Feature: Historic Rights or Historic Wrongs: The Nile Dispute Between Egypt and Ethiopia

The Nile River is a vital resource for millions in Eastern Africa, and its management has been shaped by historical agreements established during British colonial rule, particularly the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty and its 1959 amendment.

These treaties have created historical injustices and established a power dynamic that heavily favors Egypt and Sudan, while overlooking the need for the economic development of upstream countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya. These inequitable agreements restrict the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and other irrigation projects.

This impedes Ethiopia’s economic growth and energy security, as the GERD is set to provide electricity to millions of Ethiopians who currently lack reliable power. In contrast, Egypt is deeply concerned that the GERD will significantly diminish its share of the Nile’s waters, posing significant threats to its agricultural productivity, food security, and at least 90% of its fresh water.

These concerns—though plausible—stem from agreements that did not adequately consider the rights and needs of upstream countries, making the Nile River a focal point of geopolitical friction.

This legacy of unequal control has fueled ongoing tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia. The escalating tensions underscore the urgent need for an impartial water resource management framework that considers the rights and needs of all Nile Basin countries.

The pro-Egyptian water treaties were established during the British occupation of Egypt from 1882 to 1956. At that time, the British Empire relied heavily on Egyptian cotton for its thriving textile industry; thus, these biased treaties were primarily designed to support that sector. This neglect of upstream nations’ water security needs has created a legacy of historical injustices that continue to impact current relations.

In the past, Ethiopia has attempted to utilize the Nile’s waters, but unfortunately, Egypt used the existing agreements to prevent Ethiopia from achieving its goals. For example, in 1978, former Ethiopian leader Mengistu Haile Mariam proposed to construct dams on the Nile; Egypt was furious and used its influence at the United Nations to block the project.

Additionally, when former Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi announced in 2010 that Ethiopia would build a dam on the Blue Nile, Egypt quickly objected and mobilized Sudan to oppose the project.

These actions demonstrate that Cairo remains determined to justify its stance by using unfair and obsolete water treaties to prevent Addis Ababa from utilizing the Nile’s waters for economic and developmental purposes, despite having its own dams on the Nile River.

For Egypt and Ethiopia to move forward, modern frameworks must define a more equitable water management system, reflecting current geopolitical realities through meaningful discussions involving both upstream and downstream countries rather than relying on outdated agreements that favor one side while neglecting the other.

Developing cooperative water-sharing agreements could effectively address historical grievances and foster trust between Egypt and Ethiopia. By prioritizing inclusive dialogue and sustainable practices, the nations of the Nile Basin can rectify past injustices and build a future that supports the economic growth of all its communities. Military confrontations cannot resolve mounting tensions between Cairo and Addis Ababa.

The two nations require mutual understanding within the current geopolitical context. Egypt should approach negotiations over Nile’s waters with an open mind, acknowledging that all nations—both upstream and downstream—have the right to use these waters for the benefit of their citizens.

It is of paramount importance to note that upstream nations today are increasingly dissatisfied with the 1929 and 1959 water agreements, a fact that Egypt must recognize. Using proxy tactics—such as involving Somalia and Eritrea to challenge Ethiopia’s use of the GERD—could escalate tensions and lead to regional conflict. Such actions are unlikely to serve Egypt’s best interests.

They could lead to a strategic misstep if Cairo assumes that military action can effectively safeguard its water rights based solely on agreements established without any input from upstream countries. Earlier this year, Somaliland, a self-declared independent nation recognized internationally as part of Somalia, signed an agreement with Ethiopia granting it access to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Cairo should not use this deal as a pretext for a proxy conflict against Addis Ababa. It is essential for Somalia and Ethiopia to address this issue collaboratively, as Ethiopia may be open to discussing Somalia’s concerns. If Egypt aims to promote peace, it should focus on fostering regional stability.

The recent decision by Egypt to send shipments of weapons and ammunition to Somalia, along with the deployment of troops, is counterproductive. These actions are likely to provoke Ethiopia and escalate regional tensions, potentially igniting conflict rather than promoting stability.

While security agreements among countries can be beneficial, Egypt’s actions do not appear to support peace in Somalia. Upon reflection, it would appear that Egypt’s objective is twofold: firstly, to help Somalia wage war against Ethiopia over Somaliland in a concerted effort to deny Ethiopia maritime access; and, secondly, to delay or prevent Addis Ababa from utilizing its GERD.

Somalia must be cautious in this situation because Egyptian and Ethiopian missiles could turn its territories into a combat zone. I do not believe the Somali people, who have been living in misery for decades, want to see their country become a battlefield for foreign powers.

The Nile River dispute highlights the need for a cooperative approach that honors the rights and needs of all nations. By fostering dialogue and collaboration, the nations of the Nile Basin can work toward sustainable solutions that benefit everyone, address past injustices, and pave the way for a more stable and prosperous future.

These morally unjust agreements pose a significant threat to the Nile Basin countries, for it is clear that these moribund agreements have, and continue to, deprive upstream nations of their rightful access to the Nile’s waters.

Failure to address these historical injustices equitably may transform rising tensions between Cairo and Addis Ababa into a volatile conflict over the Nile’s precious waters, threatening the stability of the entire East African region.

By Duop Chak Wuol

Duop Chak Wuol is an analyst, critical writer, and former editor-in-chief of the South Sudan News Agency. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado and can be reached at [email protected].

The post Feature: Historic Rights or Historic Wrongs: The Nile Dispute Between Egypt and Ethiopia appeared first on The Ghanaian Chronicle.

Read Full Story