The Nile River is African and Ethiopia is its hub

July 12, 2013

“ዓምላካችን ያበረከተላትን
ይህን ኃብቷን (አባይን)
ለሕዝቦቻቸው ሕይወትና
ደህንነት በማዋል እንዲጠቀሙበት
ከጎረቤት ወዳጂ አገሮች
ጋር በለጋስነት በጋራ
ለመካፈል ዝግጁ ብትሆንም፤
ይህን የውሃ ንብረቷን
በቁጥር እየጨመረ ለሚሄደው
ሕዝቧና በማደግ ላይ ላለው
ኢኮኖሚ ጥቅም እንዲውል
ማድረግ የኢትዮጵያ ተቀዳሚና
የተቀደሰ ግዴታዋ ነው።”

                             ቀዳማዊ
ኃይለ ሥላሴ፤ ጥቅምት
1957 ዓም

“Watercourse States shall in
their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an
equitable and reasonable manner. In particular, an international watercourse
shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal
and sustainable utilization thereof and benefits there from, taking into
account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate
protection of the watercourse.”

Convention on the Law of the
Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, UN General Assembly
resolution 49/52 of December 1994

At the height of the Arab Spring in 2011, Al-Jazeera
requested that I write commentaries on Ethiopian perceptions of the largely
youth led and socially motivated revolution that was turning dictatorial societies
upside down. I felt strongly then as I do now that beyond Ethiopian
fascinations with popular revolutions in the Maghreb and especially in Egypt—whose
ultimate outcomes are still uncertain–there are monumental and risk-prone strategic
economic, existential and diplomatic dimensions with far reaching implications
at play. Water is one of the most precious resources on the planet. Experts
suggest that by 2030, almost four billion people will face severe water
shortages. Millions of them will reside in the Horn and in Northern Africa.

In light of the dramatic social, political and economic
changes that are taking place and will take place over the coming decades, the
world community is fixated with different scenarios concerning motives and
directions in Egypt, the Horn and the rest of Africa, with no clear answers. Behind
the respective societies and political actors that are currently affected are
external vested interests including the US and China that wish to influence
outcomes, namely, who wins and who loses in the process.  As the increasingly violent
demonstrations at Tahrir Square suggest, Egyptian society is torn apart into
different directions. The military, the only Egyptian institution that remains
intact and trusted by most Egyptians, took matters into its own hands and
carried-out a coup d’état and overthrew a democratically elected
President who won 52 percent of the popular vote. This is an unfortunate
precedent for those who believe in peaceful change and electoral outcomes. Ethiopia
and Ethiopians have paid a huge price following the 2005 Parliamentary
Elections. The governing party has made elections periodic charades and
meaningless.

Egyptian political and social groups are now trying to
settle their differences through non-electoral means thereby creating another
precedent for the rest of the world. The point I shall present is this. Whatever
may be said about the different factions that are battling it out to determine
the soul and future of Egypt, the implications for Egyptians, Africans and the
rest are huge. Leaving the current violent confrontations among the population
aside, there is a stark contrast between Egypt and Ethiopia that will affect
the futures of the respective societies. Egyptians are heavily involved in
determining their future. They are dying in the streets for causes they
believe. Ethiopians are not. It is not because they are free; it is because
they are repressed. Such public demonstrations in search of justice, human
dignity, genuine participation and democracy are inconceivable and disallowed
in Addis Ababa. All civil liberties are denied under the rubric of
anti-terrorism that the US government continues to support.

Ironically, both Egypt and Ethiopia are America’s
friends. They are among the largest aid recipients; and the US has so far
played a peripheral and behind the scenes type of role. Egypt’s
democratically elected government under President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood–which
was under heavy scrutiny in the West and in Israel for one year—is no
more. Nothing America can and would do will reverse Morsi to the throne. Experts
agree that his short-lived Presidency was well known for its frightening
extremism and fundamentalism, calling for military intervention in Ethiopia and
Syria. Morsi’s leadership resembles Ethiopia’s in that it was never
inclusive. It seems to me that, in the long run, Ethiopia and Egypt would
benefit more from genuine political pluralism within; and from cooperation than
confrontation. However, given the current turmoil in Egypt and continued
repression in Ethiopia; no one really knows how the contentious issue of the
Nile would be resolved. It is most likely that Ethiopia will face a similar
turmoil unless and until the current government conducts meaningful reforms
fast. In terms of relations with Ethiopia, a central question to ponder is the
extent to which the Egyptian military establishment’s position is
radically different from that of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood? If
it is not different, the prospect of peace with Ethiopia is diminished
regardless of who governs Egypt.

