BY EYOB BELACHEW
The latest round of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) talks wrapped up on the evening of 5 April after reaching another impasse. Egypt and Sudan are now jointly blaming Ethiopia for the latest stalemate. Despite stamping blames on Ethiopia, the factors that contribute to the stalemate could be Egypt’s adamant desire to keep the 1959 water share in the current GERD deal, aimed at blocking Ethiopia’s chance of utilizing the river for future projects that becomes an irreconcilable position with Ethiopia’s equitable and reasonable use of the river.
However, Egypt’s continuous historical right claim and desire to retain the 1959 Nile water agreement with different form, in the current GERD deal, seems unconventional compared to Ethiopia’s equitable and reasonable utilization of the river which is well-suited with the UN watercourses convention. And, it seems hard and utterly illogical to blame a conventional stance of Ethiopia’s equitable and reasonable utilization which is the fundamental doctrine of guiding water sharing for international watercourse, as a factor of constant impasse of Nile negotiations. It’s rather sound to think that colonial and historical claims could be the main sources of the decade long stalemate on GERD’s talk.
The Futile art of Blaming
Each nation has been in a futile game of blaming one another for the talks’ stalemate in various rounds of tripartite negotiations. For example, Sudan, which was singled out for blame in the last round (January 3 /2021) by Egypt’s foreign minister official statement for being more responsive to Ethiopia’s demands, is now praised for their pendulum stance on the GERD negotiations. Sudan’s support for Egypt in the Ethiopian mega-dam conflict has become more evident in recent months, following Cairo’s public condemnation of Sudan’s links to Ethiopian interests and efforts to gain its support for Egypt’s stance.
Sudan’s swinging role
Apart from blaming Ethiopia, Sudan’s changing positions are hardly predictable and have made the decade long negotiation more frustrating and filled with contestation rather than cooperation. In the latest negotiation in Congo Kinshasa, they have come up with a shifting position insisting to add mediators into the negotiation that will defiantly halt the role of the AU on the process and further add tension to the process.
Given the fact that Sudan is in severe political turmoil, as the power remain contested between several, political parties and armed groups, it is hard to blame Sudan for their swinging position in GERD issues. However, it is apparent that the main reason why Sudan is playing a swinging role is because they hardly have their own stance on GERD except being swayed by unsubstantiated claims and fears that the GERD might collapse one day, coupled with Egypt’s uninterrupted pressure on Sudan’s internal affairs.
The Sudanese changing role and agenda in every negotiation is one of the factors that heavily contributed to the delay in the negotiation in the last couple of years. And there was nothing different in the latest negotiation in Congo Kinshasa, where Sudan once again allies with Egypt to disturb the negotiation with the sole ambition of taking the negotiation out of the hand of African union, by inviting highly interested and partial meditators to the scene.
The sole purpose of inviting the EU, UN and USA as mediators is not to enhance the performance of the AU- Led process, but to undermine the union’s role and further delay the negotiation so that Ethiopia will not fill the dam in the coming rainy season. This will obstruct the negotiation, and will serve as a weapon to support Egypt’s stance. If Ethiopia fails to fill the second round the worst may happen to the Sudanese, as the rainy season is followed by flooding that will hit Sudan and cause severe damage to the Sudanese people settled at the banks of the Nile River than what has happened last summer season.
The quest for enhancing observers’ role
As far as independent observers are concerned, Ethiopia always agreed on the continuation of the three observers in the process (the Republic of South Africa, the United States of America, and the European Union). Accordingly, Ethiopia with its resolve to maintain the full ownership of the process by the three countries and the integrity of the AU-led process, agreed to accept the role of observers to share information and proposal when jointly requested by the Countries.
On the other hand, Egypt’s and Sudan’s position of granting the observers the same role as the AU is not accepted. Despite the accusation of Cairo and Khartoum, that Ethiopia has failed to accept the proposals, infact it was the two downstream countries that rejected the draft demanding the role of observers to replace that of the three countries and the AU. However, Ethiopia supported the draft communiqué submitted by the Chairperson of the AU H.E. Felix Tshekedi with minor adjustments. The two countries followed an approach that seeks to undermine the AU-led process and to take the matter out of the African platform and further stall the GERD negotiation, with the sole attempt to pressurize Ethiopia to sign a binding agreement that only benefits Egypt’s age-old demands.
Without Ethiopia’s involvement, the two countries signed the 1959 agreement, which is perhaps the worst treaty Khartoum has ever signed. Since they are not in the position to continue imposing these aged old agreements on Ethiopia, they have now pressuring Ethiopia to accept and sign unfair agreement that relatively favours the colonial arrangements, even if it has now a party to sign.
In General Colonial-era treaties and Egypt’s interminable position to include the benefit of these treaties in the current agreement combined with Sudan’s swinging stance are to blame for the unresolved dispute over Ethiopia’s dam, and not Ethiopia’s approach for an equitable and reasonable utilization of the water resources.
Consequently, the three countries under the auspices of the African Union, should work together to find a mutually beneficial solution. Moreover, all parties should be committed to resolving the matter exclusively through the AU-led ways, since having mediators would prolong the negotiation process.
Editor’s Note: The views entertained in this article do not necessarily reflect the stance of The Ethiopian Herald
The Ethiopian Herald April 16/2021
