The Ethiopian decision to divert the Blue Nile has been a wake-up call that
could have prompted a strong official reaction, writes Doaa El-Bey
Wednesday,12 June, 2013
"The official reaction to the crisis is beyond my understanding. They did
not even attempt to show a minimum degree of anger," said Taha, a microbus
driver in Cairo, in reaction to Addis Ababa's decision to divert the Blue
Nile.
Taha's statement is a reflection of the popular reaction in Egypt that has
been surprised by the country's official reaction, which has appeared to be
indifferent to the Ethiopian decision.
The angry popular reaction was also reflected in the protests launched in
front of the Ethiopian embassy last week, when dozens of Egyptian protesters
carrying banners reflecting their rejection of the decision and underlining
the Egyptian right to the Nile's water, gathered to protest against the
decision.
While people want to see a strong response, a well-calculated one based on
keeping up good relations and taking useful diplomatic steps is preferred by
some politicians and commentators.
Commenting on the official reaction, Ahmed Abdel-Halim, an expert in
military strategy, said it raised question marks. States cannot act
intemperately, he said, adding that instead legal experts and ministers
ordinarily formed working groups on an internal level and then negotiated
with foreign parties.
"Meanwhile, the military threats should not be mixed with political
discourse. Journalists should stop talking about a military reaction,"
Abdel-Halim told Al-Ahram Weekly.
The initial reaction to the diversion of the Blue Nile was a weak one, with
the president's office saying one day after the diversion had been announced
that it would not affect Egypt's share of the Nile water.
"Any project on the River Nile requires diverting the course of the water
before starting construction. The present project will not affect Egypt's
share of the Nile water," said presidential spokesman Omar Amer at a news
conference.
The Ministry of Irrigation stated that it would not accept steps that had
negative impacts on the flow of the River Nile, adding that the diversion of
the Blue Nile was simply an "engineering procedure" related to the
construction of the proposed dam.
However, after issuing the report of the tripartite investigative committee
this week, President Mohamed Morsi met with figures from the opposition on
Monday to discuss the impact of Ethiopia's controversial Renaissance Dam and
the findings of the eagerly-awaited report.
Opposition figures agreed that the Renaissance Dam presented a potential
crisis for Egypt, and the meeting was televised, without the knowledge of
most of the attendees.
During the meeting, the president called on Ethiopia to commit to a deadline
for providing more substantial information on the impact of the dam and to
sign an internationally accountable document that guaranteed that the dam
would not harm the interests of Egypt and Sudan.
Some party heads, like that of the Salafist Nour Party, Younis Makhioun,
called on Ethiopia to "immediately halt" construction of the dam until a
conclusive report had been produced, describing the dam as "strategically
dangerous".
Other party heads, like Magdi Hussein of Egypt's Labour Party, pointed out
that there was a battle "not only with Ethiopia, but also with the US and
Israel as well".
A number of political figures, including members of the National Salvation
Front (NSF), rejected the president's invitation, expressing concerns about
the transparency and usefulness of the talks. The Constitution and Free
Egyptians Party also declined the invitation.
Prominent politicians like Amr Moussa, head of the Conference Party, and
Hamdeen Sabahi, head of the Egyptian Popular Current and a founding member
of the NSF, announced they would not join the meeting.
Mustafa Al-Guindi, a member of the NSF, regarded the language used in the
meeting to be escalatory and "catastrophic". Holding a meeting with the
president during which threats to use force are used would dash any hope of
a peaceful solution, he told the Weekly.
"Confrontational language and talk about a military option show that the
current regime has no vision whatsoever for Egypt in general on the one hand
and for its future relations with Ethiopia and Africa on the other,"
Al-Guindi added.
The timing of the meeting was also regarded as an attempt to distract
Egyptians from domestic issues, especially the protests against the
president planned for 30 June.
In the search for a way out, voices have been raised calling for military
confrontation with Ethiopia and international arbitration. Diplomacy is
regarded as the right tool to resolve differences.
According to Khaled Abu Bakr, an international lawyer, international
arbitration would not be in Egypt's interest. Ethiopia is very active in the
international community, he told the Weekly, whereas Egypt is not, with the
result that Cairo would be unable to exert the same pressure as Addis Ababa.
Arbitration in political issues depends on pressure and good relations with
other countries and international parties, he said. "Ethiopia has prepared
itself with a strong file in favour of its cause. Had it not done so, it
would not have been able to convince the international institutions to fund
the building of the Dam."
Arbitration is also a long process and one that involves Ethiopia's consent.
Its outcome would be binding on both parties.
Mahmoud Abu Zeid, a former minister of irrigation, said that international
arbitration should be the last resort after trying diplomatic means. "I
consider it to be the last resort and by no means the best. It takes a long
time and its outcome is unknown," he told the Weekly.
