Introduction
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) has entered the international spotlight yet again because of the latest fiery episode in the decade-long drama of the gridlocked negotiations between Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan on the filling and operation of the GERD. Recent remarks by President Donald Trump encouraging Egypt to “bomb the dam” added more weight to the seriousness of the matter. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Office wrote an immediate riposte to Trump’s remarks. Ethiopia unequivocally condemns Trump’s belligerent threats and affirms to the United States and International Community that affronts to Ethiopian sovereignty are misguided, unproductive, and clear violations of international law.
The controversy over the river Nile, whose main tributary is called Abay by Ethiopians, is an age old issue that entered the international arena by way of agreements, declarations, and frameworks entered in the twentieth century (1902, 1929, 1959, 1993 & 2015) between Egypt, Sudan, and Colonial Britain, most of which Ethiopia, whose rivers supply 86% of the Nile’s waters, did not participate in and rejects outright.
The construction of the GERD began in 2011 and as of October 2020 is approximately 75% completed. Despite Egypt’s long objection that no filling should take place without a legally binding agreement, Ethiopia impounded 4.9 billion cubic meters of water into the GERD’s reservoir and completed the first phase of the filling in July 2020. In doing so, Ethiopia asserted its sovereign rights to decide on its own national project despite external pressure demanding the opposite.
A Decade of Deadlocked Negotiations
The three countries have been negotiating for almost a decade to resolve the stiff tension surrounding the GERD. Nonetheless, they are still very far away from reaching a breakthrough consensus that would deescalate tensions between them. Perhaps, one can argue that the willingness of these countries to stick to negotiation instead of resorting to the use of force by itself is a success. Nonetheless, that should not be considered a solid accomplishment given that they have an international obligation, under the UN Charter, not to use force to resolve their disputes. Article 33(1) of the Charter renders a duty to these countries to resolve their disputes and differences using peaceful mechanisms:
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Asking why a decade long negotiation process has failed to bring about any significant breakthrough is an important question that should be examined from different viewpoints. I argue that the gridlock in the negotiations arises from four key reasons: Egypt’s lack of good faith, Egypt's clinging to the myth of its “historic rights”, Egypt's invitation of biased international “observers” such as the US and World Bank, and Egypt’s fear of future: that a deal on the GERD would set a precedent that may encourage other upstream countries to use the waters of the Nile for their own development.
Egypt’s Lack of Good Faith
As a starting point, it’s helpful to quote what Mohamed Nasr El-Din Allam, Egypt’s former Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation, wrote in April 2020 accusing Ethiopia of not being committed to genuine negotiations before the first filling of the GERD. Allam asks:
So, after all of the previously mentioned encounters, and after the fact that Ethiopia has unilaterally announced that it will start filling the GERD this coming July, what guarantees does Egypt have that prove the seriousness of any further negotiations with Ethiopia?
If history and the track records of these negotiations are scrutinized closely, it is more appropriate and fitting to ask this question to the Egyptians, not the other way round.
For one, it’s surprising that such allegations are coming from Egypt, a country with a clear record of not consulting any upper riparian countries when constructing dams, man-made lakes and irrigation canals on the Nile despite the requests and protests of these countries to do so. Egypt did not consult anyone when it proceeded to fill Lake Nasser of the High Aswan Dam which holds nearly three times the annual flow of the entire Abay river and one of the world’s largest man-made lakes completed in 1971. Thus, Egypt has no legitimate moral ground to question the genuine nature of Ethiopia's engagement when it itself had turned deaf and blind ears to the protests for consultation of upper riparians like Ethiopia in the 1960s. This is not to mention several occasions where Egypt has threatened to wage war to maintain a monopoly over the Nile. It is ironic for Egypt, a pioneer in taking unilateral actions on the Nile to blame Ethiopia, a country that has taken extra measures to engage with others, and for Egypt to accuse Ethiopia of lacking sincere engagement.
Second, Ethiopia has been furnishing plenty of information to Egypt and Sudan about important steps and details of the GERD such as communicating the detailed filling schedule many months before the filling took place. There is no reason Egypt should doubt Ethiopia’s genuineness. As a matter of fact, Egypt is aware that the first filling goes simultaneously with the construction of the dam because principle 5(a) of the Agreement on Declaration of Principles (DoP) signed between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan in 2015 clearly stipulates that the three countries “Agree on guidelines and rules on the first filling of GERD which shall cover all different scenarios, in parallel with the construction of GERD.” The “unilateral” first filling is not something that Ethiopia just pulled out of its magic hat but a matter agreed upon between the three countries five years ago. Therefore, it is completely unethical for Egypt, a country which achieved 100% electricity coverage for its people in 2016, to stop Ethiopia from finishing the dam and to bring electricity to over half its population which still live in total darkness.
