By Bayelegn Yergu
“The Egyptians have yet to make up their minds as to whether they want to live in the 21st or the 19th century.” (Meles Zenawi – Nov. 2010)
Everyone who followed the Nile river politics knows that Egypt’s Nile
policy during the former President Hosini Mubarak was primarily based
on military chauvinism and proxy war by assisting anti-peace elements.
The boastful claims of some Egyptian officials in the past that they
will consider any use of Nile water as an act of war were obviously a
psychological war if not a day dream. On the other-hand, the proxy war
tactic appears to have worked for them in the past when Ethiopia’s
government was weaker and politically divided. But there is an expiry
date to such tactics.
Meles indicated that the two methods are unsustainable in an interview with Reuters on November 2010. Meles said:
“I am not worried that the Egyptians will suddenly invade Ethiopia.
Nobody who has tried that has lived to tell the story. I don’t think the
Egyptians will be any different and I think they know that.”
“If we address the issues around which the rebel groups are mobilised
then we can neutralise them and therefore make it impossible for the
Egyptians to fish in troubled waters because there won’t be any.”
Ethiopia’s aim, however, is not to deny Egypt the use of the Nile
rivers, Meles quickly added. In fact, he hoped Egypt will take note of
current reality and will be convinced that “as direct conflict will not
work, and as the indirect approach is not as effective as it used to be,
the only sane option [is] civil dialogue.”
When Meles urged the need for “civil dialogue”, he was not saying it
for media consumption. Ethiopia’s commitment for “civil dialogue” is
evidenced in the 10 years long consultations of Nile basin countries.
Ethiopian water officials and experts indefatigably took part in all
studies, discussions and other necessary bilateral and multilateral
talks with all Nile basin countries in a process that eventually
delivered the Nile basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA).
However, when the time came to wrap-up the discussions with a legally
binding agreement – the CFA, which would also serve as a ground future
cooperation, the Egyptians were found to be unwilling making up all
kinds of excuses.
Therefore, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania went on to sign the
the Cooperative Framework Agreement on May 2010 and gave other countries
one year to do the same. Kenya and Burundi followed in the subsequent
months.
The question at the time among Ethiopians and other Nile basin countries is summed up in Meles’ remark to Reuters:
“The Egyptians have yet to make up their minds as to whether they want to live in the 21st or the 19th century.”
The Hosini Mubarak era Nile policy of Egypt was stuck on the 19th century.
That is true not only by its preoccupation to handle relations
through proxy-war. But also by its insistence on colonial era treaties
and its wish to have exclusive rights on the Nile waters, denying about
200 million people living upstream their right to share this gift of
nature.
Making Egypt the sole beneficiary of the Nile waters might have
sounded a workable arrangement in the 19th century for the British
colonials who were ruling most of the Nile basin countries.
The colonials had no concern about fairness. All they worried about
was maintaining and expanding their cotton farms in Egypt, which they
hoped to control through puppet governments indefinitely. (Of course,
they did so until Pres. Gemal Nasir took power by coup in the 1950s).
The British colonialists did not care that they are sowing seeds of
conflict in the Nile basin. May be they thought all the Nile basin
countries will remain under their colony or perhaps they thought the
upper-riparian countries have plenty water and fertile soil to need Nile
waters.
But that logic doesn’t work anymore for several reasons. Even the
westerners, including the British, have been advising for a cooperative
use of the Nile waters. They funded the establishment and works of the
regional forum “Nile Basin Initiative” which facilitated the preparation
of the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA).
To the contrary, when both western and Nile basin countries applauded
for the CFA ; Egypt’s Nile policy was stuck in the outdated approach of
the 19th century, citing colonial-era treaties that have little or no
relevance to present day realities.
Sadly, those treaties are nothing but sugar-coating of the 19th
century mind-set that prevailed during Mubarak era and still present
among some Egyptian officials. A brief look into the colonial-era
treaties would be useful to appreciate the outdated mindset and the need
for a new arrangement.
Egypt claims a legal right on the Nile waters based on the 1929 and 1955 agreements.
