if you can, obviously, producing more
wealth is something that at least from the Chair's perspective
better than the idea of trying to distribute a lack of wealth.
Mr. Goodtree. Exactly.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And let me just note, I am the vice
chairman of the Science Committee and water is one of my top
priorities in terms of my own personal priorities as you can
see in this hearing.
Mr. Goodtree. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just, Mr. Keating, you may proceed.
Mr. Keating. Well, we are up against a rollcall, but I
wanted to just give you a chance to comment on one aspect that
has been touched upon, but it is very important behind this.
And that is the fact that a lot of these dams that were there,
they are also sources of energy, the hydro power and with the
difference in technology available in our production and use of
energy, could this have an effect, too, in terms of
independence of these other countries? Because it is not just
the water purity, it is also a source of power that this
creates problems and instability in other countries. If you
would just like to comment on that aspect, the energy aspect of
this.
Ms. Moynihan. Well, of course, the hydro dams do produce
reservoirs and energy and in Chinese-occupied Tibet, most of
that is going to industrial development. And there is one issue
I wanted to mention is that China is also rapidly building
mines at the source of a lot of the rivers so they are creating
long-term pollution that will go downstream to the other
riparian nations. And that could be a whole other hearing.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But that is very relevant, extremely
relevant in the discussion of water in terms of countries that
are permitting that type of pollution which then again
eliminates that as a source for their neighbors and thank you
for bringing that up. I think it is important.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Mr. Chang and anyone else who wants to
enlighten me on this, let us say for example we do--are able to
convince India and Pakistan and Vietnam and Laos and Burma to
coalesce and understand the fact that we have to have some
effect on China in order to resolve this Chinese issue. What
would we do collectively? Would we say we are not going to
trade with you any more which I don't think is going to be too
devastating to China. If you could name one or two facts or
entities as to what specifically we could do with China?
Mr. Chang. I think that if you had all of the countries in
the region including India and the United States have a unified
stand, maybe China would listen, but I really doubt it. Because
what we have seen so far on a number of issues, some critical
to the national security of the United States that we have not
been able to move the Chinese in better directions. If we can't
do it on those issues, it is very unlikely that countries in
the region can do this with respect to China.
Right now, you have a Chinese political system in distress.
You have a lot of intense in-fighting at the top and I am not
so sure that Beijing can maintain good relations with other
countries including the United States. So at this point, I
think that basically we have to just sit by and watch
You have got to remember that the indisagreement between
India and Pakistan was because India made a decision that it
wanted peace. China has yet to make that decision. And until it
does so, there is all sorts of things we can try, but I am sure
that they will be ineffective.
Mr. Marino. With my visits there and conversations with
leaders and people in the government, they are not going to--
those in control are not going to relinquish control. I mean
they would take--it would take a massive civil war within China
to make that change, if it could be made which I think it
cannot. So my position is if and until communism is defeated in
China, there is no answer to the solution.
Mr. Chang. I agree.
Ms. Moynihan. I agree.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Just a note for my friend that those of us
who spent a considerable part of our life fighting communism, I
don't know any of us who predicted that the communist regime in
Moscow would crumble either. Nobody thought that would happen
and----
Ms. Moynihan. Senator Moynihan predicted it in 1979. Left a
long paper trail.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well said, well said. And he was making it
happen, too. But it was something that many of us, I should
say, if not most of us would never have predicted. When
President Reagan launched what I considered to be the strategy
that won that victory in the Cold War which was helping those
people who were struggling for freedom, rather than just
depending on American military might to deter the leaders of
the Soviet Union, we actually began supporting in a big way the
Lech Walesas of the world, but also the mujahideen, also the
contras in Latin American which drained all of the willpower as
well as the resources from Moscow and I would suggest that
perhaps a strategy of helping those people in China who are
struggling for democracy may well be the best strategy and that
we should put that same kind of emphasis that Reagan put on it
for breaking down the Soviet Union.
Mr. Marino. Would the chairman yield for a second?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly would.
Mr. Marino. I would like to see that happen, too, but we
are talking about two different ideologies between the then
Soviet Union and China, the numbers of people, the numbers of
uneducated people, the resources available, and the access to
outside information to the Chinese people which really doesn't
exist at this point. And given the fact that you had the right
people at the right time, you had Reagan, you had several
leaders in Russia, at least leaning in that direction. I see no
indication of the hierarchy or the military leaders of the
government leaning in any direction other than to take more
control over natural resources, minerals, oil, gas, you name
it, and the land is the primary goal. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We will have a long talk about that some
time. I am actually more optimistic because of my experience
with Russia and again, just total surprise that we were able to
achieve that goal in that short a period of time when President
Reagan put that strategy down.
Let me just close here with a very--first of all, Mr.
Keating, would you like closing statement?
Mr. Keating. I am fine.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Marino, would you like a closing
statement?
Mr. Marino. I am fine.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me thank the witnesses today. We have
heard a great deal of information coming at this issue from
different perspectives and Mr. Goodtree, I certainly
appreciated, you added a whole new flavor to this and we
appreciate Mr. Keating inviting you and of course, Mr. Sharp,
your detailing of the Dead Sea to Red Sea project is
invaluable. This subcommittee will be going very shortly on a
trip to Israel and that information will be invaluable to us.
And as far as Ms. Moynihan and Mr. Chang, you have detailed
for us and provided us information that I hope that every
Member of Congress could hear because it really does exemplify
the horrific challenge that we face with this regime in Beijing
that is running, bullying its neighbors, running roughshod over
early concerns like how much water is going to be and even to
the point that they are, as you point out, Ms. Moynihan, they
are not only consuming the water and preventing their neighbors
from having this, it is sort of an act of aggression, but they
are also polluting the water without remorse. These are things
that we need to focus on and we need to deal with them in a
tough way so we can make some progress in this area. But the
most important thing, the world will be a better place when we
have water and energy that will uplift all of mankind and these
challenges with China and elsewhere, we need to make sure that
we are increasing the supply of water for humankind and the
availability of clean water to people so they can live healthy
lives and that so many resources are not sucked out of a system
to take care of the health of people whose health is being
dragged down by improper water and by water that is not well.
I appreciate all of your insights today and this hearing is
now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]