Aklog Birara (Dr)
June 10, 2020
Part I of IV
I have argued based on facts and U.N. conventions on the absence of a fair, just and mutually beneficiary regime of principles governing transboundary rivers as a result of which Ethiopia and other Sub-Saharan African riparian nations have been harmed severely. The narrative that I want to dispel is Egypt’s false and misleading claim that it alone has “natural and historical rights” over Nile waters. It is incontestable that Ethiopia supplies 86 percent of Nile waters. It has legitimate sovereign rights to build numerous dams for the betterment of its poverty-stricken population.
It is vital to remember that, despite Ethiopia’s continuous policy positions that it does not accept the colonial prescription of 1959 that granted Egypt hegemony over the Nile, Egypt has managed to use the global and regional geopolitical architecture to scuttle Ethiopia’s efforts to build hydroelectric and irrigation dams within its own national territory. It has also succeeded in persuading multilateral financial agencies, most notably, the World Bank from providing funding to Ethiopia for such projects. As a consequence, Ethiopia has paid an incalculable price from this relentless Egyptian geopolitical pressure and subversion.; and from the acquiescence of multilateral lenders.
I shall provide human development examples concerning the harm of hegemony. Ethiopian females including mothers walk for miles to fetch wood and dung for fuel and carry these on their hacks. More than 65 million Ethiopians lack access to electricity compared to 100 percent of Egyptians. More than 50 million Ethiopians lack access to safe drinking water. Egypt exports foods, including potatoes to European nations. Ethiopia imports wheat.
In light of this imbalance, I ask myself why multilateral donors, especially the World Bank, refused Ethiopia’s request to finance hydroelectric and irrigation dams; and why it sided with Egypt during the Washington D.C. sponsored negations from which Ethiopia withdrew?
What then is the way forward?
- Focus singularly on the sustainability of the ecosystem of the Nile Basin. Climate change is real. The Blue Nile Basin and its entire ecosystem which covers an area of 365,318 square kilometers or almost 32 percent of Ethiopia and accounts for 70 percent of the nation’s water resources is the country’s primary source of life and livelihoods. The vast majority of Ethiopia’s 115 million people depend on this Basin. An estimated 86 percent of the Nile waters that nourishes the Nile over which Egypt claims hegemony comes from the Blue Nile. In turn this river is dependent on a web of tributaries that originate from the same mountains that make Ethiopia’s other big rivers including Gibe/Omo, Genale Dawa, Wabe Shebele, Awash, Baro-Akobo and Tekeze. In effect, 90 percent of Ethiopia’s Rivers are transboundary. Egypt, Ethiopia and the Sudan ought to give greater attention to this long-term issue of sustainability.
These rivers are affected by climate change, by increased population and by frequent conflicts, among these proxy wars. Egypt has and continues to be a major agent of proxy wars. These conflicts and the opportunity costs emanating from Egypt’s diplomatic offensives, for example, not to lend to Ethiopia, entail costs in the tens of billions of dollars. Egypt’s intransigence and belittling Ethiopia’s needs is a costly. It should be rejected by the global community.
Peace and stability are essential for development. The UN system must compel Egypt not to conduct proxy wars. There must be consequences for aggression. Egypt must believe that a prosperous and stable Ethiopia is as important for Egypt as it is for the entire Horn and the rest of Africa.
Egypt’s erroneous preposition of win-lose is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Black Africa. The Greek historian Herodotus declared ages ago that “Egypt is a gift of the Nile.” He did not know its origin or the people who inhabited and governed the mountains or valleys of this origin. It is Ethiopians. The claim of “natural and historical rights is thus a non-option.
I shall put this in human terms. I do not wish to see an Egyptian girl or mother to cut and haul woods on her back in the 21st century. I do not wish for an Egyptian family to live in the age of darkness for lack of access to electricity. I do not wish for any Egyptian family to live without food or safe drinking water. Ethiopia’s demands are similar. It does intend to harm Egypt or the Sudan. I know of no hydroelectric dam that ultimately reduced waters to a riparian nation.
I therefore ask this question. Why is it so hard for the Egyptian government to accept that the Ethiopian people have the same human development aspirations and basic needs as Egyptians? Why treat Ethiopians as less equal to Egyptians? Ethiopia is not demanding more than fair, equitable and mutually beneficial treatment? The core issue for me is fairness and equity.
In the debate of filling the Dam, the bigger and more serious issue of sustainability of the ecosystem is lost. Egyptian society must be cognizant of the fact that the cutting of trees and vegetation for fuel, soil erosion and environmental degradation, erratic rainfalls, occasional flooding, Biblical farming technologies and the lack of innovative farming tools, the enormous challenges Ethiopia faces in creating alternative jobs for youth, scarcity and inadequate investment capital in manufacturing and industrialization, frequent locust invasions, internal conflicts over lands, proxy wars and so on contribute to the fragility of the entire ecosystem.
Just take one example. Lake Tana, a major source of the Blue Nile has been devastated by hyacinth. This devastation has been taking place for 7 years. It has been completely ignored by the regional and federal governments. Donors and riparian countries such as Egypt and the Sudan that benefit hugely from the lake as a major global water and climate asset have literally neglected this lake as well, in part due to negligence from Ethiopian authorities.
I fail to understand why this dangerously fragile ecological setting has been ignored in the conversation by the global community and by multilateral donors. What may appear to be a serious existential threat for Ethiopia is equally a major threat for both Egypt and the Sudan.
