The Euphrates – Asi Canal

(Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean)

What I propose here is a sea-level canal from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. This
canal will certainly require generous use of explosives and manpower. It is proposed for
an era after the realization of general and complete disarmament on a global scale. The
entire Canal Zone passes through three nation-states of our time. These nation-states are
not, at present, in friendly relations, nor are they financially capable of excavating such a
canal. It is also unlikely that the governments of these states will be inclined to embark
on a project that will mean endless sacrifice, loss of valuable land, and short-term
environmental degradation for the generation that will be building this canal. Even
though the benefits may be easy to understand, they will be ‘too distant’ for governments
that are accustomed to favor short-term interests over long-term interests.

This project is also based on a value system that is unequivocally against the currently
predominant belief that human beings (and societies) have territorial rights. Even though
it is possible to think of this project within the confines of territorialist-nationalist
thinking, I clearly advocate the permanent handing-over of a wide enough strip of land by
the three countries involved to a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nonantagonistic/
nonbelligerent ‘community’. (These people will not necessarily be ‘under one flag’, nor
will they remain in this area for over a generation. It will probably be deemed best to
allow peaceful people from different parts of the world to take turns in residing alongside
this canal.) In other words, the ideas behind this proposal are in clear conflict with the
greatest and arguably the most devastating social trend in our age: Territorialist and
inculcationist nationalism.

Despite all that, this is one of the more ‘reasonable’ canal proposals that I expound. (That
is, I expound even bolder canal proposals. A sea-level canal through the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec may also seem reasonable to most. One of my bolder proposals is a north-
to-south sea-level canal through Australia, joining Lake Eyre with the Gulf of
Carpentaria and Port Augusta.) It really does make sense in the short run. It so happens
that the eastern end of the canal is close to a major source of oil. There are other major oil
reserves a few hundred kilometers to the north (Mosul and Kirkuk). It so happens that the
canal is strategically located between Europe/North Africa and India/China/Japan/
Oceania. (I propose two other canals that further shorten the distance between Northern
Europe and China/Japan: A sea-level Midi Canal (in France, between the Atlantic Ocean
and the Mediterranean), and a sea-level canal on the Isthmus of Kra. In addition, I
propose an Indus River to Ganges River canal –not necessarily sea-level.)

Also, this canal is a good alternative to the Suez Canal. Obviously, the Suez Canal is the
most meaningful canal on the face of this planet; but it does need to be widened and
deepened. This canal can operate while the Suez Canal is further excavated.

1
Another advantage about this canal is that it happens to be adjacent to a large but shallow
sea that is relatively warm most of the year: The Persian Gulf. This makes it possible for
some of the debris from the excavation to be utilized in the creation of possibly tens of
thousands of islands resting on legs erected on the bottom of the Persian Gulf. My
suggestion is not the ‘drainage’ of the Persian Gulf. I suggest that large ‘pots’ (in various
geometric shapes) be placed upon (stainless) metal legs, and the topsoil and rocks should
be poured only into those ‘pots’. I realize that the dumping of soil directly into the
Persian Gulf will hurt the flora and fauna on the sea floor. While some such damage is
inevitable with the erection of the metal legs as well, at least the added surface of the legs
will more than compensate for the damage, creating habitat especially for the oysters and
small animals that feed on human sewage.

If enough explosives, labor, money, and other resources are expended, it is possible to
create a wide and deep sea-level canal between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.
This canal may be used by some of the big oil tankers. The saving in the shipment of oil
may continue to be meaningful for more than a century. However, this hope plays an
insignificant role in justifying my proposal. I fully appreciate that the canal is likely to be
useful for tens of thousands of years after all the oil reserves are exhausted, and/or
humankind switches to a better source of energy. If anything, the prospect of oil tankers
passing through this canal makes me worried, rather than excited. The highest glory that I
can envisage (not that the future of this canal can be limited to what I am capable of
imagining, at our level of civilization) is the creation of hundreds of kilometers of
hillsides overlooking a canal that is useful to a large part of humankind. Whether they
have anything to sell to any part of the world or not, the people living on the hills
overlooking this canal will be witnesses (and hosts) to a trade route that will hopefully be
active as long as humans live.1 (Note that the distance between most people on the two
American continents and the southeastern tip of this canal is closer if they choose the
route through the canal, than if they come from the Pacific going west.)

I also find it personally pleasing that the canal happens to be in a region that has
historically been one of the ‘cradle’s of the agricultural way of life. As a result of the
damming of the Euphrates by Turkey and Syria, I think that agriculture will not have a
sustainable future in this region (the land will be salinated, overused, and partly eroded).
The major contribution of the dams, so long as they survive as structures, will be twofold:
They will provide some fresh water to the inhabitants alongside the canal, and they will
make transportation easier from the Canal Zone to the north, alongside Euphrates.
Agriculture, hopefully, will not be as essential to future generations as it is to us (the
author of these canal proposals is also the advocate of drastic reduction of human
population on this planet, through birth control).

