The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Crisis... From Good Faith to Unilateral Measures

Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. (Ethiopian Ministry of Water Energy)
Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. (Ethiopian Ministry of Water Energy)
TT

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Crisis... From Good Faith to Unilateral Measures

Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. (Ethiopian Ministry of Water Energy)
Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. (Ethiopian Ministry of Water Energy)

“I swear to God, we will never harm you,” Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed pledged in 2018 from inside the Al-Ittihadiya Palace in Cairo. He made the pledge after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi asked him to reassure the Egyptian people that they would receive their fair share of the Nile’s waters.

However, it seems that these pledges came to nothing, as the negotiations in “good faith” that have been held between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia over the past 11 years have not yielded a final agreement Egypt is comfortable with, pushing Cairo to return to the Security Council once again in protest of what it called “unilateral measures” taken by Addis Ababa.

The recent escalation was in response to Ethiopia beginning the third phase of filling the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) without the approval of neither Egypt nor Sudan. Egypt sent a letter to the UN Security Council calling on it to “meet its obligations in this regard” and emphasizing its “legitimate right... to take all necessary measures to ensure and protect its national security” and its “objection and complete rejection of Ethiopia continuation to fill the Renaissance Dam unilaterally without a deal.”

The statement signed by Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry then warned that Egypt would not tolerate any actions that threaten its rights or water security or any of the wealth belonging to the Egyptian people, whom it added see the Nile River as their only lifeline.

The dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia began after Ethiopia began building its dam, with Egypt worried that it could threaten its share of the Nile’s water. Meanwhile, Ethiopia claims that the GERD is necessary for the country’s development.

Over the past 11 years of negotiation, Cairo has insisted on resolving the dispute peacefully, initiating negotiations that led to Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia signing the Declaration of Principles Agreement in Khartoum in 2015. In a speech at the time, Sisi stressed that good faith and management are the foundation for any agreement.

However, it seems that this good faith was nowhere to be found, as Ethiopia continued to build the GERD, which the Egyptian Foreign minister referred to in his statement to the Security Council, saying that Egypt sought a fair and equitable agreement, but Ethiopia thwarted all the efforts to resolve the crisis.

As the negotiations between the three countries continued to falter after the Declaration of Principles Agreement, Cairo sought a strong mediator to apply pressure on Addis Ababa. It called on the US to meet with the three concerned countries in November 2019. However, the US-sponsored negotiations went on until January 2020 and ended with an agreement on six principles without ending the dispute, with Ethiopia not attending the signing, while Egypt signed and Sudan did not.

When Donald Trump left the White House, US meditation paused and the countries met for a new round of talks in the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in April 2021. It was at this point that Egypt decided to ask the Security Council to get involved, but the latter replied that settling technical disputes on this matter is not among its duties.

African mediation did lead to the emergence of a legal settlement, and Addis Ababa continued to take unilateral actions that experts see as “an attempt to buy time as Ethiopia proceeds to fill and operate the dam.”

Sisi’s meeting with his US counterpart Joe Biden in Jeddah earlier this month announced the resumption of US mediation. In a joint statement, both men stressed the need to agree to a binding joint framework on the filling and operation of the GERD.

US Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Mike Hammer then began a series of visits to Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE last Sunday. His round of visits will continue into August, but it seems that these US efforts have come too late, as, on July 26, Egypt received a message from Ethiopia saying it would continue filling the reservoir of the Renaissance Dam during the current flood season.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Dr. Nader Noureldeen, a Water Resources Professor at Cairo University, said: “We had hoped that the US would take action before the third filling of the Dam’s reservoir. Now, we have to wait and see what this round of US and UAE mediated negotiations will come to.”

“Egypt engaging the Security now is an attempt to create a global lobby in solidarity with Egypt and pressure Ethiopia to resume negotiations,” he added. Though the UNSC resolutions are “nonbinding,” the international community is “sympathetic to Egypt and its opposition to Ethiopia’s insistence on building a massive dam that holds 75 billion cubic meters of water without coordinating with the downstream countries.”



Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: World in Store for Broader Wars, More Nuclear Countries

Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: World in Store for Broader Wars, More Nuclear Countries

Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

The world is facing growing uncertainty as the first quarter of the 21st century draws to a close. The changes are rapid and old convictions are dropping one after another. To come to terms with this uncertainty, Asharq Al-Awsat sat down with Lebanon’s former Minister of Culture, and former United Nations envoy Ghassan Salame, whose latest publication, “The Temptation of Mars: War and Peace in the 21st Century”, sheds light on which path the world is headed on for decades to come.

Nuclear ambitions

*What has changed in the world system in the first quarter of the 21st century?

