In less than a month since the US government took the initiative to revamp the tripartite talks on GERD and the Washington meeting called to this end, diplomacy is veering in three directions. Washington hosted the renewed diplomatic initiative and created hope in its success because of the cordial relations it has with all three partners in the GERD talks.
The Washington initiative was historic because of the fact that it was the first initiative of its kind. Egypt asked Washington to facilitate the talks and latter did a good job by bringing the stakeholders together and telling them that the US is more than happy to help its allies come together to address the key issues instead of appealing to an international court of justice to rule over them. This was a wiser and commendable move by the Egyptians who previously threatened to resort to international arbitration.
The tripartite consensus that emerged from the Washington meeting was a kind of testing pad for what was to follow. Then the talks came to Addis Ababa and it too was credited for continuing the job started in the American capital and the outcome was portrayed by the media as positive and hopeful.
While the technical committee is hard at work with its findings and recommendations, diplomats from Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan were discussing the sticking point of the entire diplomatic impasse, namely the filling time of the GERD and the amount of water to be released to Egypt according to meet its needs. This is a complicated matter even the experts on dam construction and management are bound to take years to come out with a final verdict. What makes the talks on GERD even more complex is that they involve at least three immediate stakeholders and many more long-term claimants.
Good news is indeed alternating with bad ones in the GERD talks these last few weeks or months. The Washington tripartite meeting between Egyptian, Sudanese and Ethiopian stakeholders was a kind of public relation stint since the real issues were not addressed in the Washington meeting. It was rather a show of good intentions and a display of diplomatic niceties. The US diplomatic establishment from top to bottom endorsed it and gave the green light for the talks to continue their long journey to a probable and much awaited final agreement.
Then the talks moved to Addis Ababa. Diplomatic nice smiles, handshakes and an atmosphere of friendliness and courtesy prevailed and the talks ended without addressing the real issues let alone reaching an agreement worth talking about. Promising, cordial and understanding were the words used by diplomatic sources to describe the Addis Ababa talks. In reality, the talks were more ceremonial than substantial. There was no new approach or a change of position from hearted line to conciliatory on the part of negotiators from the Egyptian side.
Egyptian authorities verbally promise to end the dispute in a friendly manner but in reality they harbor the same doubts, suspicions and keep their plan at the back of their heads. In fact, Egyptian intransigence has no basis in reality. Ethiopia is committing to respecting the decision of the technical committee which has not yet finalized its recommendations. Egypt on the contrary, seems to be determined to torpedo the findings of the technical committee come what may, if it does not meet its expectations and the conditions they have already put forward during earlier talks.
Then the talks moved to Cairo a week ago and the outcome was described by the media as unproductive and that it ended without sealing a deal. The details of the talks are still kept secret while the water ministers of the two countries expressed their views to the media without however fully exposing the causes that led to a no deal outcome. Our guess is that the Egyptian side is still trying to enforce its previous position on the timing and amount of the filling of the GERD. Ethiopia on its part has made it clear that it will not flinch even an inch when it comes to the completion of the project which is going on uninterruptedly despite the bad news from the recent talks.
The good thing is that all sides are still abiding by their promise to keep on talking until a deal will be reached. This does not however mean that the talks will keep on rolling indefinitely even though the two sides to the controversy keep on pushing the same arguments. The technical committee will certainly make its findings public in an impartial, professional and non-political manner. The findings of the technical committee may not be final and binding as Egypt is known to have failed to honor its words. US attitude might be crucial to break a possible deadlock by siding with what the technical committee would come up with as a final solution.
The findings and recommendations of the international technical committee might also go against Ethiopian interests. The GERD project is a life and death matter for all Ethiopians because they have paid for it in money, blood and emotion because that is the only project that would help them break the back of poverty and famine and allow future generations live a full life without famine and poverty. For Ethiopia, the GERD is a matter of sovereignty, honor and a symbol of unity as well as pride. For Ethiopia, the controversy over the GERD is something that can be addressed by peaceful means through diplomacy and the spirit of African unity.
Although the present Egyptian leadership might try to make it a political issue between Egypt and Ethiopia, another leadership might emerge and follow a balanced and mutually acceptable course of action that will take into consideration long-term interests of the peoples of the two countries and not temporary considerations of regime popularity or superiority complex that might lead to arrogance or a “me or the deluge” attitude that is divisive, belligerent and unfair. Ethiopia is respectful towards the people of Egypt with whom it shares a common destiny whose lasting symbol is the Nile. Both countries lived with this symbol for hundreds of years in the past and coexisted peacefully to this day. They did never resort to threat of force to impose their views and this tradition will certainly continue no matter what.
The United States is expected to continue to play and positive role in the talks because both Egypt and Ethiopia are its vital allies in the fight against international terrorism which is in the interest of all three countries. The Washington initiative was historic because of the fact that it was the first initiative of its kind to support the talks on GERD.
Egypt asked Washington to facilitate the talks and latter did a good job by bringing the stakeholders together and telling them that the US is more than happy to help its allies come together to address the key issues instead of appealing to a ruling of an international court of justice whose outcome may satisfy one side and disappoint another. The fact that the Egyptians called upon Washington to facilitate the talks was a wiser and more commendable option by the Egyptians who previously threatened to resort to international arbitration.
The tripartite consensus that emerged from the Washington meeting was a kind of testing pad for what was to follow. Then the talks came to Addis Ababa and it too was credited for continuing the job started in the American capital and the outcome was portrayed by the media as positive and hopeful. While the technical committee is hard at work with its findings and recommendations, diplomats from Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan were discussing the sticking point of the entire diplomatic impasse, namely the filling time of the GERD and the amount of water to be released to Egypt according to its demands.
The last diplomatic stop on the long journey took the negotiators back to Washington. This was apparently due to the no deal situation in Cairo that has to be reconsidered. A no deal is not obviously the end of the negotiations. Deal or no deal there is no better alternative other than talking until a solution is found. Ethiopia has not put forward a condition sine qua non for the resumption of the talks. Neither it has followed an intransigent path nor threatened to seek international arbitration.
Ethiopia firmly believes that the Nile controversy as an African issue could even be taken up by the AU. This was not possible because of Egyptian insistence on adhering to moribund colonial treaties that gave it supremacy over Nile affairs. This is obviously unacceptable in the 21st century where globally reality has radically changed and all sovereign states have the legitimate right to protect their vested national interests, and in case of dispute, resort to bilateral or trilateral dialogues.
It would be prudent on the part of the negotiators to expect a positive outcome from the latest Washington talks while exploring other avenues for a cordial termination of the controversy. Washington might also find the key to unlock the deadlock in a fair and just and acceptable manner.
Even if the US fails to come up with another diplomatic modus vivendi ,our guess is that the talks would move to another capital until time the right answer and common sense rather than narrow national interests give way to a pan-African outcome. For now we have to wait and see how things will evolve on the diplomatic ground and when and how the vicious circle of the GERD talks would be broken for good. However, there is still optimism of a breakthrough as there is always light at the end of the dark tunnel.
The Ethiopian Herald Sunday Edition 15 December 2019
BY MULUGETA GUDETA