1
I came up with this idea for the canal in early 1980s (possibly 1982) –long before the Iraqi section of the
proposed Canal Zone was subjected to bombing campaigns by the US and its allies. Extensive use of
depleted uranium shells in the area may have rendered parts of this land dangerous to human inhabitants for
millions of years to come! Perhaps some elderly inhabitants may consider short-term stay in the area not
too hazardous to their health…

2
The fact that the Persian Gulf can be the site of thousands of islands in a temperate zone
is certainly glorious, too. But that could be made possible without having to construct this
canal. Therefore, whatever glory that project may have will not necessarily justify the
canal. However, the islands will no doubt have a higher glory once they have easy access
to the Mediterranean and beyond. Also, they will possibly have better marine resources
once a current between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean is created.

It is also likely that some development will take place along the Asi (Orontes) river. That
will certainly have access to this Canal Zone, adding further glory.

Underlying all my canal proposals is a comfortable acceptance of this incontrovertible

fact: No means of transportation, even in our ‘advanced’ age, proved to be more
economical than water surface transportation. I happen to think that the advantages of
water surface will be overwhelming for a long time in the future. I fully understand that it
is impossible to guess at what future generations may invent. We must, therefore, be
modest in our projections and predictions. However, given that human tastes are less
subject to sudden change, I believe that the ‘romanticism’ of sailing versus any other
mode of transportation will be there –at least for a large number of people.

Finally, as someone who has been privileged to see the Bosphorus in childhood and
youth, I think that the opportunity that will be created for architects of countless
generations should be considered one of the most promising aspects of this project. If the
two hills overlooking each other are made distant enough, and the angle (the steepness of
the hills) reasonably small, wonders can be created on both shores. In addition, bridges of
many shapes and styles can adorn this canal.

Of course, whatever we can build on the shores of this canal today may be improved
upon in the future. Ultimately, even some of the most durable works of architecture may
remain useful and in good shape only for a few centuries. But the canal (unless it is
sabotaged or deliberately blocked) will remain useful for tens of thousands of years (as
far as I can see, only a continental drift can destroy this wide sea-level canal).

3
The Canal Zone

It may seem daunting. However, note that this canal will be far shorter than the Grand
Canal in China. That canal certainly does not cut through any plateau. In fact, almost the
entire canal passes through a land that was created with the alluvial sand from two rivers
on a shallow continental shelf. Still, considering the vast technological differences in
favor of our generation as compared to the builders of the Grand Canal of China, I think
we can appreciate our ability to make this dream a reality.

Note that I refrain from marking the exact location of my proposed canal. This is because
I have not seen much of this area. I assume that no part of this strip of land includes an
ecologically indispensable region (as much as some of us take for granted the historic
importance of this region, I hope it is clear to us all that rainforests, islands with unique
species, and the polar regions deserve far more of our concern, energies, and dedicated
service). I do not know which area contains archeological sites that cannot be easily
moved elsewhere. I also do not know about the rock formations along the Syrian plateau.
It may be inevitable that the Iraqi section of the Canal Zone will have to demolish large
parts of cities and towns. Nevertheless, decisions about the course of the canal must be
made based on minimal social, archeological, architectural, and financial damage.

4
The Turkish & Syrian Section

The most difficult and expensive excavations will have to be through this plateau. I do
not have the elevation figures for much of the plateau. However high it is, it can’t be
beyond the power of human technology to excavate it down to sea level. I realize that
many ‘more practical’ people will suggest a locked canal at least for this plateau. But that
is what separates the visionary from the short-sighted.

Not to go completely against reason, the canal should steer clear of the Euphrates Dam
and the artificial lake that it created, making sure that the water stored there remains at a
safe distance (to the north of the canal).

Obviously, the canal should proceed in both directions –from the sea, ships should bring
the heavy machinery, workers, and explosives, and take away the debris. It is possible to
create thousands of artificial islands on this end as well (along the southern coast of
Turkey, the Aegean Sea, the Adriatic Sea, and the strait between Sicily and Tunis).
However, as most of the debris will come from this side, there will clearly be a good deal
more than will be needed for any part of the Mediterranean. Some of the rest may be
exported to Northern Europe. Ideally, not one bucket of earth should be dumped into the
Mediterranean. In the last resort, I suppose the low-altitude deserts of Libya can
accommodate whatever debris is left.

5
The strategy that seems most sensible to me is this: 1) Dig a deep and wide enough hole
very close to the sea (which will be moving ever closer inland), keep it at a minimum
width; 2) Build temporary barriers on the two sides, if need be, to prevent landslides;
3) When the ditch is made wide enough for most tankers, blast or excavate the ‘dam’
between the empty ditch and the sea; 4) Bring the ships inland, carrying equipment and
supplies; 5) As the ground level rises, form a wall at a right angle to the canal, and try to
push the earth down to the ships, making as much use of gravity as possible; and keep
pushing the wall backward; 6) Repeat the same steps until you meet with the other team
pushing westward; and 7) Continue (for decades and decades) digging into the hills on
both sides, making the canal wider, and the slopes more gentle.

