Nile Dam row: Egypt and Ethiopia generate heat but no power
The polite diplomatic façade was maintained but the words of the Egyptian and Ethiopian representatives revealed a belligerence that was hard to disguise.
The recent meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss Ethiopia’s huge hydro-electric plant, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (Gerd), straddling the Blue Nile, was held by teleconference.
The social distance that the participants observed underscored the diplomatic gulf.
It is a gulf that threatens to sweep up the populations of the two countries into a nationalist fervour and mutual distrust.
The Gerd, which sits on the Nile’s main tributary, is upstream of Egypt and has the potential to control the flow of water that the country almost entirely relies on.
For Ethiopia, the construction and filling of the dam are not two separate events, one of the country’s negotiators Zerihun Abebe told the BBC.
“The Egyptians tried to confuse the international community” by suggesting that they are different things, he added, and argued that the 2015 Declaration of Principles allowed for Ethiopia to go ahead.
But this is not how Egypt sees it.
After the United States and the World Bank got involved late last year but failed to get Ethiopia to sign up to a document agreed with Egypt in February, the African Union (AU) has now said it will try and find a solution.
If the words of Egypt’s foreign minister are anything to go by then a deal is urgently needed.
“The unilateral filling and operation of this dam without an agreement that includes the necessary precautions to protect the downstream communities… would heighten tensions and could provoke crises and conflicts that further destabilise an already troubled region,” Mr Shoukry warned.
For its part, Ethiopia said it wanted to negotiate under the auspices of the AU, rather than the UN, but blamed Egypt for its “intransigence and its insistence on historic rights and current use”.
Those rights, as far as Egypt is concerned, go back to at least 1929, when the British government recognised the “natural and historical right of Egypt to the waters of the Nile”. It also granted Egypt veto rights on any projects upstream.
Then in 1959, Egypt and Sudan signed a deal in which the two countries agreed to share the Nile’s resources, with Egypt taking the biggest volume. No reference was made to any of the other nine countries in the river’s basin, including Ethiopia, the source of the Blue Nile.
The tributary, which merges with the White Nile in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, provides around 80% of the total flow of the river and Ethiopia sees it as a “historic injustice” that it is unable to take advantage of this natural resource, Mr Zerihun said.
If Ethiopia agrees to allowing a specific volume of water to flow to Egypt every year then this will “confirm a colonial privilege of the most downstream country, Egypt. It’s like neo-colonialism and that is unacceptable,” he added.
In essence, what Ethiopia is accusing Egypt of is wanting to maintain the flow that was guaranteed in 1959.
Ethiopia says that in the second year of filling it will release a minimum of 31 billion cubic metres through the Gerd, but beyond that it cannot be tied to a specific number.