Since the end of the Cold War, the world witnessed massive positive change, such as a drop in military spending, nuclear warheads and military bases in foreign countries. The Soviet Union withdrew from Eastern Europe and the United States closed several of its military bases in the Philippines and Central America. Work at the United Nations and several international agencies was also revived.

However, the situation was flipped on its head when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 because the invasion had no legal basis – certainly not from the UN Security Council – and world powers opposed it.

Moreover, the US played the biggest role in establishing the international order since 1945, starting with the UN, international funds and other organizations. So, if this country allowed itself to violate the rules it helped put in place, what’s stopping other countries from doing the same? And this is indeed what happened: Russia entered Georgia and Moldova and then Ukraine for the first time, and again for a second time. Other countries followed suit where they resorted to force to achieve their goals.

As a result, we witnessed a gradual growth in military budgets and nuclear countries, such as Russia, the US and France, began to gradually expand their nuclear arsenal. China is aiming to double its nuclear warheads from 1,500 to 3,000 by 2030.

Non-nuclear countries are meanwhile seeking to obtain them. Some 20 countries are capable of becoming nuclear in one year and I believe some will do so.

If the lack of trust between major powers, including the US, China and others, continues then the tensions will persist and escalate. Just look at how Russia changed its nuclear doctrine and Israeli officials called for bombing Gaza with a nuclear bomb. Such statements could not have been uttered in the 20 years before that.

Comprehensive South

*Will the “comprehensive South” play a role in restoring balance in the global order?

Certainly, but it will take time. Let us take a look at the scene. We have the NATO alliance which has no other equal in the world. When Russia started to move against Georgia and later Ukraine, NATO became more important and neutral European countries, such as Sweden and Finland, previously opposed to joining the alliance, have asked to become a part of it. So, this alliance mainly brings together western countries.

There is no other alliance that is similar to it across the globe. So, there is an imbalance between the West and the rest of the world because the West is reliant on an integrated alliance. There is a feeling among other countries, such as China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and India, that they are not getting their share in international organizations and that their opinions, demands and interests do not get the same attention because they are not part of an integrated alliance or unified bloc.

This is why organizations, such as the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, were formed. These groups are still in their early stages of development and they are also victims of contrasting interests: China wants more countries to join the BRICS, while Russia doesn’t. China is speaking of an integrated global south, while Russia doesn’t want to lump itself in that group.

Furthermore, members of these groups have differences between them, such as India and China’s border disputes. The BRICS has not, and will not, in the near future transform into anything like NATO unless it sets a doctrine for itself. NATO is formed of countries that enjoy similar political systems. It is based on a free economic market and liberal constitutional system. These features don’t exist in the BRICS countries.

China and the US

*Where is the rivalry between China and the US headed? Will the years to come lead us to a bipolarity?

It is wrong to believe that China and the US are already in bipolarity. Bipolarity is a project that started 15 years ago. The US does not like multiple poles. It knows that it won’t be able to retain a large number of its allies if it were the sole pole in the world. Washington is most at ease in a bipolar world where it holds the upper hand and where fierce competition makes its allies take its side.

Between 2006 and 2007, when US President Geore W. Bush was in power, the deep state and political elite in the US sought a new rival and believed that China could be it. So, efforts got underway to form the bipolar world and for China to become the main strategic competitor. Of course, China was very comfortable with this.

When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the first foreign dignitary he met was the president of China, not of Russia or France. This elevates China’s status. So, China has become embroiled in this American project to establish a bipolar world. The project is still facing some major resistance from several countries. The question is: Will Russia, India, Brazil and others accept this bipolarity? I believe that several major countries are wary of this bipolarity because it will curb their political and diplomatic freedoms.

Tectonic shifts in the Arab world

*The Arab world is witnessing tectonic shifts, most notably with the ouster of the Syrian regime. Will the Arab world remain this fragmented?

What you are asking has to do with the conditions for political stability. Why are some countries and regions politically stable and others are constantly witnessing revolutions and lack of security?

There are several explanations for this. The common answer is the absence of the state of law, and representation of the people and their involvement in political decisions. These elements provide stability. This is the liberal explanation. Some would say that the liberal reading applies to advanced countries with low populations, not backward ones with large populations where stability can only be imposed through the forceful application of the law.

I believe the Arab world is experiencing a phase that does not allow stability. First, we have the vast inequality in incomes between neighboring countries. This will lead the poorest countries to demand that the wealthier ones share their wealth.

Other factors are the population explosion, people moving from rural to urban areas and the lack of new job opportunities. Syria, for example, has several factors that do not lead to stability: desertification, water scarcity, drop in agricultural production and a population explosion. I think Syria is the third country in the world in terms of population growth, people moving to urban areas and lack of job opportunities. Syria needs 300,000 job opportunities each year and they are mostly unavailable. I’m not even talking about politics, sectarianism, oppression and other issues.