BY STAFF REPORTER
Dr Samuel Tefera was born in Arba Minch and grew up here in Addis Ababa. He graduated with BSc degree in Forestry at Mekelle University, did his masters and PhD in Kiyoto University of Japan.
As part of his educational career, he has studied the culture and life of the pastoralist community of Hammer in South Omo Zone of Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples State. After returning home he has also worked in states known for their pastoral communities like Afar and Somali. Currently he is working as lecturer at Center for African and Asian Studies (CAAS)of the Addis Ababa University.
Alongside his professional qualification and regular job, Dr Samuel with his personal motive has been struggling to alleviate the misconceptions and destructive propaganda spread against Ethiopia’s rights of utilizing its resources especially in connection with the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). As a result he was continuously invited by various media to give explanations on the dam.
Ethiopian Press Agency has recently interviewed Dr Samuel on the current progress of the negotiation over the GERD. Have a nice read!
How do you explain the successful completion of the second round water impoundment of the GERD?
The second water impoundment of the dam can be said effective as it is accomplished as per the schedule. It is also conducted as per the framed schedule in the rainy season so as not to affect the lower riparian countries. Since the rain was good it was possible to fill the dam ahead of the schedule. The current one is a stage where the majority of the water is set to be filled. This also enables the early generation of electricity of the two turbines anytime soon. So , we can say it is a great milestone.
Are there any countries in the world that are in dispute over cross-border Rivers? Why is the Nile issue so different in this regard?
There are many transboundary rivers in the world. However, the respective riparian countries follow a mutually beneficial process. Most countries have effective agreements in this regard. For example, Pakistan and India, which are known to be main political rivalries to each other, are developing and using the water together.
One of the major causes of conflict at this stage is the Mekong River in Asia. This river which found in China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand. These countries have set up a Mekong Commission to solve their problems together. Some countries are not members of the commission and there are problems with its use. But they have never been involved in a deep-rooted conflict like the Nile.
There are also countries in Africa. These countries are in a position to benefit from agreements and negotiations. And most of them are working in cooperation with one another. What makes the Nile issue a little bit different is that the riparian states are not willing to cooperate. Egypt and Sudan, in particular, are clearly denying the rights of others.
Currently, Egypt and Sudan have repeatedly argued that Ethiopia should sign a binding agreement, that is not in the context of a win-win one. The two countries often argue that they can reach agreement if Ethiopia signs an agreement that endorses their water monopoly per the 1959 bilateral agreement they signed.
This is very difficult to accept. It is far from the spirit of cooperation.
Other states that share a common water resource have been able to resolve their differences by placing various hypotheses in the framework of a comprehensive agreement. But Sudan and Egypt want us to accept their agreement. No country would agree and sign for zero water share.
Basically, the argument itself seems absurd. It is interesting to note that the use of Nile water is controversial. This position of Egypt and Sudan affects not only Ethiopia but also the human dignity of all riparian countries. Their claim of “Don’t drink any water, we have to take it all” can never be accepted. Thus, in general, most relations with Transboundary Rivers are based on equitable access.
Countries can benefit according to their economy and utilization. The case of the Nile is different. It only protects the rights of Egypt and Sudan. But the fact that it does not focus on the rights of nine countries makes it difficult. Furthermore, we are told to sit down and talk, but it continues to be a source of conflict and disagreement because of the problem of unwillingness to accept a win-win outcome from the Egypt and Sudan’s side.
After much debate, the three countries agreed to work together in 2015. However, the two countries have been raising various issues for the agreement to fail. What do you think is this?
The three countries’ agreement was based on the principle that the leaders of the two countries agreed on the equitable sharing of water in Khartoum. We can say that this is a document that can be used as a starting point for negotiations. The problem is that they are not respecting it, let alone negotiating.
Last year, for example, during the first round filling, there was a lot of altercation. This year it was worse. They took the matter to the United Nations repeatedly. Surprisingly, when the leaders agreed, they had already talked about this. The civil work and the water impoundment go side by side as has been agreed. They are not willing to follow this principle. Furthermore, it is a matter clearly stated in the Declaration of Principles (DoP).
