Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan Fail to Make Progress on Disputed Dam

In this file photo taken on December 27, 2019 a general view of the Saddle Dam, part of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), Ethiopia, near Guba in Ethiopia. (AFP)
In this file photo taken on December 27, 2019 a general view of the Saddle Dam, part of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), Ethiopia, near Guba in Ethiopia. (AFP)
TT
20

Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan Fail to Make Progress on Disputed Dam

In this file photo taken on December 27, 2019 a general view of the Saddle Dam, part of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), Ethiopia, near Guba in Ethiopia. (AFP)
In this file photo taken on December 27, 2019 a general view of the Saddle Dam, part of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), Ethiopia, near Guba in Ethiopia. (AFP)

Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan failed to agree on a new negotiating approach to resolve their years-long dispute over the controversial dam that Ethiopia is building on the Blue Nile, the three countries said Wednesday.

In late October, the three resumed virtual talks over the filling and operation of the Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam. The renewed talks followed President Donald Trump's comments in which he said downstream Egypt could end up “blowing up” the project, which Cairo has called an existential threat. The remarks angered Ethiopia.

Foreign and irrigation ministers of the three nations met last week and delegated experts from their countries to discuss and agree on an approach so the talks could be fruitful. But differences remained and Wednesday's meeting failed to bridge the gaps, said Mohammed el-Sebaei, Egypt’s Irrigation Ministry spokesman.

Sudan’s Irrigation Minister Yasser Abbas also said the talks did not achieve concrete progress, and that Egypt opposed a Sudanese proposal supported by Ethiopia to maximize the role of African Union experts.

Ethiopia said the countries “were unable to reach a complete agreement” on items such as the “basis for the upcoming negotiation and the time frame.” It said they would turn to the chair of the AU Executive Council and South Africa’s foreign minister “to consult on the next steps.”

Key questions remain about how much water Ethiopia will release downstream if a multi-year drought occurs and how the three countries will resolve any future disputes. Ethiopia rejects binding arbitration at the final stage of the project.

El-Sebaei, the Egyptian spokesman, said the three countries would separately report their positions to South Africa, which heads the African Union.

Ethiopia is building the dam on the Blue Nile, which joins the White Nile in Sudan to become the Nile River. About 85% of the river’s flow originates from Ethiopia. Officials hope the dam, now more than three-quarters complete, will reach full power-generating capacity in 2023.

Egypt and Sudan, however, have expressed concerns the dam will reduce the flow of the Nile waters to their countries. Egypt relies heavily on the Nile to supply water for its agriculture and to its more than 100 million people.



How Did Iraq Survive ‘Existential Threat More Dangerous than ISIS’?

Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
TT
20

How Did Iraq Survive ‘Existential Threat More Dangerous than ISIS’?

Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 

Diplomatic sources in Baghdad revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Iraqi authorities were deeply concerned about sliding into the Israeli-Iranian war, which they considered “an existential threat to Iraq even more dangerous than that posed by ISIS when it overran a third of the country’s territory.”

The sources explained that “ISIS was a foreign body that inevitably had to be expelled by the Iraqi entity, especially given the international and regional support Baghdad enjoyed in confronting it... but the war (with Israel) threatened Iraq’s unity.”

They described this “existential threat” as follows:

-When the war broke out, Baghdad received messages from Israel, conveyed via Azerbaijan and other channels, stating that Israel would carry out “harsh and painful” strikes in response to any attacks launched against it from Iraqi territory. The messages held the Iraqi authorities responsible for any such attacks originating from their soil.

-Washington shifted from the language of prior advice to direct warnings, highlighting the grave consequences that could result from any attacks carried out by Iran-aligned factions.

-Iraqi authorities feared what they described as a “disaster scenario”: that Iraqi factions would launch attacks on Israel, prompting Israel to retaliate with a wave of assassinations similar to those it conducted against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon or Iranian generals and scientists at the start of the war.

-The sources noted that delivering painful blows to these factions would inevitably inflame the Shiite street, potentially pushing the religious authority to take a strong stance. At that point, the crisis could take on the character of a Shiite confrontation with Israel.

-This scenario raised fears that other Iraqi components would then blame the Shiite component for dragging Iraq into a war that could have been avoided. In such circumstances, the divergence in choices between the Shiite and Sunni communities could resurface, reviving the threat to Iraq’s unity.

-Another risk was the possibility that the Kurds would declare that the Iraqi government was acting as if it only represented one component, and that the country was exhausted by wars, prompting the Kurdish region to prefer distancing itself from Baghdad to avoid being drawn into unwanted conflicts.

-Mohammed Shia Al Sudani’s government acted with a mix of firmness and prudence. It informed the factions it would not tolerate any attempt to drag the country into a conflict threatening its unity, while on the other hand keeping its channels open with regional and international powers, especially the US.

-Iraqi authorities also benefited from the position of Iranian authorities, who did not encourage the factions to engage in the war but instead urged them to remain calm. Some observers believed that Iran did not want to risk its relations with Iraq after losing Syria.

-Another significant factor was the factions’ realization that the war exceeded their capabilities, especially in light of what Hezbollah faced in Lebanon and the Israeli penetrations inside Iran itself, which demonstrated that Israel possessed precise intelligence on hostile organizations and was able to reach its targets thanks to its technological superiority and these infiltrations.

-The sources indicated that despite all the pressure and efforts, “rogue groups” tried to prepare three attacks, but the authorities succeeded in thwarting them before they were carried out.

The sources estimated that Iran suffered a deep wound because Israel moved the battle onto Iranian soil and encouraged the US to target its nuclear facilities. They did not rule out another round of fighting “if Iran does not make the necessary concessions on the nuclear issue.”