More than 1,400 miles upstream in Ethiopia, the Tigray People’s
Liberation Front (TPLF)—an ethnic minority elite that dominates the
ethnic-coalition government of the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary
Democratic Front (EPRDF) has practically closed the opportunity for the
evolution of a strong, unified, just, inclusive, equitable, prosperous and
democratic society in Ethiopia.  Public
dissent, expression of outrage for indignities, ethnic cleansing, forced
displacement of indigenous people from their lands, nepotism are endemic; favoritism,
administrative mismanagement, corruption and other forms of bad governance have
become common.  These and other travesties
from a dictatorial government are virtually institutionalized and condoned by
the governing party that has ruled the country for 22 years and intends to
continue for more. Such conditions diminish the society’s ability to
defend the country and its natural resources assets from external threats. It
is no wonder then that many Ethiopians who love their country and defend its
interests are skeptical concerning the motive of the ruling party to build the
Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). As an Ethiopian activist who read and
critiqued this article noted rightly, the GERD is a “monumental project that
parallels the Battle of Adwa” that Ethiopians won. They won because the
society was more unified. Having betrayed the country’s interests over
and over again and having imposed one of the most repressive governments of the
21^st century, Ethiopians have very little reason to trust the
regime. I share this genuine skepticism and lack of trust in the TPLF core. Despite
numerous external threats, the TPLF core continues to repress the rights and
freedoms of the Ethiopian people. Ethiopia’s ambitions and desires to
transform itself from one of the
poorest and un-freest countries into one of the most prosperous societies
in the world is undermined by a narrow ethnic elite coalition that has amassed
inconceivable wealth and power.

In June 2013, President Barack Obama of the USA visited
Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania and talked a lot about youth, the private
sector, democracy, American investment, environmental sustainability and the
like. However, he did not say much about what matters the most for Africans;
namely, American values that have enduring impact on the future. These include
such human worth and dignity, repression, human rights, anti-corruption, anti-ethnic
cleansing, etc. by repressive governments in Ethiopia, the Sudan and others. He
did not mention or suggest ways and means to mediate the quarrel between Egypt
and Ethiopia on the Nile nor did he highlight other hot issues such as the need
for greater domestic private sector participation that may anger ethnic-type dictatorships.
Clearly, it is America’s self-interest that guides US foreign policy. Accordingly,
America’s values seem to be subordinated to short term political,
strategic and diplomatic pragmatism. Saying little or nothing about the primacy
of justice for stability is most likely to reinforce the status quo rather than
hope and the future.

                                                President Obama recognizes that
today’s Africa is different

However, President Obama’s visit to Africa underscores
America’s growing interest in the future of the African continent. This
interest is more than commercial. It is strategic. Whatever has happened in the
past, the Nile River and its future development and use are part of the
American calculation for engagement with emerging Africa. In the old
days—under Haile Selassie and the Military Junta—any move on the part
of Ethiopia to build a monumental dam on the Abay River would have been
scuttled by the US either directly or indirectly. Things have changed
dramatically. Ethiopian and other African governments have established strong
trade and investment links with non-Western economies. China has offered
Ethiopia billions of dollars in soft and commercial loans to finance several
mega dams, including $1 billion for the GERD.  These trends are part of the calculation
for influence. Although the degree of friendship may be different, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Tanzania, South Sudan and Uganda—among the key upstream riparian
countries—are America’s emerging strategic friends.  Simply put, Egypt is no longer the lead and
decisive country in Africa and the Middle East that influences American foreign
policy. Americans know that the future potential and combined current and future
wealth of Sub-Saharan African countries eclipse Egypt and the rest of the Arab
World.

