By LJDemissie
September 30, 2024
In a recent turn of events at the UN General Assembly 2024, the age-old debate over the Abay River waters, which contribute over 85% to the Nile River’s flow, has once again taken center stage. Egypt and Ethiopia have presented their cases, each with its own set of arguments and historical baggage. I dive into the latest round of this hydro-political saga.
Image Description: An Egyptian pharaoh and a modern Ethiopian Prime Minister over the Abay River’s waters. The pharaoh represents Egypt’s reliance on historical treaties, while the Prime Minister advocates for modern international water law. The Abay River flows into the Nile in the background, symbolizing the shared resource central to their debate.
Egypt’s Existential Anxiety
On September 28, 2024, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty took to the podium at the UN General Assembly (UNGA 79) with a message that could have been lifted straight out of a thriller novel. “Egypt will not turn a blind eye to a threat to its existence,” he declared, emphasizing that the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) disregards the lives of Egyptians and Sudanese alike. Abdelatty stressed that Egypt would continue to monitor the dam’s developments and take necessary measures to defend its interests.
Earlier in the month, on September 1, 2024, Abdelatty had already fired off a strongly-worded letter to the President of the UN Security Council. He described Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s statements about reserving Blue Nile water as “entirely unacceptable” and accused Ethiopia of threatening regional stability with its provocative approach.
However, the UN Security Council responded by encouraging Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan to resume negotiations under the auspices of the African Union to finalize a mutually acceptable agreement on filling and operating the dam. The Security Council emphasized that it would not intervene directly, as the issue should be resolved through regional cooperation and dialogue.
Ethiopia’s Equitable Rebuttal
Not to be outdone, Ethiopia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Yoseph Kassaye, delivered a measured yet firm response on September 30, 2024. Kassaye emphasized Ethiopia’s commitment to the principles of equitable and reasonable utilization of the Nile’s waters. He called on Egypt to ratify the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) on the Nile River, which aims to promote fair distribution among all Nile Basin countries.
Kassaye highlighted that Ethiopia, which contributes 85% of the Nile’s flow, seeks cooperation based on international law for transboundary waters. He urged Egypt: to abandon its colonial-based policy on the Nile, to stop its efforts to destabilize Africa, and to work towards integrated development on the basis of equity. Furthermore, Kassaye reaffirmed Ethiopia’s right to use its natural resources for the benefit of its people and stressed the importance of regional cooperation.
Rating System
- Scale: Each country’s argument is evaluated on a scale of 0 to 3.33 points, with 33being the highest score.
- Evaluation: Three arguments are evaluated for each country, making the total cumulative score 10 points.
- Criteria: The scores are based on the strength and validityof each argument, with higher scores indicating more convincing and well-supported arguments.
Objective Analysis
As an objective observer, I break down the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s arguments based on international waters laws for transboundary rivers.
Egypt’s Statement:
Existential Threat: Egypt’s emphasis on the existential threat posed by the GERD is an exaggeration. While Egypt’s reliance on the Nile for water is undeniable and its concerns are valid, the claim that the GERD poses an existential threat is not a strong point. Instead, the focus should be on ensuring that Ethiopia’s water needs do not unfairly impact Egypt’s water supply, aligning with the principle of “no significant harm” in international water law.
Rating: 1/3.33
Review: Egypt’s emphasis on the existential threat posed by the GERD is an exaggeration. While Egypt’s reliance on the Nile for water is undeniable and its concerns are valid, the claim that the GERD poses an existential threat is not a strong point.
Historical Treaties: From Ethiopia’s perspective, relying on historical treaties established without its participation is irrelevant from multiple perspectives (legal, moral, ethical, and economical) since the treaties established without Ethiopia’s participation. These treaties were declared null and void by Ethiopia at their inception and fail to reflect current geopolitical realities. Moreover, they do not align with modern international water law, which emphasizes equitable and reasonable utilization.
Rating: 0/3.33
Review: Egypt’s reliance on historical treaties, which were established without Ethiopia’s participation, is a weaker point. These treaties do not reflect current geopolitical realities and do not fully support the principles of modern international water law, such as equitable and reasonable utilization.
Call for Binding Agreement: Egypt’s call for a binding legal agreement is a strong point, as it seeks to ensure a structured and predictable framework for water management.
Rating: 3.33/3.33
Review: Egypt’s call for a binding legal agreement is a strong point, as it seeks to ensure a structured and predictable framework for water management. This approach is constructive and aligns with the need for a clear and enforceable agreement to manage shared water resources.
