The US last week hosted the tripartite meeting on the GERD between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan in the hope that the three would come to the discussion table and start what may be a long process of a three-way dialogue. The meeting was said to be a discussion not a deal. Of course, it is too early for a deal and the discussion was only exploratory in nature. Much water will flow under the bridge before a final deal would be reached or fail depending on how the talks will proceed.
The tripartite discussions have resumed yesterday and are expected to continue in the next days and weeks until a breakthrough might be reached. The second meeting must have crated much more optimism.
The GERD is perhaps the biggest hydroelectric project in Africa or the fifth in the world. This is big deal of course. But what is in store for the US? By hosting the discussions, Washington has certainly saved the Ethio-Egyptian talks on the GERD that was standing on the verge of collapse and has given it a second, perhaps longer life before the light at the end of the tunnel dimmed. There were also representatives of the World Bank and the discussion was chaired by US secretary of finance.
This may give rise to speculations whether the US might be thinking about supporting the GERD financially and take it away from other sources of financing particularly from China whose economic influence in Africa is growing by leaps and bounds while the US is lagging behind. By doing so, the US might get a leverage to influence not only the ongoing discussions but their outcome and future direction. A president whose election motto and politics remains, “America First” must be smelling something important in the GERD to boost US interests in this strategic region.
Anyway, the US should be commended for the steps it has taken to make the discussions possible although it was asked by Egypt to do so. Egypt was meandering in its position and has not yet reached a stable policy on the GERD first by threatening to take the issue to international arbitration and then asking Washington to organize the discussions. Egypt too should be commended for choosing discussion instead of threat and international arbitration. Why it requested the US to organize the discussions is clear. Washington is Egypt’s strongest ally in the Middle East and an influential presence in the Horn.
Ethiopia, on the contrary has so far followed a stable diplomatic course and showed determination to take its fate into its own hands as far as the GERD is concerned. It has not flinched for an inch and hammered on its vision tirelessly if not courageously. It keeps on building the GERD no matter what. This attitude is not only correct but also based on a correct vision and legitimate right that Ethiopia needs to enjoy.
That is the right to make use of its natural resources to achieve economic development, overcome poverty and feed its people without adversely affecting the rights and interests of downstream riparian states. This is not only a matter of right for Ethiopia but also that of faith. Ethiopia believes that it can achieve its vision for the first time in its long history. This is also the source of its strength on the GERD controversy. the Ethiopian public may be divided on many issues. But the GERD project is perhaps the only and strongest factor of cohesion.
Egypt, on the other hand is dilly-dallying on the GERD issue simply because its arguments do not only hold water. It has also spent unnecessarily long time before adopting a realistic, workable and effective diplomatic position. Egyptian diplomacy was swinging like a pendulum following the dynamics of its internal politics.
It ranges from sticking to obsolete colonial time agreements to resorting or threatening to resort to international jurisdiction before its finally appealed on the US to host the ongoing discussions. One cannot accuse Egypt for this. It is normal for any country to use all possible leverages in order to promote its national interests. The problem is when the avenues lead nowhere or lead the country into a diplomatic impasse. At least for now, the breakthrough came not from Cairo but from Washington and that is a good thing.
The US is expected to serve as an impartial mediator when serious talks will start to address key issues. Egypt is the US’s key ally in the Middle East and a target of international terrorism and internal dissent that mainly comes from Islamist parties and groups seeking to destabilize the country. Egypt is also a reluctant ally of Israel in the region thereby angering the Palestinians and its own pro-Palestinian groups and parties. Egypt’s influence in the region is reduced and the initiative is taken by Iran which is a big, if not dominant regional power. Nonetheless, the US is a big supporter of President Al Sisi and the military that is holding real power in the country.
On the other hand, the history of Ethio- US relations has generally followed a meandering course; sometimes becoming cordial and at other times becoming less so. It has been seesawing in the course of history as Ethiopia was ruled by a monarchy, a military dictatorship and now an ethnic-based government all of whom had never had democratic credentials.
Nowadays, Ethio-US relations have taken a new and more pronounced nature against the background of the liberal economic and political reforms taking place in the country. The warming up in relations between the two countries has also a regional dimension as Ethiopia is not only the most important country in the Horn both diplomatically and in the fight against international terrorism.
However the GERD project and the new US initiative has nothing to do with terrorism or Ethiopia’s regional leadership. Thus, it would be legitimate to ask why the US is called upon by Egyptian president Al Sisi to hold the current discussions in the context of the emerging rivalry between the two African states. As we said above, the discussions are an opportunity for the US to make its diplomatic presence felt and probably take the first serious step in countering China’s slow but strategic inroads into the region.
If the discussions between Ethiopia and Egypt achieve the desired results of serving the developmental aspirations of the countries in a fair, balanced and just manner, that would at least be a boost to American diplomacy in the region or project the US as an effective contender in the new economic kind of scramble for Africa between China, Europe and Russia.
If the discussions fail to achieve their objective, both Egypt and Ethiopia might find themselves in serious trouble or seek the mediation of another influential regional power such as China, Russia or Europe. Mediation by international financial powers such as the IMF or the World Bank or international organizations such as the AU
and the UN cannot be ruled out. If however the US chooses to play some kind of power politics in the region, it is likely to walk a tight rope. It may not have to choose between Egypt and Ethiopia because both are influential and/or key players in their respective regions.
Sudan is not obviously part of the problem or the ongoing diplomatic row over the GERD. It has shaken off its traditional dependence on Egyptian posturing on Nile issues and is following an apparently independent policy on the GERD. It is hostile neither to Egypt nor to Ethiopia and works to defend its interests by following a middle course and by adopting a positive attitude. Sudan has no capacity to tilt the balance in favor of one party or another in the ongoing GERD controversy and its national interest would be better served by working for reconciliation and understanding between Egypt and Ethiopia.
Meanwhile, Ethiopia is going ahead with the GERD project because it is a project its people have invested not only their money but also their imagination, their hopes and visions. The project is no doubt a game changer for the Ethiopian people. It has also political dimensions because the GERD will serve as a tool of further economic and political cohesion between the people and diverse regions. It has regional dimensions because it will link Horn countries and their economies in such a way that it has the capacity to serve as the engine of regional economic integration. Therefore, the GERD is too big to fail before attaining its multiple objectives.
With the success of the talks, Egypt too is going to be part of the solution and not remain part of the problem. With time, its worries and anxieties will be replaced with collective vision of hope and cooperation. Trust will be built slowly however hard it may look now. When the Egyptians realize that the GERD is also their project and they can use it in such a way as to keep their share of the water without harming other riparian states, that will be the turning point for discord to turn into concord.
The technical committee is presently working hard to come up with a comprehensive and binding scientific evidence as to the possible impacts, positive as well as negative, of the GERD project. The three parties in the current discussions on the GERD are thus expected to accept the findings of the technical committee and its final verdict and work on how to promote their respective interests in the context of these findings and not backslid into another controversy.
This should not also mean that Ethiopia will go ahead alone with the project even if the findings of the technical committee will be detrimental to its interests. It should rather try to adjust its position in such a way as to make maximum use of the findings with a view to a balanced and fair settlement. Ethiopia would show great flexibility and make the require concessions if the situation, that is to say the findings of the technical committee, require it without however compromising on its key interests and positions.
The Ethiopian Herald Sunday Edition 17 Novebmer 2019
BY MULUGETA GUDETA
