Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.
Cooperation is the Function of Honesty
Amen Teferi
The intractable problem in the utilization of Nile water is the usual claim Egypt make – “sovereign right to water.” Many commentators suggest that this claim reflects the view of many Egyptians. Thus, Egyptians usually overreact to any project on the Nile River and considered it as an existential threat.
Egypt has long opposed upstream development projects on the Nile. In the past this had prevented Ethiopia from receiving money from international organizations like the World Bank, which has a “no objection” rule for projects it funds. Now, Ethiopia is funding the $5bn project itself. However, we are still witnessing growing objections from Egypt, but Ethiopia is pushing on with construction of its massive hydro-electric dam the -GERD.
We remember tensions had peaked in May 2013 when Ethiopia began diverting the Blue Nile. All the same, the construction of the GERD has been underway for about five years. Though Egypt, Ethiopia and the other nine countries that share the Nile have been bickering about the Nile waters for much longer, Ethiopia is pushing on with construction of GERD.
Recently things are becoming particularly heated like when Ethiopia began diverting a stretch of the river in May 2013. Though, the situation has been calmed down between 2013 and now, the dispute has not gone away altogether and construction is still forging ahead.
When Ethiopia officially began the construction of the GERD, the Former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi had told a national conference: “We will defend each drop of Nile water with our blood if necessary.” The bellicose exchanges between the two nations are nothing new. In 1979, then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat said, “The only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water.”
The late Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi once said: “Egypt had been trying to destabilize Ethiopia for decades by supporting its rebels and enemies.” He was also derisive in responding to query rose about Egypt’s chances of success if it stood in Ethiopia’s way saying “I am not worried that the Egyptians will suddenly invade Ethiopia. Nobody who has tried that has lived to tell the story.” In like manner the current Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn once responded that “Egyptians won’t consider war unless they go mad.”
On the other hand, Sudan, which has traditionally supported Egypt on Nile issues, now fully backs the mega-project, leaving Cairo out on its own with its sometimes saber-rattling rhetoric. Nonetheless, Egypt still sees the construction of the GERD as a risk to its water supply from the Blue Nile, but Ethiopia takes it otherwise. That is why Ethiopia engaged itself in negotiation and in the first place proposed the formation of international panel of experts.
It has also complied with the recommendation of the international experts who propose the formation of a technical committee that would implement the recommendations of the May 2013 report on the dam. The technical committee is expected to conduct more extensive assessment of the dam’s potential trans-boundary environmental and social impacts.
As construction of the dam progresses – it is already over 60 percent complete – Ethiopia is still enthusiastic to the continuation of the negotiation over the GERD. But news from Egypt’s unofficial sources has tendencies to lead the ongoing negotiations to an impasse. Now, Egypt has to adopt a more constructive tone.
According to the some western diplomat in Cairo, Egypt is still petitioning other countries for support referring to supposed breaches of international law. Egypt still hopes to pressure donor communities who have investments in or influence on Ethiopia. Egypt still relies on a “historic right” and colonial-era treaties to defend its water share.
Egypt’s wrong perception over Nile had a long history for it had been enjoying a majority rights to the Nile. Now Egypt needs a more conciliatory tone that would encourage cooperation and we hope the recent tense situation would be resolved through realistic assessment of the fact on the ground as Sudan did.
Considering the GERD as “an issue that can bear no compromises” will only escalate tensions. Egypt must understand that Ethiopia’s growing diplomatic and economic clout is still unfazed. Claiming “historic right” and defending colonial-era treaties untenable. As Owen McIntyre, a professor of international water law at University College Cork, once said “This position is absolutely untenable,” for the colonial-era agreements “completely ignore upper riparian states.”
Today, Egypt’s position seems to be equivocal. We know that Egypt had once shown a constructive tendency, but now it has abandoned it and came back with its usual “historic right” claim. Formerly, Egypt’s government was often quoting “widely respected” principles of international law.
We know that international watercourses are governed by a set of agreed legal rules and principles. Among these widely respected rules and principles is that of the equitable and reasonable utilization of the river, the ‘no significant harm’ rule, and the prior notification rule. However, Egypt’s interpretation of the ‘rules and principles’ differs from that of its neighbor as well as the international community, for it does not uphold the principle of “significant harm.”
We remember that the May 2013 report of the International Panel of Experts (IPOE) had concluded: “despite more studies being needed, long-term effects of the dam were unlikely to harm Egypt. In the short term, however, the same report had indicated that less water will reach Egypt as the reservoir fills.” But Ethiopia has expressed its readiness to negotiate the period over which it fills the reservoir, while Egypt insists it will be harmed regardless.
A country’s dependence on water is the primary factor by which harm is evaluated, professor McIntyre said, and Egypt insists it is a water-scarce country. “The problem is that when you look at Egypt’s use of Nile water, it is actually rather wasteful,” McIntyre added. In fact, the no significant harm principle is just one factor to be considered alongside the obligation on states to cooperate in the reasonable and equitable utilization of trans-boundary watercourses, McIntyre said.
Egypt’s history of cooperation is not strong. Egypt, meanwhile, is quietly lobbying the international community for support against what it says is a violation of international law. However, the Nile Basin Initiative, a partnership of Nile riparian states formed in 1999 and supported by the World Bank, aimed to create a cooperative framework agreement for the management of Nile water. But Egypt refused to sign any agreement that did not guarantee its current share of Nile water.
In addition, Egypt previously objected to the very principles it now advocates. It did not support the UN Watercourses Convention 1997, which codified the principles of trans-boundary water management. On the other hand, experts of international water law suggest that Egypt cannot get help through international water law as Egypt herself did not acknowledge these principles historically.
However, Ethiopia did not try to act unilaterally as Egypt did when it constructed the Aswan High Dam in the 1960s. Then, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan should all agree on the principles to take refuge or shelter from the principles of international water law.
Once completed, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) will be Africa’s largest hydroelectric power plant and will help solve a national energy crisis in Ethiopia. It will produce 6,000 megawatts of electricity and stand 170 meters high and 1,800 meters wide, making it the biggest in Africa and the 13th biggest in the world.
As rhetoric over the project heightens, this week Al Jazeera has reported that “there is maximum security around the dam, with an undeclared no-fly zone and anti-aircraft defenses.” It further indicated “There have also been rumors on social media in Ethiopia about possible air strikes by Egypt aiming to destroy the 1.7 kilometer dam.”
In the five years since construction began on the 1.8km Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam across the Blue Nile River, Egypt and Ethiopia have been engaged in a war of words over its potential impacts. Ethiopia believes the massive dam will herald an era of prosperity, spurring growth and attracting foreign currency with the export of power to neighboring countries. But Egypt has raised concerns about the downstream effects, as the Blue Nile supplies the Nile with about 85 percent of its water.
Both sides say they seek a negotiated solution, but they remain at loggerheads, with negotiations stalled. Ethiopia insists the dispute must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties. Ethiopia believes that there are only three countries in the entire world which are well-placed to broker win-win solution in the bickering over the construction of the GERD and these are Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt. Sometime, Egypt plans to take actions to escalate the situation against Ethiopia and Egypt’s main concern remains to be water security.