In light of these and other dynamic changes in
international relations and given material changes in the political economies
of Sub-Saharan African countries, the future role of the Nile River and its
major tributaries require deeper analysis and understanding, with a special
focus on the adversarial relations of Ethiopia and Egypt. I suggest that
Ethiopians study the intricacies and implications with more objectivity than
they have in the past. For the moment at least, Egypt and Ethiopia are the two
most significant countries in the Region with enormous potential to shape the
future. Their geographic positions and their enormous population sizes matter. These
adversarial relationships have always revolved around one natural resource,
namely, control of the Nile River, to which Ethiopia’s waters contribute
slightly more than 85 percent. Historically, Egypt has managed to manipulate
one super power against another–the Soviet Union against the US. It built the
High Aswan Dam by persuading the USSR to finance it; and then switched sides
and became America’s ally under Anwar Sadat. Ethiopia squandered its
friendship with the US during the Dergue. Angered by the Dergue and its
vitriolic attacks against the US, America worked very hard to influence the
formation and rise to power of the TPLF/EPRDF and the secession of Eritrea. The
ethnic party that emerged is the lead beneficiary; and this leadership occurred
with America’s blessing and material support. In the process, Ethiopia
lost Eritrea and its access to the sea. It is ironic that a ruling party that
secured financing and diplomatic support from the West, Egypt and other Arab
countries and that turned over Assab and other seaports to Eritrea willingly is
now determined to assert Ethiopia’s right over the Nile waters. This in
itself reinforces public criticisms and suspicion of the ruling party. America
gained a trustworthy ‘ally in TPLF/EPRD’ and lost the admiration of
most of Ethiopians. Who would America support this time and why?

The key point here is that, in the past, it is Ethiopia
and Ethiopians who lost in the process. Ethiopia became the largest land-locked
country in Africa and among the largest in the world. As important, it has
benefitted the least from its water resource. It is, thus, reasonable to
propose that Ethiopia has an unquestionable right to use its water resources
for the betterment of its population. It cannot be bound by outdated agreements.
However, Ethiopia’s future security and the prosperity of its growing
population will depend on the unity of its diverse population, its readiness
and capacity to harness its natural resources, especially its rivers and
farmlands. In other words, lack of unity with justice and equity will remain to
be costly for everyone.  Given
increased demand for food and water, growing population, urbanization and
industrialization, experts agree that water will be among the most critical
sources of conflict in the future. In the event of conflict between Egypt and
Ethiopia, Ethiopians would have to make hard choices irrespective of their
religious, ideological and ethnic affiliation. A key question that would
emanate from this is whether or not people will make Ethiopia and the national
interest primary over everything else. Political correctness aside, this is a
fundamental question that must be anticipated and answered  

                                                                Water determines life

Many countries in the Horn and in North African face the
prospect of severe water shortages in the decades to come. Competition for
control will therefore be fierce. The quotes from Emperor Haile Selassie and
the UN General Assembly indicate that Ethiopia and other Sub-Saharan African
countries with stake in the Nile are on the right side of history. The world
community knows and understands this fundamental right. We are talking about
437 million Africans in 11 countries. Article 5 (2) of the UN Watercourses
Convention provides a legal basis or framework for equitable use of
watercourses by riparian states. It further suggests that in the event of
conflict, nations had an obligation to settle their dispute through the
auspices of the International Court of Justice. The point of contention is that
the principle of equitable use of watercourses embedded in the UN Convention
conflicts directly with the Egyptian and Sudanese position of “historic
rights.” These rights were conveyed to the two countries at the exclusion
of and at immense costs to Sub-Saharan African nations—the origins and
rightful claimants of the waters of the Nile.  This externally imposed Hegemony over
the Nile was facilitated and supported by Great Britain, a world colonial power
at the time. In essence, international law, agreements and norms disregarded
the interests of Sub-Saharan African countries (SSA). Agreements never
anticipated that these countries would grow and will demand fair and equitable
treatment at some point in the future. “Historic rights” is an
outdated concept and no longer acceptable in this century. The time for change is
now.

                                The ancient dispute is about wellbeing and
security

I concede the point that the TPLF/EPRDF government does
not deserve un-critical support from any fair minded observer. It is its own
worst enemy and must therefore change. 
I further concede that Ethiopian opposition parties, civil society
organizations and intellectuals differ on what positions to take on the Nile.
My contention is that harnessing the waters of the Abay River is not about
political opposition and or mistrust and rejection of the governing party.
Rather, it is about the country and its future. Setting aside the political and
diplomatic haze that surrounds the issue, the growing tension over the
development of the Abay River goes beyond ethnic, religious and political
tensions and rivalry in Ethiopia. It is about national interest and security
and future generations of Ethiopians. It is about long-term food security, employment
generation, rapid modernization and prosperity. It is about supplying
electricity to the Ethiopian people, the vast majority of whom live in the
“dark ages.” Only 1/5^th of the population has access to
electricity. It is important to remember that Egypt and Ethiopia have been
rivals and adversaries since time immemorial. In light of this, the current
tension between the two over who has the right to control the Nile was both
predictable and inevitable. This is because the agreements that govern the use
of the Nile were patently one sided and unfair not only for Ethiopia; but also
for other Black African countries. In the article, “The Nile Project: a
hidden bomb? Or, a promise for shared prosperity,” I opined that Egyptian
hegemony over the Nile was no longer
viable or acceptable or defendable. I know of no country in the world that
accepts agreements that impose draconian conditions in the use of its own
natural resources.