Cumulative Score:
1 (Existential Threat) + 0 (Historical Treaties) + 3.33 (Call for Binding Agreement) = 4.33/10
Path to a Perfect Score for Egypt
To achieve a perfect score of 10/10, Egypt could strengthen its arguments by focusing on collaborative and forward-looking solutions. Egypt should emphasize the importance of regional cooperation and propose a detailed framework for joint water management. This could include transparent data sharing, joint monitoring mechanisms, and regular trilateral meetings with Ethiopia and Sudan to address concerns and build trust. Additionally, Egypt could highlight the mutual benefits of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for all Nile Basin countries, such as improved water management, flood control, and enhanced agricultural productivity.
By acknowledging Ethiopia’s right to development and seeking a balanced approach that ensures equitable and reasonable utilization of the Nile’s waters, Egypt can demonstrate a commitment to sustainable and cooperative water resource management. This approach would align with modern principles of international water law and foster a spirit of partnership and shared prosperity among all Nile Basin countries.
Ethiopia’s Reply:
Equitable Utilization: Ethiopia’s emphasis on equitable and reasonable utilization is a strong point, as it aligns with modern principles of international water law. This principle is crucial for fair distribution among all Nile Basin countries.
Rating: 3.33/3.33
Review: The rating of 3.33/3.33 is justified. Ethiopia’s focus on equitable utilization aligns with international water law principles, ensuring fair distribution among all Nile Basin countries. This approach is essential for maintaining balance and fairness in the use of shared water resources.
Right to Development: Ethiopia’s assertion of its right to use its natural resources for development is a strong point, supported by international law. The GERD promises significant benefits for Ethiopia’s economic development.
Rating: 3.33/3.33
Review: The rating of 3.33/3.33 is appropriate. Ethiopia’s right to development is well-supported by international law, and the GERD is a key project for its economic growth. This argument is strong and highlights Ethiopia’s legitimate need to utilize its natural resources for development.
Call for Cooperation: Ethiopia’s call for regional cooperation and its willingness to engage in dialogue are strong points, as they promote a collaborative approach to managing shared water resources.
Rating: 1.33/3.33
Review: The rating of 1.33/3.33 reflects the importance of Ethiopia’s call for cooperation. While this is a positive and constructive approach, the lower rating indicates that there is room for improvement in fostering stronger regional collaboration and dialogue.
Overall Rating for Ethiopia’s Reply: 7.99/10
Path to a Perfect Score for Ethiopia To achieve a perfect score of 10/10, Ethiopia could have strengthened its argument by emphasizing the mutual benefits of the GERD for all Nile Basin countries. By highlighting specific examples of how the GERD can enhance regional stability, such as reducing flood risks, providing reliable irrigation for Sudan, and offering a strategic water storage solution to mitigate evaporation losses at Egypt’s Aswan High Dam, Ethiopia could have demonstrated a comprehensive vision for regional cooperation. Additionally, Ethiopia could have pointed out that Egypt’s current management of the Nile River leads to significant wastage of fresh water into the ever-expanding Mediterranean Sea, exacerbating climate change issues that the world is striving to address.
Ethiopia could have proposed a detailed framework for collaborative water management, including transparent data sharing, joint monitoring mechanisms, and regular trilateral meetings to address concerns and build trust among Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. This approach would underscore Ethiopia’s commitment to equitable and sustainable development, fostering a spirit of partnership and shared prosperity.
Conclusion
In the grand hydro-political theater of the United Nations, Egypt and Ethiopia have once again showcased their contrasting perspectives on the Abay River’s waters. While Egypt’s concerns about water security are valid, its reliance on outdated treaties and inefficient water management practices, which lead to significant wastage of fresh water into the Mediterranean Sea, weaken its position. On the other hand, Ethiopia’s emphasis on equitable utilization, regional cooperation, and sustainable development aligns well with modern international water law, making its reply stronger overall.
As the debate continues, I can only hope that both nations will find a way to move beyond historical grievances and work towards a future-focused approach that benefits all the Abay Basin countries. By addressing climate change concerns and promoting collaborative water management, a score of 4.33/10 vs 7.99/10 might just be the nudge needed to tip the scales towards cooperation and mutual benefit. After all, in the world of international diplomacy, the ultimate goal is to foster a spirit of partnership and shared prosperity for all.
The writer, LJDemissie, can be reached at LJDemissie@yahoo.com or @LJDemissie (X, formerly known as Twitter).