The bitter wrangle between Ethiopia and Egypt on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), has become one of the most-watched water conflicts in the world.
The conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia had got further precipitated when the US government and the World Bank, last month, brought Sudan, Ethiopia and Egypt together to thrash out the differences over the $4 billion dam. At the last meeting in Washington, on Feb 27-28, and after four months of intense mediation efforts, the US government and the World Bank failed to get Ethiopia sign on a proposed agreement on filling of the GERD and its operational management. Ethiopia skipped the meeting in Washington, but Cairo initialed on the draft document, indicating negotiations had been completed. The crisis was aggravated when the Arab League except Sudan endorsed Egypt’s position of finalisation of negotiations. Addis Ababa retaliated by accusing the Arab League of endorsing incomplete negotiations.
Since 1970, Ethiopia has been trying to use the Nile water for hydropower. However, during the past five decades, Egypt used successful strategies to thwart Ethiopia’s plans to raise any external funding to develop its water resources by threatening military action and using its diplomatic network, including the support of the US. Finally, Ethiopia decided to mobilize its own domestic resources to fully finance the dam which forced Egypt to come to the negotiating table. Egypt’s precondition for an agreement was to internationalize the tripartite negotiation and pressurize Ethiopia into accepting its stance of triggering Article 10 of the 2015 Declaration of Principles and appointing a mediator.
Thus the US intervention in GERD represented Egypt’s first win in the negotiations. Egypt is such a strategic ally of the US and Israel that it is difficult to assume how Washington can be an impartial arbiter on the Nile. Compared to Egypt, Ethiopia carries lesser weightage in US strategic interests although it is an ally, within the framework of the new US foreign and security policy. Therefore, accepting Trump’s offer for mediation became counterproductive for Ethiopia. As a result, the axis of conflict has shifted from Ethiopia versus Sudan and Egypt to Ethiopia versus US, Egypt and Sudan.
The truth is, with visionary political leadership, the Nile has the potential to become a major force for regional cooperation and also a source for cheap and renewable hydropower to the energy-starved region. Given this significance, a non-African body cannot be a fair mediator. The issues on the Nile and GERD are Africa’s internal challenges and requires a Pan-African solution to be resolved with the active engagement of AU and AU commission.