I further suggested in the article that Ethiopian
opponents of the current ruling clique in Addis Ababa ought to be careful when
they take positions on strategic and long-term national policy issues.  They need to refrain from confusing a
government leadership that most agree is brutal, corrupt, exclusionary and divisive
and that will inevitably change and Ethiopia’s long-term national
interests that should endure and
support generations to come. Regimes come and go; nations do not. One is
obliged to believe in Ethiopia’s durability and in the power of
Ethiopians to change. Egyptians overthrew a dictatorship that ruled
their country with an iron-fist for 60 years and are still trying to translate
“the Arab Spring” into durable and genuine democracy. Egyptians
changed and are still changing regimes. They are not changing Egypt into a different
country. They believe in Egypt’s future. In other words, they make
differentiation between regimes and their country. This is the difference.

Change is not alien to Ethiopians; they have overthrown
dictators in the past and will do so again. Over and over again, we have
witnessed that people will not remain oppressed forever. Claim over and optimal
use of the Abay and other rivers and tributaries is, in my estimation, a
fundamental right of the Ethiopian people regardless of who governs the state. This
is why I suggest that harnessing any river within Ethiopia’s boundaries
for the benefit of the country and its 94 million people is beyond politics,
religion and ideology. In some respects, it is about national survival and
sovereignty. It is about fulfilling human potential and restoring human dignity
for all Ethiopians. I believe that the
Ethiopia people will ultimately prevail from two hurdles: the dictatorship
hurdle that emanates from repressive governance; and from the hurdle
imposed by colonial powers on Ethiopia’s right to use its watercourse to
advance its development. Both are winnable over time. To win both, Ethiopian
society, especially, the opposition must begin to speak with one voice and
stand firm for a common national purpose.

The entire article written on the Nile for Al-Jazeera more
than two years ago–translated into Arabic and disseminated throughout North
Africa and the Middle East– is represented below; albeit with substantial
elaboration. Its original content is intact. I am told that reaction from readers
was “measured and civil.”

                                                The specifics of the argument

In light of recent developments and the accelerated
construction of the “Renaissance Dam” and the vitriolic reaction
from the Egyptian government and civil society, I will dig deeper into the
socioeconomic, diplomatic and geo-political implications for all riparian
states and especially for Ethiopia and Egypt. What do these countries want, why
and for whose benefit?

Ensure drinking water security for their people; “the
no water; no life” argument

Harness their waters, irrigate their lands and feed
themselves; the food security argument

Develop hydroelectric power and provide reliable, cheap
and renewable energy for their societies; and export and generate foreign exchange ; the sustainable energy argument

Establish agriculture based and other industries; the
industrialization base argument

Promote tourism; the eco-tourism argument

Reduce water loss from evaporation; protect the
environment and secure sustainability long-term; the avert or reduce climate
change argument

Expand fish farms; the food diversification argument

Improve water transport; the infrastructure argument

Generate employment; improve the standard of living
argument etc. etc.

It is clear that Egypt and Ethiopia have similar needs
and requirements. If we assume parity and fair play, Egypt and Sudan can no
longer dictate the terms of future use whether individually or together. Sudan
is building its own dams, with agreement from Egypt. In the event Egypt continues
to insist that its “historic rights” must prevail over fair and
equitable use, “Ethiopia will have few options. It must entertain the
idea of going to the International Court of Justice for a peaceful resolution
of the conflict. It can use its power of legitimacy as a major source of most
of the waters that belong to the country. It can assert its legitimate claim over
its water shares” and seek backing and support from all the upriver
states which happen to be “Black African” nations. It can also
ignore Egypt and go it alone and wait for Egypt to react in any manner it
chooses. Backing from Sub-Saharan African countries is probable because these
nations were harmed by Egypt and its allies in the past. Alternatively,
Ethiopia can let Egypt take punitive actions and suffer from or respond to
consequences after harm is done. The last is a defeatist option. For the last
to occur, Egypt must have the capacity to sustain war against Ethiopia and
occupy it indefinitely or throw the entire country into the abyss.  This is only possible if kilil elites and their supporters opt to
fend for themselves and decide to use the opportunity to secede.  In the event, most if not all will lose.
Ethiopia will Balkanize.