History shows that it’s naive to expect Egypt to be fine with Ethiopia’s attempt to be economically self-sufficient by utilizing its water resource, especially: The Abay River (Blue Nile). As recently as the 1990s, Egypt obstructed the African Development Bank Loan to Ethiopia for irrigation projects on the Blue Nile and the GERD itself is funded by the Ethiopian public because international institutions refused to fund the project without Egypt’s consent.
Thus, Egypt lacks good faith and one should not expect Egypt to suddenly change its course from its decades-long quest to prevent Ethiopia from undertaking projects on the Nile’s main tributaries located in Ethiopia.
Egypt’s Invitation of Biased International "Observers"
In late 2019, Egypt requested the involvement of the United States and the World Bank to mediate the negotiations. Requesting the third parties’ participation per se is not illegal and is envisaged by Principle 10 of the DOP. However, the DOP does stipulate that such requests be made jointly as opposed to Egypt’s unilateral request. A simple yet profound question here is, therefore, why did Egypt disregard African countries and the African Union and approach the US and the World Bank? What caused Egypt to dismiss the main continental platform and reach toward the hands of global superpowers? The answer is simple; to place overbearing pressure on Ethiopia and conclude agreements that favor Egypt.
It is clear that Egypt perceives itself as more valuable to the US and understands the US' Middle East and Arab interests are more important than what Ethiopia can offer in the Horn of Africa. Because of Egypt’s disproportionate strategic importance to the US, some foresaw the problems of bias that would arise as a result of the Trump administration’s involvement in the negotiations. Egypt rightly assessed that the US will do a cost-benefit analysis and side with them.
It seems they speculated accurately given the US’ tireless but ineffective efforts of using diplomatic pressure to coerce Ethiopia into signing an unacceptable and unfair agreement. The USA’s unsuccessful attempts to twist Ethiopia’s arm went far to the extent of halting $264 million in aid to Ethiopia. Because the US has the largest influence in the administration of the World Bank it’s also fair to assume that the Bank’s views would not differ from the US government’s. It’s also worth noting that the World Bank and Western countries offered to provide technical and financial support to Egypt during the construction of Aswan High Dam despite refusing to provide the same help to Ethiopia for the GERD. Egypt ultimately took up the Soviet Union's offer, but history has taken record of this double standard.
Donald Trump’s remarks that Egypt “will blow up that dam” gives a clue as to the kind of talks his administration and Egypt have had behind the closed doors. Nevertheless, it is crucial to mention that let alone blowing the dam, any kind of attack directed at the GERD is equally, and perhaps more, destructive to the down-stream countries than to Ethiopia as the GERD’s reservoir is already filled with the 4.9 billion cubic meters of water. Thus, it is not difficult to imagine the life and property destruction that would ensue in neighboring Sudan and Egypt, if Egypt were to conduct a successful strike on the GERD. As such, Cairo should not delude itself into taking this deranged idea from Washington as a viable option.
The Trump administration also pressured Sudan through the backdoor to side with Egypt and convince Ethiopia to sign a biased deal. This came at a decisive moment for Sudan as Trump recently signed an order to remove Sudan from the list of states sponsoring terrorism in return for Sudan agreeing to pay $335 million compensation to US terror victims and families. If one connects the dots, it is possible to see how this seemingly neutral “observer” has maneuvered to manipulate and pollute the whole process of the negotiations and brought about undesired consequences.
Trump’s remarks attracted severe criticism across the globe. He has already derailed the USA from “rule-based global governance”, and hence his ill-informed statement about the GERD should not come as a surprise or an isolated incident.
The US is no longer a mediator in the negotiations. In this regard, Ethiopia did a remarkable job in taking back the negotiation from the table of the USA and the Security Council (where the USA sits with veto power) and bringing it under the watchdog of the African Union with the view of achieving “African solutions to African problems”.
Egypt has been trying to use the power dynamics of international relations to get favorable results out of the GERD negotiations that it could not secure following the natural course of bonafide negotiations. In other words, Egypt has been attempting to abuse its political tie with the powerful states and international institutions to attempt to maintain its hegemony over the Nile and at a minimum to at least secure some control over the operation of the GERD. Such an underhanded move by Egypt, coupled with a predisposition of “observers” of favoring Egypt has lengthened the negotiations and made them less fruitful. The interference of the “observers” is unwelcome, disreputable and contravenes the principles of negotiations and international law should be rejection by all parties.