Excavating only at two edges may be the most economical strategy. But to save some
time, scores of different centers of activity should be created right from the beginning.
The ‘inland’ centers may make use of temporary railroad tracks and perhaps some
hovercraft in removing debris. Perhaps, by tapping into the Euphrates Dam, some of the
inland ditches may be flooded, and the water surface can be utilized in transporting the
debris at least until the nearest railroad.

Dynamite-type explosives will need to be generously used for this canal. It may also be
possible to use some manageable explosives as fuel for some of the giant excavation
machines as well. Throughout the project, the top priority, of course, is the health and
safety of the workers. In fact, it may be a good idea to offer lower than average wages to
these workers, so as to make sure that only those who are thrilled about the project sign
up to work. Of course, while their immediate earnings are kept relatively low, these
workers should be guaranteed life-long (nontransmissable) earnings from the passage
fares, rents, and other income that will be generated by the canal. This way, the workers
may be given another incentive to exercise caution. Four to six shifts a day may make the
workload tolerable.

While the empty ditches are being excavated, tunnels may be dug underneath, at certain
locations, to offer alternative passages between the north and the south. Since much of
the hills on both sides will have to be pushed back, heavy construction along narrow
sections of the canal should be postponed. (Tents, after all, have been reasonable
alternatives in this part of the world for millennia.)

6
The Iraqi Section

As noted above, some rich oil reserves lie to the north of Baghdad (notably, Mosul and
Kirkuk). Some auxiliary canals may be built between them and this sea-level canal. Such
canals may not need to be sea-level. Also, other canals may be built to connect some
parts of Iran (such as Ahvaz) to this canal.

Although technologically less challenging, the Euphrates bank in Iraq is far more
populated, and the river is surrounded on both sides with buildings of religious, historic,
and artistic value. Since it is in the interests of future generations to have a more or less
straight canal, it may make sense to excavate a canal here parallel to the Euphrates river.
This way, the river’s fresh-water marine life (or whatever that’s left of it) will not be
prematurely flowing into a salt-water canal.

No matter how much care is taken, a wide canal will have to take away a large area of
exceptionally fertile land from the Iraqi people. It will also have to tear down countless
homes, mosques, perhaps even ancient archeological sites, cemeteries, and so on. Since a
wide enough strip of land surrounding the canal will have to be cleared for the new
settlers, a good deal more political opposition may be encountered in this section of the
canal than in the other section. As I made clear earlier, this proposal is made not for an
age when nation-states are engaged in a multi-lateral and multi-layer antagonism, but for
a time after the realization of general and complete disarmament on a global scale. In
fact, it is advisable that it be started after the abolition of nation-states.

7
Some people who were born in this part of the world may feel that they are entitled to
‘this land’. Some may even think that any encroachment by ‘foreigners’ to this land will
be in itself sacrilegious and/or offensive. A project like this should not be started without
setting in place a global security system that can peacefully counter and settle territorial
disputes. It is as clear today as it will be then that someone born next to the Euphrates
river is no more entitled to that piece of land than someone born in Tierra del Fuego, or
Alaska, or Kamchatka, or Tasmania.

It may be plain to see, even today, that the ceding of territorial claims to the Canal Zone
is in the interests of most people who are living in the three countries involved. Even
though the states themselves are not given rights to the area, peaceful (nonterritorialist)
people from all three states will certainly have access to the zone; and goods from all
over the world will be flowing from many points along this canal to virtually all areas
inland. Some of the people in the three countries will live on artificial islands created as
part of this project; and some will move to even more desirable places on this planet. As a
result of the global system that they make possible, and which makes this canal possible,
most people in these three countries will have more wealth, more leisure, more freedom
to travel, and less need for agriculture. The planet will have a decreasing number of
human beings; and each human being will be guaranteed subsistence without having to
till the earth, and/or spill human blood to protect it.

While environmental degradation is lessened, and ecosystems positively helped to

recover from human pollution and abuse, more and more people will be able to surround
themselves in natural environments that they find desirable. This project may not create
beauties and ecosystems that can rival beauties that have long existed on this planet; but
it is an extension of a radical approach to ‘nature’. This approach appreciates the
ultimate dependence of humans to other forms of life and forces of nature. At the same
time, it recognizes that many ecosystems can be improved and/or made more viable
through active human involvement (in ways that may heavily utilize modern technology).
It also understands that humans can be useful in the creation of a more sustainable
balance by assisting the propagation and spread of certain species, and by culling certain
other species. (It is possible that the marine life flowing from the Indian Ocean to the
Mediterranean will make the latter richer –as had been the case with the building of the
Suez Canal, and providing the incomparably richer marine life of the Red Sea with an
access to the Mediterranean). Perhaps a more modest extension of this approach is the
one that favors saving energy. And this canal promises to do that for thousands of years.
It shortens a busy trade route by thousands of kilometers. It also creates (winter) homes
for people who would otherwise be living in colder regions of the world, wasting away
scarce fuels, and polluting the atmosphere.

Above all, it serves as a testament to humankind that there still remains a lot of
meaningful work to be done for the beautification of this planet. There is no reason why
we should not live, and build, and create, with confidence that humankind will be around
on this blue planet for many millions of years.