In an essay entitled, “Bridging the Gap in Nile Waters Disputes” published by the International Crisis Group we read that, “For Egyptian authorities, the first-order priority is to shield the country from potentially drastically reduced water flow when the GERD is completed. Egyptian media outlets close to the security forces, echoing the country’s leadership, regularly portray the dam as a major threat to Egypt.
Likewise, assessing how the country was blindsided by Ethiopia’s plans to construct the GERD is a popular topic for discussions in online chats. In an otherwise subdued campaign, all candidates in Egypt’s March 2018 presidential election declared their intention to protect the country’s Nile interests. A new constitution adopted in 2014 requires the state to preserve Egypt’s “historical rights” to the Nile.”
Thigs have now changed rather rapidly both in Egypt and Ethiopia as well as in the region since those statements were written. The worries expressed in the above quoated passage should therefore be looked at against the new developments. It is now a long-established fact that the issue of the Nile is not exclusively about Egypt or exclusively about Ethiopia.
It is an issue that involves all the reparian states along the river, from its origins to the end of the its long journey. Therefore, no single party can impose its overt or covert agenda on the use of the Nile waters. By the same token, the issue of the Great Ethiopian Rennaissance Dam (GERD) is not an issue between Egypt and Ethiopia alone.
It is an issue that invloves primarily these countries and Sudan but also all the countries that have a stake from in the Nile waters. The Nile water and the GERD ahve become common causes in all countries that have a stake in the river’s bounties because they know that when completed, the GERD will benefit all the countries in the region. That is why they are directly or indirectly involved in the negotiations and expect positive outcomes from them.
This is why Egypt’s recent attempt or threat to take the Nile issue for international arbitration is basically untenable. This is not a realistic option for a number of reasons. First the issue of the Nile and the GERD is still in the process of discussion among the main or immediate actors, namely Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan.
The discussions have not come to a dead end since the result of the ongoing technical study on the GERD is not yet made official. The Nile and the GERD are African issues and therefore require African solutions for their just resolution. Instead of taking the matter for international arbitration, it would be more meaninglful until the tripartite talks between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia resume and continue with patience and farsightedness.
So, there is no reason for Egypt to despair on the issue, interrupt the talks and seek international arbitration. Once the technical aspects realted to the filling of the GERD dam and the time line for the completion of the filling process are made clear on the basis of the recommendations or findings of the technical commeetee, all parties are bound to come to an ageement. This process cannot however be dictated or altered by one side or another before the negotiations are fully consummated. However, for this to happen a radical change in attitude is a must. African countries should always try to look African solutions to their problems instead of seeking third party arbbitration.
In this sense there is no reason for one African country to seek international arbitration. If there is the goodwill, there is the way. The Egyptian side is therefore expected to overcome its baseless anxieties and assume a realisitc posturing that tally with the demands of the time and the reality on the ground. It does not pay much to stick to nanachronistic attitudes because things on the ground change fast and one has to adjust to new realities faster rather than procrastinating by creating all kinds of hurdles to torpidoe the talks that have already gone a long way.
The US State Department has on its part reacted to the current diplomatic impasse between Egypt and Ethiopia by affirming that all tributary states to the Nile have equal rights to use the waters of the river to develop their economies. The press release further stated that the United States advises the three countries, namely Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia should continue discussing the matter in order to arrive at satisfactory solutions for all parties.
This is a just and balanced approach by the US to resolve the issue in a fair and just manner and according to previously agreed possitions of the resepctiv eparties. If the parties fail to arrive at this kind of understanding, the international community is likely to make its posiiton clear and that may not be differnt fro the one expressed by the US State Department.
Ethiopia has already made its position clear on many occasions. It does not accept any diktat by any party as to the tempo and time table for the filling of the GERD dam because that would be tantamount to disregading Ethiopia’s soveriegnty on the issue, which is a red line no party should cross. For that matter, any party to the dispute has no right to dictate its terms on the economic development choice of any other party. Instead of that, the parties to the dispute should arrive at mutually acceptable terms and on the basis of a win-win appraoch to resolve their differences without losing precious time.