Egypt’s Myth of “Historic Rights” to the Nile
Negotiations usually involve some give and take. If it is just one party that is expected to give and others remain recipients, then the appropriate terminology is a donation. Egyptians write and speak about their “historic rights” to the Nile vociferously. One has argued as follows:
Age-old agreements preserve our rights in the rivers flowing from Ethiopia to the Nile River, whether these rivers are the Blue Nile, Atbarah or Sobat. These agreements rightfully do not contest the eternal right of Egypt to the Nile, they are aware the Nile is the river of Egypt.
First, it is a paradox, on the one hand, to claim exclusive entitlement over the Nile water and on the other hand engage in negotiations. Second, the “historic right” itself is based on out-dated colonial agreements which impose no legal obligation on Ethiopia. In the 1959 bilateral agreement, Egypt and Sudan allocated themselves 55.5 bcm and 18.5 bcm respectively of the Nile water share disregarding the interest of other riparian countries including Ethiopia whose rivers supply 86% of the Nile’s waters. What’s making reaching a consensus on the GERD negotiations impossible is Egypt’s attempt to maintain the water share status quo by demanding water release guarantees from the GERD that preserve the 1959 shares. The negotiations, however, should be limited to the filling and operation of the GERD and should not involve a water share deal without the participation of 8 other countries who share the Nile in addition to Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan. For this matter, there is a treaty, Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework (CFA), which regulates the overall aspect of the Nile Basin water. But the CFA has not yet entered into effect and Egypt and Sudan have not ratified it. Thus, the GERD negotiation has to be treated separately from the water share. Egypt’s efforts of preserving its “historic rights” and water share that leaves Ethiopia with a 0% water allocation is a non-starter for Ethiopia.
Egypt’s Fear of the Future & the Precedent of the GERD
A well-founded principle in international law is the obligation and duty not to cause “significant harm” between countries that share a river system. This fundamental principle is entrenched under article 7 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Accordingly, given that so far there is no single treaty that ties all the Nile basin countries, the principle of no “significant harm” governs countries’ activities and interactions on the Nile. What’s usually overlooked is the fact that this duty inherently imposes an obligation to tolerate all “insignificant harm” that does not meet the threshold of “significant harm”.
Nonetheless, Egypt is acting contrary to this principle and international law by holding a position that does not allow anyone to fetch a cup of water from the Nile without its blessing. In the past, this has led Egypt to be suspicious of every undertaking of the upstream countries. Accordingly, another factor that is causing the gridlock in the negotiation process is Egypt’s fear that other Nile Basin countries will follow Ethiopia’s footsteps, start utilizing their respective share of the Nile’s waters and erode Egypt’s monopoly over the Nile. The GERD is much more than Ethiopia’s assertion of its sovereign rights to utilize resources within its boundary. It is also a game-changer and green-light that signals to the rest of Nile Basin countries that they can use water resources within their boundary without securing Egypt’s blessing as long as the projects do not cause “significant harm” to Egypt. As such the GERD, in practice, has already brought an end to Egypt’s hegemony over the Nile.
It’s normal for one practice of a country to influence the behavior of a neighboring country. This is best explained with acculturation theory of social influence which alludes to the idea that countries’ actions and behaviors are amenable to the influence of other states situated in a similar environment. Egypt is aware of this and is trying its best not to allow the GERD to set a precedent that brings a paradigm shift to the Nile’s power dynamics. All the Nile Basin countries have the right to reasonable and equitable utilization of the Nile waters. This right encourages the optimal utilization of resources as opposed to monopoly by a single country. At the same time, this is a bitter truth for Egypt to swallow and is a reason why it’s tirelessly working to hinder the GERD’s progress.
A Way Forward
There is no doubt that negotiation is the only way out of this predicament. Nevertheless, as the means justify the end, the mindset with which the parties engage with each other determines the trajectory of the negotiation process. At a minimum, all countries - especially Egypt - have to recognize that everyone is entitled to a reasonable and equitable share of the Nile’s waters. This requires relinquishing position-based negotiation strategies and adopting interest and benefits-based approaches to reach mutually acceptable and beneficial terms. This also entails a spirit of compromise and cooperation not competition. It’s only then that a win-win solution can be attained and reduce the heightened tensions overwhelming the geopolitics of the region and beyond.
In short, it is imperative for Egypt to reconsider its approaches, positions and interests as it is impossible to implement terms of the colonial-era treaties in the 21st century at the expense of tens of millions of impoverished souls. This is not to suggest that Ethiopia’s and Sudan’s role should be minimal. Rather it is to highlight that most of the reasons for the unnecessary prolongation of the negotiation process can be attributed to Egypt’s intransigence and the ball rests on their court to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough.