The 1929 agreement, which is of uncertain legal status, was made in
the form of Exchange of Notes between the UK ambassador in Cairo and
Egypt’s Prime Minister from 1925-1929. It is referred to as ‘Exchange of
Notes Regarding the Use of Waters of the Nile for Irrigation Purposes,
May 7, 1929, Egypt-Uk’, and it gives almost exclusive rights to Egypt.
Sudan contested the 1929 agreement when it attained its independence
from UK, but later, in the 1955, signed an accord with Egypt that
allocates 55.5 billion cubic meters of the Nile to Egypt and 18.5
billion to Sudan. Notice that the average annual discharge of the Nile
river, measured at Aswan dam, Cairo, is 84 billion cubic meter.
The other former colonies colonies of U.K. – Kenya, Tanzania and
Uganda declared the 1929 Nile Agreement non-binding following their
independence from UK.
The rest upstream countries can not be linked to the 1929 agreement,
as they were not part of British colony at the time of the agreement.
Burundi, Rwanda and Congo were under Belgium mandate, while Ethiopia has
never been colonized.
Egypt also raises the 1902 Treaty between Ethiopia and UK, on behalf
of Sudan, signed by UK’s envoy, John Harrington, and Emperor Menelik in
Addis Ababa on May 15/1902. Though the Treaty was on Ethio-Sudan border,
its mentions the use of Nile River. Article III of the Treaty appears
to preclude any use of the river in its english version, while the
corresponding phrase in the Amharic language version refers to works
that halt the flow of the water. The validity of the Treaty is also uder
question since the Treaty has never been ratified by the British
parliament and the Ethiopian Royal Court. Moreover, Emperor Haileselasie
repudiated the Treaty altogether in 1942 on account of British
recognition of Fascist Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia.
The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement(CFA), On the other hand, is an outcome of inclusive, rational and professional consultations.
The Nile basin courtiers, except Eritrea and South Sudan, founded the
Nile Basin Commission, later Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), in 1999, with
funds from World Bank, aiming ‘to establish a diplomatic protocol for
evaluating the fair use of the river for agricultural and energy
projects’.
The Commission paved the way for the drafting the ‘Nile Basin
Cooperative Framework Agreement(CFA)’ for the equitable sharing of the
Nile waters.
As one water expert eloquently elucidated:
“Anchored in a Shared
Vision ‘to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through the
equitable utilization of, and benefits from, the common Nile Basin water
resources’, the NBI has provided a convenient forum for the negotiation
of a Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) to set up a permanent,
inclusive legal and institutional framework. Negotiation of the CFA has,
however, faced a serious impasse as a result of the introduction of the
concept of ‘water security’. The introduction of this non-legal,
indeterminate, and potentially disruptive concept is, indeed, a
regrettable detour to a virtual blind-alley. The justifications for this
fateful decision are totally unfounded and specious. The decision
rather makes sense as an unwarranted move pushing into further obscurity
the already intractable Nile waters question, at best, and a logical
cul-de-sac in the decade-long negotiations which have arguably fallen
prey to the hegemonic compliance-producing mechanism of ‘securitization’
sneaked in under the veil of ‘water security’, at worst. Resolution of
the Nile waters question should thus first be extricated from the morass
of ‘water security’ and then be sought nowhere but within the framework
of international water law.”
Despite the resistance from Egypt (and the confused Sudan), the CFA
was signed by six countries from May 2010 upto February 2011 (Ethiopia,
Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Burundi). Though Congo didn’t sign
yet, it has expressed its willingness.
Though the CFA gives one year time – until may 2011 – for Nile basin
countries to sign, 6 of the 9 countries had signed the CFA by May 2011
(which is the minimum number of signatories needed for the ratification
process can start).
However, there was no indication that Egypt and Sudan would sign by
the time-frame. Even if they sign, the CFA doesn’t give a water quota
rather provides an arrangement for cooperative utilization of the river.
Therefore, both the process of persuading them to sign and
working-together after the signing will be a time-taking process as long
as a 19th Century mind-set persists.