What must also be clear is Ethiopia’s decision and/or right to go ahead with the constrcution of the GERD according to its plans and priorties. As officials who oversee the constrcution of the dam, not a single minute is wasted at the constrcution site and the dam is now more than 65 percent completed. The GERD is a public project for which success most Ethiopians have contributed financially, and expecting it to be competed as fast as possible.
The breakdown in negotiations came after Egypt made unralistic demands on Ethiopia. To make a long story short, Egypt put forward a new proposal that makes it incumbent on Ethiopia to release some 40 billion cubic meters of the Nile water to downstream countries each year. The proposal also requires Ehiopia to release additional water when when the volume of water in Aswan Dam drops below 165 metres below sea level.
As Engineer Seleshi Bekele, Minister of Water, Irrigation and Energy said following Ethiopia’s rejection of the proposal, “Ethiopian cannot be sure on the volume of water it would release to downstream countries due to differnt reasons, including growing demand of water for development puroses in the country.” Moreover Egypt demanded the dam to be filled within seven to ten years while Ethiopia wants the dam to be filled within three years.
Since the implmentation of the GERD project is already a fait accompli, there is no point trying to stop it or revert it to an earlier period which would be a futile attempt to turn the wheels of progress back to square one. As we said above, the issue at hand is not whether construction on the GERD should go ahead or stop.
It is about when and how the dam would be filled and how much water the three sides need to receive from the dam in accordance tto their respective needs. This is an issue that can only be a ddressed through negotiations on the basis of the findings and scientific insights of the technical committee. Instead of walking out of the talks, Egypt could come up with its own scientific evidence to the contrary.
Ethiopia has time and again reassured all sides that it is not trying to develop its Nile water resources at the cost of downstream reparian states. These assurances are not empty talks. The ngotiations are about these things and other realted issues. So what is the point of Egypt seeking another option while the negotiations are not yet consumated and the outcomes have not yet crystallized?
There is no issue diplomacy cannot address given a serious commitment on all the negotiating partners. It is a matter of time, patience and insight before the negotiations bear fruit. Trying to torpedo the talks while there are still chances that they might end up in a mutually satisfactory settlement shows lack of commitment if not honesty. Trying to change a horse while crossing a river is not a smart option. Better use the horse to cross the river and change a new one for the retunr trip, if at all that is necessary.
Seeking international mediation is the latest tactic Egypt is resorting to when it realized that its arguments were ill-founded and its attitude one trying to bullying Ethiopia into accepting its conditions. As things stand now, it is simply impossible to stop Ethiopia’s flagship project on the Nile by any means. It is a red line that no one should cross under any circumstances. Egypt has the right to seek international arbitration. Yet it has no right to force Ethiopia stop its project.
Egypt’s latest argument is simply a bad joke or a bad dream or the result of pointless anxiety. No sovereign country on earth would stop or reverse its project after spending billions on it and when 100 million people are awaiting its completion. The GERD represents Ethiopians’ hope for a better future free from hunger and poverty if not now at least for coming generations.
Ethiopia’s goodwill and pan-Africanist spirit of solving African problems with African solutions is still valid and unquestionable. Ethiopia beleives that the concerned parties are capable of overcoming the hurdles and arrive at a balanced, fair and legitimate solution to the dispute. The GERD had been beset by doubts, threats, tactical changes and breach of faith since its beginning. It is thanks to Ethiopia’s patience that the negotiations have reached the presently advanced stage.
Ethiopia still believes that doubts can be repalced with trust, threats with cooperation, tactical changes with consistency breach of faith with unwavering assurances. Let our Egyptian brothers and sisters leave behind their anxieties and suspicions and resume open, honest and fair negotiations conducted in full view of the international community instead of seeking to impose their views through international arbitration that would only further complicate an otherwise negotiable issue.
The Ethiopian Herald SUNDAY EDITION October 13, 2019
BY MULUEGTA GUDETA
