Office of the Historian

113. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Jordan1

Washington, December 18, 1959—9 p.m.

1104. Embtel 1036.2 Re your conversation December 15 with Prime Minister on Jordan water problem.

1)
Department regrets Majali’s negative reaction. Awareness deep Arab feelings this subject one reason Department began final paragraph Depcirtel 821, “If in private conversations this subject is raised by foreign officials” (perhaps this garbled in transmission).
2)
Jordanian Ambassador Haikal called on Lewis Jones on instructions December 17 to reiterate points made by Majali as reported paras 5 and 6 reftel.3 In course discussion Jones emphasized Department’s belief this is basically problem people of area must resolve. We not trying bring pressure on Arab countries to accept Johnston Plan, we continue believe unified development under Johnston Plan most effective means set forth to date to serve interests all riparians. Responding Haikal’s presentation Jordanian assessment Israel plans re Jordan [Page 250] water development, Jones pointed out Israel not to our knowledge presently working on project to take water from Jordan River north of Lake Tiberias but plans several years hence to take water from Lake itself.
3)
Department’s presentation background Johnston Plan in Depcirtel 821 similarly was not for purpose bring pressure on Arabs but merely to review arrangement we believe most practical answer to this sensitive problem.
4)
Department has following comment on substance Majali’s remarks:
a)
Johnston and USG never contemplated direct agreement between Jordan and Israel. Plan carefully provided for bilateral agreements with USG with no contact between GOJ and GOI and subsequent neutral international supervision to meet this political problem.
b)
Majali and other Arab leaders appear exercised mainly by belief Israelis intend in immediate future to divert “almost all sweet water in Jordan River before it enters Lake Tiberias”. 1) It not in Israel’s interest to cause Tiberias become more saline in view Israel use of Lake as storage reservoir and Israel direct irrigation from Lake and lower Jordan. 2) Only in last stage of Israel plan, considerable distance in future, would diversion north of Tiberias be contemplated and then presumably complications regarding Demilitarized Zone would have to be resolved.
c)
Johnston Plan fully provided for HKJ’s need to irrigate all reasonably cultivable areas through following measures: 1) East and West Ghor irrigation system; 2) Yarmuk storage dam at Maqarin; 3) Storage of 300 mcm in Lake Tiberias; 4) Delivery by GOI of 100 mcm usable water (including limited amount of saline water) from Tiberias; and 5) Neutral international supervision. Total 477 mcm river water allocated for irrigation in Jordan out of total approximately 1100 mcm in river system. Including ground water, total allocation to Jordan was 720 mcm annually.
d)
Israelis apparently just as concerned over HKJ capability divert entire summer flow Yarmuk (during important crop-growing period) as Arabs are over GOI capability re Jordan River. Although Majali stated Jordan leaving 25 percent of Yarmuk flow to meet needs Israel, Israel has raised question whether in absence storage on Yarmuk, downstream uses can be met during period of low flow. U.S. engineers also believe that if HKJ proceeds beyond first phase East Ghor project (for irrigation 30,000 donums) without Yarmuk storage, Israel irrigation downstream could suffer.
e)
Record Johnston negotiations indicates technical differences between parties had been narrowed to allocation 30 mcm of river water as stated Depcirtel 821.
f)
You were correct in assuring Majali that USG will not look with favor on any actions incompatible with Johnston allocations.
5)
In view Dept’s position set forth para 2 above, USG not prepared send out emissary as suggested final paragraph reftel unless clearly at constructive initiative of governments of area.
6)
While we do not wish prolong discussions with Majali and give him thereby impression we undertaking renewed initiative this problem, you may, if he again broaches matter, draw on foregoing to correct misconceptions. Info addresses should use as background only.
Dillon
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 684A.85322/12–1559. Confidential. Drafted by Wahl, cleared in draft with Ludlow and L/NEA, and approved and signed for Dillon by Jones. Repeated to Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, London, Paris Topol, Tel Aviv, Ankara, Baghdad, Tehran, Rome, Naples, and USUN.↩
  2. Supra.↩
  3. No other record of this conversation had been found.↩