As Meles noted in early 2011 at a Hydro-Power Conference:
“Irrational is the position taken by some politicians in Egypt to
oppose virtually every project in the Nile in upper riparian countries
including hydropower projects that have no consumptive use of water and
have beneficial impacts on all.”
Yet, Ethiopia’s economic transformation shan’t be hostage of
an out-dated mind-set. And, Ethiopia has no legal obligation to sit and
wait indefinitely praying that Egypt develops a rational policy and
approach for cooperation on the use of Nile waters.
Therefore, Ethiopia decided to embark on one of the major components
of its Growth and Transformation Plan. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
dam project.
It was known that Egypt was resisting to sign the CFA and previously
impeded Ethiopia from getting external funds for previous two dams
(Tekeze dam & Tana Beles dam). On the other-hand, Ethiopia has
became politically stable and regionally powerful to prevent external
destabilization efforts and has became economically stronger to build
dams without anyone’s help and.
However, Ethiopia didn’t abandon its commitment to cooperation and
principles of good neighborhood. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance dam
project was planned with such constructive and rational spirit of
brotherhood.
Even when the Renaissance dam was launched on April 2, 2011, a
historic day for Ethiopia, Meles’s took time to urge old-fashioned
Egyptian politicians to adopt a 21st century rational mind-set. He
explained:
“The benefits that will accrue from the Dam will by no means be
restricted to Ethiopia. They will clearly extend to all neighboring
states, and particularly to the downstream Nile basin countries, to
Sudan and Egypt.
The Dam will greatly reduce the problems of silt and sediment
that consistently affect dams in Egypt and Sudan. This has been a
particularly acute problem at Sudan’s Fosseiries dam which has been
experienced reduction in output.
When the Renaissance Dam becomes operational, communities all
along the riverbanks and surrounding areas, particularly in Sudan, will
be permanently relieved from centuries of flooding. These countries will
have the opportunity to obtain increased power supplies at competitive
prices.
The Renaissance Dam will increase the amount of water resources
available, reducing the wastage from evaporation which has been a
serious problem in these countries. It will in fact ensure a steady
year-round flow of the Nile. This, in turn, should have the potential to
amicably resolve the differences which currently exist among riparian
states over the issue of equitable utilization of the resource of the
Nile water.”
If Egypt could escape from 19th century mind-set and adopt a modern
Nile, it will not only tolerate the dam but would have also wished to
contribute for its construction. After explaining the Renaissance dam’s
benefit for Egypt and Sudan, Meles noted:
“on this calculation, Sudan might offer to cover 30 per cent and
Egypt 20 per cent of the costs of the entire project. Unfortunately, the
necessary climate for engagement, based on equitable and constructive
self-interest, does not exist at the moment. Indeed, the current
disposition is to make attempts to undercut Ethiopia’s efforts to secure
funding to cover the cost of the project. We have, in fact, been forced
to rely on our own savings alone to cover the expense.”
Shortly after Ethiopia started the Renaissance dam,
Egyptian became interested in discussion. They sent a public diplomacy
group full of young people, political parties and religious
representatives to ask Ethiopia give discussion a chance. They claimed
the 19th century style Nile policy is gone with Pres. Hosini Mubarak.
But they need time to elect a new government that has the authority to
solve issues by discussion with Ethiopia.
Ethiopia had urged Egypt for constructive dialogue so many times in
the past. But, still, Ethiopia believes dialogue and cooperation is the
only way for peaceful neighborhood relations. Not only for peace and
development, but also for optimal use of cross-border natural resources.
Therefore, Ethiopia gave Egypt time to elect a new government and
sign the CFA. Moreover, Ethiopia invited Egypt and Sudan to form a joint
experts panel that will assess the impact of the dam.
Egypt did not sign the CFA yet, but it is still taking part in the
experts panel which is studying the dam’s potential impact. And,
relations between the two countries seem much better than it used to be.
Recent news reports are about the International Panel on the
Renaissance dam’s meetings, about Egypt’s invitation for Foreign
Minister Tewodros, about visit by Egypt diplomacy institute to Addis,
about Egyptian investors, and similar healthy matters.
