The Ethiopian government has welcomed the move by US diplomatic circles to mediate between the stakeholders in the GERD project, mainly Ethiopia and Egypt that have been exchanging volleys of accusations and justifications over the last few months. Commenting on the US mediation offer, a high-level official from the Ministry of Ethiopian Foreign Affairs said that since the US is a friend of both Egypt and Ethiopia, the offer is not only acceptable but also expected to lead to a fair settlement. Meanwhile, it is also disclosed that the technical committee is keeping itself busy with its research to provide an objective analysis of the technical aspects and shed light on the complex nature of the GERD project.
Although Egypt sought the services of the US to step in and mediate the dispute, it was also threatening to take Ethiopia to a court of justice accusing it of infringing upon its right to the waters of the Nile. The fact that the US has accepted the mediation does not mean that it has dropped its threat. Neither does Ethiopia bend to Egypt’s demands. However, Egypt’s position on the GERD has generally shifted from one extreme to the other. First, Egypt maintained that its status and rights on the Nile waters should be maintained in line with the anachronistic 1926 agreement which was a colonial or British product.
When this position proved untenable in the context of the rights of all Nile riparian states for an equitable share of the river, Egypt changed its previous position and demanded that its share of the water should be maintained at any cost. Meanwhile, Egypt woke up to the unpleasant surprise of Ethiopia’s decision and implementation of construction of the GERD. This was the turning point that seemed to convince Egypt that its previous positions could not reflect the reality on the ground because construction of the GERD was proceeding with great speed and efficiency.
This was something the Egyptians previous thought improbable because Ethiopia was always believed to be lacking the financial and technical resources for the construction of the Dam. Ethiopia, in the Egyptian government imagination was considered a poor, hungry and divided country depending on foreign aid for its survival. This old stereotype however belied the changing realities in Ethiopia that was emerging as the fastest growing African economy and continues to be so.
When the Egyptians saw that construction of the GERD was a fait accompli and something that could not be reversed, they called at one point for cooperation or asked to take part in the works. However this soon proved a subterfuge that lacked serious or honest intentions. At last the Egyptian government reversed its previous benign attitude and resorted to hard line position affirming that “even a drop of water should not be taken” from Egypt’s share of the Nile waters. While the Egyptian government flipped flopped on GERD, construction proceeded at high gear and reached the present 68 percent level.
However, Egypt continued to harden its position and threatened to take the matter to an international court of justice before the US stepped and accepted to mediate between the two countries. To start with, the US made it clear that the rights of all the riparian nations to develop their economies should be respected and that was a logical position because Egypt’s claims and counter claims largely came before even the final verdict of the technical committee that is working hard to reveal the real technical realities behind the construction of the GERD that has so much worried the Egyptian side.
US mediation came at the right time because the two countries have failed to come to an agreement and their positions diverged through time. Instead of converging on the basic issues of the GERD project, their position hardened. Ethiopia made it clear, perhaps for an umpteenth time, that its flagship project in no way affected Egyptian interests while Egypt stuck to its “not even a single drop of water” argument.
There was even talks of a possible “water war” between these two countries circulating on social media but the fears were misplaced or exaggerated. Both Egypt and Ethiopia are not in a fighting mode and face complex domestic and international challenges in case they consider conflict as a way out of the deadlock. In this sense US diplomatic intervention would help alleviate any such fear and make conflict a far-fetched possibility. The US would not allow its two strategic partners go to war against each other because it has vital interest in keeping them under its umbrella for obvious reasons.
The US is indeed a friend of both Egypt and Ethiopia. The friendship has historic dimensions and contemporary significance. Egypt is a strategic partner of the US in the Middle East while Ethiopia is also a strategic ally of Washington in its fight against international terrorism in the Horn of Africa. Moreover, the ongoing political and economic reforms in Ethiopia seem to be enjoying the approval of the US administration that is supporting Ethiopia’s efforts with development assistance it is channeling through USAID.
Egypt on the other hand depends on massive US military assistance in order to defend itself against regional terrorism as well as play the role of a moderating partner in the Middle Eastern political conundrum. So, the US is entitled to mediate between the two sisterly African countries since no other potential mediator, including the African Union, could take up the challenge. Thus the US has its own strategic interests to maintain both in Egypt and Ethiopia. But this may not prevent it from serving as an impartial mediator when it comes to the ongoing GERD controversy which centers on the planned filling of the Dam.
Fortune business newspaper reported on October 12 that Ethiopia is to downsize GERD’s i8nstalled capacity by 1,300MW and that the dam under construction since 2011 had been planned to have an installed capacity of 6,450 MW of power. Fortune further said that the project office of the dam proposes to slash the installed capacity to 5,150 MW, decreasing the number of turbines to be installed for power generation.
Kifle Horo chief engineer of the dam was reported as saying that by slashing the number of turbines will reduce the unit cost of the dam. “Installing the turbines will only raise the overall cost of the Dam while having no significant effect on the capacity factor” he was reported as saying.
However the controversy between Egypt and Ethiopia is not about the number of turbines but the conditions for overflowing the reservoir. Egypt demanded Ethiopia to overflow the reservoir at 40 billion cubic meters which was not accepted by Ethiopia. Given that the Dam is ready for water filling, the Egyptian side is now trying the last option to stop the Dam by calling the intervention of the US to mediate the dispute.
Two years ago, Egypt had also appealed for World Bank intervention in its bid to stop construction on the Dam, perhaps on the assumption that the World Bank might be providing loans to Ethiopia. Ethiopia rejected Egypt’s move at that time as it is rejecting it now. It is not yet clear how the US will persuade the two sides to agree on a mutually acceptable formula for settlement.
It is not yet clear what changes the US mediation effort would produce in allowing the two countries overcome their differences. However, opposing views on the matter are being expressed in the international media. Turkish Anadolu news agency recently reported that US mediation will not succeed and that a possible ‘water war’ between the two countries is inevitable.
Fana radio, a local broadcaster, recently reported that while Ethiopia accepts the call for mediation by the US, its stance has not changed. The spokesman for Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on his part was quoted as saying that “the US has not offered any service as a mediator but only to host a discussion between the two countries with whom it has good relations.”
According to this statement, it is obvious that US mediation will not immediately change the environment for negotiations or set the terms of the negotiations. It is also clear that US involvement is bound to change and assume importance as the talks progress. As we go to the press, the planned November talks and American mediation is progressing without difficulty. Will the US come up with a mutually acceptable formula to end the dispute between the two countries? The issue is much more complex than this simple question while time will decide how the deadlock will be broken.
The Ethiopian Herald Sunday Edition 10 November 2019
BY MULUGETA GUDETA
