Egypt Mobilizes UN Support for its Position on GERD

Egypt’s Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Hani Suweilam speaks at the UN 2023 Water Conference in New York. (Egyptian government)
Egypt’s Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Hani Suweilam speaks at the UN 2023 Water Conference in New York. (Egyptian government)
TT
20

Egypt Mobilizes UN Support for its Position on GERD

Egypt’s Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Hani Suweilam speaks at the UN 2023 Water Conference in New York. (Egyptian government)
Egypt’s Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Hani Suweilam speaks at the UN 2023 Water Conference in New York. (Egyptian government)

Cairo is continuing its efforts to garner support from the international community for its position against Addis Ababa's construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Nile.

Egypt has been outraged over Ethiopia’s ongoing construction of the dam without reaching a prior agreement from basin countries, including itself and Sudan, on its operation and storage of water.

Egypt’s Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Hani Suweilam spoke on Thursday at the UN 2023 Water Conference in New York about the “damage” his country expects from the dam.

Egypt fears that its share of the waters of the Nile will be affected by the GERD that Ethiopia has been building since 2011 on the main tributary of the river.

Cairo and Khartoum are calling for a binding legal agreement that regulates the filling and operation of the dam, while Ethiopia is pushing for the construction of the hydroelectric dam, claiming its right to development by exploiting its water resources.

“The building of the dam has been ongoing with no consultation and without conducting adequate studies on safety or its economic, social and environmental effects on the riparian countries,” Suweilam stressed.

“These unilateral, non-cooperative practices violate international law and are not inconsistent with the Security Council’s 2021 presidential statement,” he said.

The continued construction of the dam poses an existential threat to millions of Egyptians and could have a disastrous effect.

On Wednesday, the minister addressed the main session of the UN Water Conference.

He highlighted the negative impact left by GERD on Egypt, stressing that “effective management of collective water resources is indispensable, especially since nearly 40% of the world's population lives on collective river and lake basins.”

He said Egypt relies almost exclusively on the shared waters of the Nile River, adding that it respects the importance of regional cooperation that considers the interests of all parties.

“We always seek to enhance cooperation and coordination between the various countries of the Nile basin,” Suweilam stated.

In New York, the minister met with his counterparts from India, France, Kenya, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco, in addition to the US President's Special Envoy for Water Resources and Biodiversity.

He spoke of Egypt’s efforts to highlight water issues, citing its hosting of five editions of Cairo Water Week and the UN Climate Change Conference (COP27).



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.”