However, now and then, we see signs that the 19th century mind-set.
Last September, when Meles Zenawi died, it seemed
some “old styled” officials in Cairo thought that the new Prime Minister
Hailemariam Desalegne, his colleagues and the rest of the country will
not be as committed as Meles to continue building the dam.
Therefore they started sending alarm signals here and there.
Several unhelpful remarks were read from officials and experts,
speaking anonymously and publicly, to Egyptian newspapers and others. It
began in August when Meles was in Hospital.
Bikyanews reported at the time citing an unnamed Egyptian ministry of
water and irrigation official that with the combination of Egypt’s new
President Morsi and the potential of seeing a new leader in Ethiopia,
they hoped the tension over Nile River water could be resolved. “I
believe that there would be more maneuvering with a new leadership in
Ethiopia because there would be the ability to communicate and not be
seen as antagonistic”.
Then came the surprising remark on November, (reported on the
LosAngels Times), that an adviser to the president [Morsi] quoted in Al
Ahram Weekly said this of Morsi:
“The man was shocked when he
received a review about the state of ties we have with Nile basin
countries. The previous regime should be tried for overlooking such a
strategic interest.”
The Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote a letter demanding
clarification on the matter and its implication on the the two
countries’ relation.
The Egyptian Foreign Minister immediately affirmed that there is no
change in policy, the remarks on media do not represent the government’s
position and that it will effort to mitigate media reporting that are
unhelpful to state level cooperation and people-to-people relations.
The Egyptians seemed to have kept their words until recently.
Latest news stories and analyses suggest, however, some Egyptians are still stuck in the out-dated Mubarak-style way of doing things.
A senior official was recently heard saying that Egypt should use
divide and rule by negotiating with Sudan and Ethiopia in one side and
the rest of Nile basin countries on the other side. This is a failed
approach that Mubarak tried to use so many times.
It was also reported that Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi had
discussion with officials from the problem-child of east Africa,
Eritrea, on 15/4/2013. The government of a post-revolution Egypt would
be expected to advise Eritrea’s officials to adopt constitutional
democracy, to use peace-dialogue for solving their problems with
Ethiopia and Djibouti and to stop meddling in Somalia’s internal
affairs.
Sadly, that was not the case. The press release after President Morsi
met Eritrean Presidential Advisor Yemane Gebreab and Foreign Minister
Osman Saleh was about “coordinating stances toward on international
issues”, though Eritrea is an outcast in the international community. It
also indicated about “keenness on promoting trade with Eritrea“, as if
Eritrea has a functioning economy.
The surprising part of the press release says that:
“The meeting tackled the file of Nile water along with discussing
regional and international issues of mutual concern…..Morsi praised the
Eritrean stance that supports the Egyptian historic rights in Nile
water.”
This is what Mubarak used to do. And, it didn't stop Ethiopia from building Tana Beles dam and Tekeze dam.
On the other hand, If she is willing to engage
based on equitable and constructive self-interest, Egypt has no reason to seek the support of any-other country. Ethiopia will be besides her with committed sprit of brotherhood.
This week I read from some media that an Egyptian official commented to the state-owned Al Ahram daily saying:
“Certain measures have to be followed to make sure that Ethiopia
gets the water necessary for storage in the dam in line with Egypt’s
consent and needs,”.
This is a disappointing remark. But I think we should not rush to
conclusion. Egypt is still in the course of change. There is plenty
chance it might manage to escape from Mubarak-era rhetoric that we have
been seeing lately.
In the mean time, Ethiopia’s olive branch should remain extended for a
constructive cooperation in all areas of Nile basin issues. Of course,
that is without stopping the Renaisance dam even for a single minute.
The question now is: Will Egypt ever be able Nile to escape the 19th Century mind-set and meet Ethiopia half-way?
http://www.meleszenawi.com/will-egypt-escape-the-19th-century-mindset-and-meet-ethiopia-halfway/
Ethiopia and Eritrea look to forge new negotiations on border tension.
