Source: Dawn.com
3 August 2011, BEIRUT: A dispute between Lebanon and Israel over their maritime boundary has heated up and sparked fears of conflict as both countries move to assert sovereignty over an area potentially rich in gas.
Tension rose last month after Israel’s cabinet approved a map of the country’s proposed maritime borders with Lebanon and submitted it to the United Nations, which has been asked to mediate.
The map conflicts with one submitted by Lebanon to the UN last year and that gives Israel less territory.
The Lebanese say their map is in line with an armistice accord drawn up in 1949 and not contested by Israel.
They also challenge Israel’s assertion that an accord signed in 2007 between Cyprus and Lebanon sets the same boundaries as those agreed between the Jewish state and Cyprus in 2010.
Neither side for now appears willing to budge on the issue, especially given the discovery of important energy reserves near the disputed area which could generate billions of dollars.
Energy Minister Gebran Bassil told AFP that Lebanon’s new cabinet, in which the militant group Hezbollah plays a key role, was rushing to approve a decree setting out the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
An EEZ is a sea zone that gives a state the right to explore its maritime resources.
“Israel cannot arbitrarily flout international law and aggress Lebanon by creating a zone of conflict in our waters,” Bassil said.
“It’s not simply a question of them tracing a line and stating what’s theirs.” Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, whose party fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006, also waded into the dispute last week warning the Jewish state against any attempt to plunder Lebanon’s offshore gas and oil reserves.
The United Nations and diplomats are urging both sides to exercise restraint and to resolve the matter at the negotiating table. The disputed zone consists of about 854 square kilometres (330 square miles).
“It is common to the point of routine for neighbouring countries to have … overlapping claims,” a senior State Department official said, asking not to be named.
“There are many mechanisms available to both countries to resolve this problem peacefully,” he said. “These mechanisms range all the way from direct negotiations to binding arbitration.”
He and other diplomats interviewed by AFP said that even though the rhetoric over the border was heating up, it was in no one’s interest to start a conflict given the economic interests at stake.
They also pointed out that companies involved in gas exploitation will shun the area should the dispute escalate.
For the complete article, please see Dawn.com.
As December’s UN climate summit in Poland rapidly approaches, it is shaping up to be a race against time to prepare the so-called Paris rulebook, which will govern how the landmark climate agreement will actually be implemented.
Members of the European Parliament voted on Wednesday (10 October) in favour of increasing the EU’s Paris Agreement emissions pledge by 2020. They also urged the European Commission to make sure its long-term climate strategy models net-zero emissions for 2050 “at the latest”.
A new USAID report focuses on the intersection of climate exposure and state fragility worldwide. It finds that the factors that make a country vulberable to large-scale conflict are similar to those that make it vulnerable to climate change. The report thus offers a way for global audiences with an interest in climate and security to identify places of high concern.
A big difference. That was the conclusion the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came to when it assessed the differences between a 1.5°C and a 2°C warmer world in a landmark special report published in early October. The leading scientific authority on climate change found that the world is likely to pass the 1.5 °C mark between 2030 and 2052 if current emission trends are not interrupted.