As for the military track, Abu Zeid ruled it out because it would not
resolve the problem but rather would complicate it.
Abdel-Halim agreed with Abu Zeid that the military option was not possible
and was not even required. However, he did not rule out international
arbitration, which had proved useful in the earlier case of Taba.
Improving Egypt's diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, the Nile basin
countries and African countries in general is still considered to be the
best means to resolve the Nile water conflict and other conflicts in the
future.
The Egyptian ambassador to Ethiopia, Mohamed Idriss, said that the coming
days would witness high-level communications between Egypt, Ethiopia and
Sudan on ways to take action to serve their common interests. However, he
did not elaborate on any specific steps that might be taken.
Al-Guindi said the way out of the present problem should start by
establishing a development project between Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan and
Egypt, in which the first two countries would contribute by supplying
electric power. Sudan would contribute land, and Egypt would contribute
manpower and expertise.
He pointed to the active role that popular diplomacy could play in improving
relations between Egypt and other Nile Basin and African states in the
future. It had been the popular visit to Uganda in 2011 that had succeeded
in convincing Ugandan officials to postpone signing the Nile Basin (Entebbe)
Treaty for two years, he said.
Another visit to Addis Ababa a month later had succeeded in convincing
Ethiopian officials to postpone ratifying the treaty for a year.
"It is popular diplomacy that convinced Ethiopia to establish the tripartite
committee two years ago. Initially, Addis Ababa refused to form the
committee until Egypt signed the Entebbe Treaty," he added.
Thus, he concluded, the only tool that Egypt needs is to return the Egyptian
presence to Africa as it was during the rule of former president Gamal
Abdel-Nasser.
Al-Guindi was an active member of the popular diplomacy delegations that
visited Uganda and Ethiopia after the 25 January Revolution in 2011.
Abu Zeid also put forward steps for resolving the current crisis, starting
with returning to the negotiating table at the highest level and conducting
transparent negotiations to reach an agreement on the effects of the dam and
how to deal with them.
This should be followed by a strategy to be pursued during the period when
the reservoir behind the dam was filling with water, he said, which would
deal with the recommendations in the tripartite report.
Official talks should be supported by popular diplomacy, which had proved
useful in the past and had put pressure on donors who would stop the
building process until the full effects of the dam had been revealed.
Abdel-Halim suggested a multi-dimensional approach that would start by the
exclusion of the military option followed by making the issue known to the
international community by forming groups of international lawyers to
present it to the African Union, the International Court of Justice, the
International Criminal Court, the UN Security Council and the UN General
Assembly.
Egypt should try to establish common interests with Ethiopia and the other
Nile Basin states, he said. "Israel managed to create a network of interests
with these countries. I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same," he
added.
The move to divert the Blue Nile, described in Ethiopia as "historic", was
taken last week, one day after Morsi had concluded a visit to Ethiopia.
The Blue Nile provides Egypt with 85 per cent of its annual allotment of 55
billion cubic metres of water. The Renaissance Dam is one of four dams
planned to be built on the Blue Nile.
The reservoir behind the proposed dam will contain 74 billion cubic metres
of water. Ethiopia plans to fill the reservoir in five years, which could
cause Egypt a reduction in water of over 20 per cent, contributing to the
country's existing water shortages.
According to Egypt's National Planning Institute, the country will likely
need an additional 21 billion cubic metres of water per year by 2050, on top
of its current 55 billion cubic metres quota, to meet the water needs of a
projected population of 150 million.
Since 1902, there have been over ten agreements regulating the distribution
of Nile water, including a 1959 agreement that specified Egypt and Sudan's
share at 55 and 18 billion cubic metres, respectively.
Addis Ababa has repeatedly shrugged off these agreements, asserting that
they deny other Nile Basin states, apart from Egypt and Sudan, any serious
share of the River's water. They also say that the agreements were signed
when the African states were under foreign occupation and that they should
be revisited by present African rulers.
In 1999, Egypt agreed to join the other Nile Basin countries in a
negotiation process specifically aimed at addressing the demands of the
upstream countries.
In 2010, both Egypt and Sudan, before the latter country was split in two,
suspended their participation in the talks due to a failure to define the
terms of an agreement governing the construction of irrigation projects on
the Nile.
The final report issued by the tripartite committee earlier this week
pointed to existing errors in the present design of the proposed Renaissance
Dam and recommended changes to it.
It also asked for a schedule showing the amount of Nile water reaching Egypt
over the coming 60 years. Both countries are now in need of improved
political and diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, in order that these
recommendations will be implemented.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Wed Jun 12 2013 - 17:25:51 EDT