The leaders clearly agreed. Leaders do not sign anything that harms the interests of their country without reading it. They also agreed that a team of experts would come from each country to study the potential impact of the dam. Five independent water experts were organized from each country. These people were nominated by their own countries.
On several occasions, they have raised the question of whether Ethiopia should fill the water without signing a binding law. This is what the technical experts agreed with and recommended to the leaders. It is an agreement that the leaders accepted the recommendation and approved. And it is not clear why they always raise the issue. They are wasting their own time and that of the regional and international bodies. For example, the UN Security Council does not consider this to be the case for it is a development project. The council is a forum for resolving security issues between countries.
If it starts raising such issues, it will receive too many agendas that could disrupt its regular routine. As you know, this case went to the council twice. In the end, it was suggested that the council convene on the same issue and return to Africa. By the way, though we do not want the issue of the GERD to go to the Security Council, it was a great opportunity for us.
In particular, the recent meeting clearly demonstrated Ethiopia’s need for water use based on principles of cooperation. It is also a lesson for many countries. It also warned that this would not happen again. Many countries are on our side. Through Minister Dr. Eng. Seleshi Ethiopia has reaffirmed its commitment to solving the problems of Africans.
Ethiopia has followed the principle. But they do not want to follow this principle. They often threaten to go against it. It is their right, but it does not provide a lasting solution. Sometimes we see this as an issue not only of Egypt and Sudan but also of Arab security.
We even had an argument with the head of Al-Ahram. “We take military action as an option,” he said. I told the journalist, “I believe that Ethiopia should continue to hold a fair and cooperative dialogue.” I replied that if they were to apply force, they should know that we are no less heroes and fighters.
And many of them do not agree on how to solve problems by talking and agreeing. They stopped the negotiations and made it look like a political threat to the Arab world beyond Egypt and Sudan. Moreover, they seek to mobilize support by presenting it as a threat.
It is known that the request was made by the current secretary of the Arab League, Tunisia, which drafted a resolution with Egypt and Sudan, declaring it an Arab security threat.
In general, the strategy they follow is a political line that is not based on principles and guidelines.
Their stance is “Let us benefit alone. Let us live alone. Other people’s lives do not count. Others interest is none of our business” This is unacceptable. Ethiopia has now announced that it will build a dam on the river not only in Ethiopia but also in South Sudan. So I believe that Egypt and Sudan should reconsider their stance.
Do you think the AU can play constructive role in bringing a positive outcome?
Previously, it has not discharged its responsibility of standing strong and owning its own issues that it is committed to the agenda of the member states. In particular, since these countries share religion, culture and as they drink water from the same river, they should have claimed the responsibility of presiding over the issues.
However, we have seen good progress since the current chair of the African Union began to chair the negotiation. In connection with this, there was a great deal of concern on the part of Ethiopia, as Egypt and Sudan initially supported the chairpersons to come to power. Personally, I was very worried because I knew that before the man came to power, he was clearly opposed to the construction. However, when he came to the chairmanship of the union, he came to visit the dam along with his delegation and was able to understand the matter.
He acknowledged that the issues raised by Egypt and Sudan were inappropriate and unfair, and worked hard to bring the two countries closer. Their attitude towards Kinshasa in the end is a big change for me. He emphasized that the issue of the GERD is not unique to Ethiopia but also connects the region and the continent. They noted that this would create a conducive environment for the free trade zone and that the dam should be part of the trading system. Because they believe that the power generated from the dam will create the capacity for the countries to grow.
He also said that the expansion of power plants is one of the development goals set in Agenda 2063. In the end, Egypt was not in terms with the African Union’s constructive roles. In general, the union has been slow to act quickly, but now it is having a significant impact, especially with regard to the dam. It also showed its determination. In addition to explaining its position, Ethiopia has done a great job in restoring the glory of the African Union.
We have seen that Egypt has no choice but to impose international pressure on the issue of the GERD, and work to deepen the current internal challenges. What kind of care do you think should be taken in this regard?
The solution to this problem is to build strong institutions. We need to look at our relationship and respond to it in the right way. It is a must to build a responsible agency that is aware of potential problems, or one that works proactively. Otherwise, if you get up after a problem, it
Thank you very much,
Thank you
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD JULY 20/2021