What is at stake is the long-term viability and sustainability of the River Nile. This should be a focus of attention.
Discuss and agree on shared responsibility
If nothing else compels Egypt, Ethiopia and the Sudan to discus, agree, cooperate and propose a global commitment for massive engineering and the injection of financial capital, the regeneration of the ecosystem of the Blue Nile in particular and the Nile River in general can and should be a central objective. The benefits that would accrue to Ethiopia–an upstream nation–through reforestation (Ethiopia is doing this on its own), soil and water conservation, improved livelihoods for millions of Ethiopians who rely on the fragile ecosystem for sustenance, rural electrification linked to the future African Grid, alternative manufacturing and industrialization that will spur millions of jobs, etc. will contribute substantially to Nile River reliability and sustainability. The shared benefits are peace, stability and prosperity.
Egypt, the Sudan and the global community especially, multilateral donors such as the World Bank, the UNDP and the African Development Bank must embrace this proposal as a win-win for all stakeholders, including the planet itself. Restoration and regeneration are a common good.
I urge Egyptian and Sudanese societies, especially academics and the media to focus on this critical option rather than preoccupying themselves on Ethiopia’s national resolve to fill, operate and manage the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. The Dam is a huge investment for Ethiopia. Its technical foundation and parameters are unmatched; and recognized by Sudanese authorities. Egypt must accept the notion that Ethiopia has invested its scarce resources collected from citizens including the poor by paying due diligence to technical quality; and by ensuring that the Dam will be an enduring project. You do not invest almost 5 billion dollars and take a risk. So, the argument that there is a flaw on the technical foundation of the Dam is bogus. It is better than the Aswan Dam!!
Ethiopia has propriety rights to the GERD.
Egypt, the Sudan and the global community should also recognize and accept the notion that there is no acceptable and legitimate Nile River Treaty that binds Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s primary responsibility and accountability is to ensure that its waters and electricity services are available for families, farms, health centers, manufacturing and industrial firms as well as to other modern institutions such as schools. Ethiopians should never ever again accept to live in abject poverty.
To conclude this proposal, Ethiopia has a legitimate and sovereign right to fill the GERD unilaterally and to operate and manage it independently. Ethiopia must be firm on this. There cannot be two different international standards: one for Ethiopia and another for Egypt or for Turkey or for the U.S. A. etc. Remember that Ethiopia was never asked to give its opinion on the Aswan Damo or any of the others Egypt and the Sudan constructed.
- The second proposal I would suggest is a new River Nile Treaty.
The River Nile is the only significant transboundary River without a legitimate treaty. Ethiopia and newly independent African riparian nations never accepted colonial treaties on the Nile. This is the primary reason for constant conflict, including proxy wars. This is also the reason why Ethiopia paid a huge price with regard to its development projects. Creditors such as the World Bank refused to finance irrigation and power dams that would have helped transform Ethiopia’s economy for the better. Ironically, the same institutions had opinioned numerous times that Ethiopia’s rivers can and should be harnessed in order to make the country food secure and self-sufficient. They have failed to walk the talk. They provided Ethiopia fish to eat but failed Ethiopia to empower it how to fish; and further failed to provide it the tools to fish so that it never starves again and again and again. Ethiopia should never succumb to dependency and alms.
A fair, equitable and mutually beneficial treaty is therefore imperative. Such a treaty can draw from best practices around the globe; and from the menu of laws and conventions agreed by the United Nations. In Africa itself, the Senegal River is bound by an agreement. Lesotho and South Africa have a treaty and agreement under which South Africa pays annual rent or royalty to Lesotho each year. Ages ago, Egyptian rulers, for example, the Ottomans, used to pay rent or royalty to Ethiopia for waters from the Nile. At the time, they recognized explicitly that Ethiopia had legitimate rights to Nile waters. It is colonialism that changed this fact.
I recognize that the World Bank, the UNDP and numerous other donors had done a remarkable job by sponsoring the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). This promising project conducted numerous studies on the ecosystem. They proposed several projects that promised to pay dividends for all riparian nations. They also initiated a comprehensive agreement that Egypt rejected.
NBI must be resurrected. I urge all Nile Basin nations to convene a conference facilitated by the African Union, the EU or another independent and impartial body and come up with a Treaty that is fair, just, equitable and mutually beneficial.
Egypt should no longer be allowed to get away with its dismissal and obstructionist policy and deny the sovereign and legitimate rights of Sub-Saharan African riparian nations. Egypt, the rest of the Arab League, the United States and other nations must, at last, accept that these nations are no appendages of a colonial, exclusionary and racist system. They are free and independent nations with the same hopes, aspirations and needs as the rest of the world.
Equally, it is time for all members of the African Union to take a stand. At minimum, the AU must engage more boldly and proactively and help facilitate resolution of the impasse among Egypt, Ethiopia and the Sudan. It is insufficient to argue that the Nile is an African problem. That is a given. An African problem requires that African nations participate directly or indirectly and push for fair, equitable and mutually beneficial solutions. It is solutions not side shows that history will record.
Part II of IV will discuss the essentials of the current impasse on the GERD and present two policy options.
Join the conversation. Like borkena on Facebook and get Ethiopian News updates regularly. As well, you may get Ethiopia News by following us on twitter @zborkena