Ethiopia is most likely to resort to the first three options.
Whatever scenario we may wish to entertain, Egypt’s and Sudan’s
contentious and outdated “historic rights” arguments as a
foundation of negotiation in the 21^st century do not hold. I cannot
find any country that accepts economic and security strangulation. The
negotiation options assume that the international community, especially the US
and other major powers support the African “equitable use” argument
over the Egyptian “historic rights” argument. My estimation is that
the US would ultimately opt for a win-win solution and would not allow war as
an instrument to settle the dispute over the Nile. In addition, China has a
vested interest in Ethiopia’s investments; it has offered substantial
loans and lines of credit to the Ethiopian government for hydroelectric
construction. African countries have a vested interest in the future of a
stable, united, inclusive and prosperous Ethiopia.

Unfortunately, Egyptian technical experts, intellectuals,
civil society, opposition groups, government leaders and the military appear to
share the common view that Egypt must not give up its “historic
rights” argument. Regardless of the current turmoil in the country,
Egyptians have a common stand with regard to the Nile. It affects them all
regardless of their political and or religious persuasion. I should like to
present an example of why this is so. The “Group of the Nile Basin
(GNB),” composed of an assortment of Professors from technical faculties,
notably Engineering, Irrigation and Hydraulics have taken matters to the next
level. Their ultimate objective is to “support the effort of the
Government and decision-makers” through scientific research, analytical
studies, scenarios and policy options. Their studies show that Ethiopia’s
four large dam projects including the Renaissance Dam pose threats to
Egypt’s security. They accuse the Ethiopian government of failing to
consult in advance, to conduct “sufficient structural and hydrologic
studies and environmental assessments” and to carryout world class
technical analysis and design of these dams. To my knowledge and according to
experts, the Egyptian and Sudanese governments never consulted the Ethiopian
government on any dam or water use project that had consequences on Ethiopia
and other upstream riparian states. Agreements in 1929 and 1959 took place
without Ethiopian participation. The Aswan High Dam that loses enormous
quantities of water through evaporation was constructed without any
consultation. No outside power or group of experts challenged the Egyptian
government concerning the size of evaporation emanating from the Aswan Dam etc.
Egypt and Sudan constructed their dams unilaterally. The GNB concludes
“Reduction in the water share of Egypt will result in abandoning huge
areas of agricultural lands and scattering millions of families. It would
result in increasing the pollution of the water streams and creating problems
in the supply of water for drinking and industry. 3/

This technical analysis which does not offer the prospect
of a win-win solution was presented to the Egyptian government, opposition
parties and civil society to stimulate discussion and offer a policy
alternative.  It provided more fodder
to an already tense situation between the two countries. Making matters worse, the
GNB offered the following recommendations to the Egyptian government thereby
cornering the Ethiopian government and undermining Ethiopia’s national
interests:

“Request stopping the construction of the Dam until
completion of negotiations

The minimum requirement for the Egyptian Government
should be that the maximum size of the Ethiopian Dam must not exceed 14 billion
cubic meter compared to the 74 billion cubic meter” designed and under
construction by Ethiopia

Ethiopia must commit officially not to use the water
behind the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for agricultural purposes

Ethiopia must commit to give advance notice of future
projects it has in mind

The design of the GERD must be reviewed by Egyptian
experts.”

These are huge and unacceptable demands by Egyptian technical
experts and scholars for which there is very little current parallel or best
practice. A group of Egyptian experts, who are partisans on the issue, have
effectively recommended to their own government how the Ethiopian government
and Ethiopian society ought to behave with regard to the water resources
Ethiopia owns. Their central thesis is that the “major threat” to
Egypt is the “result of the magnified (large) size of the dam.”
Contrary to my thesis in this essay, the experts feel strongly that “It
is not a secret that throughout history, Egypt has never been an obstacle
preventing the development in the African countries in general and the
countries of the Nile Basin in particular.”  If this was the case in the past, why
present an unacceptable hurdle today? On the contrary, it is not true that
“Egypt has always been supporting the projects of common benefits to the
people of the Nile Dam” except with respect to Sudan. Designs of all
major hydroelectric power generating dams were carried-out under Haile
Selassie’s government without fruition. The TPLF/EPRDF government is
implementing projects conceived and designed by previous Ethiopian governments.
The difference is that the Imperial regime tried all it could but did not
succeed to secure expertise and financing from major donors including the World
Bank to construct major dams. This happened after a major study was conducted
by the American Bureau of Reclamation. Implementation was thwarted every time
Ethiopia tried because of resistance from Egypt and its allies. The United
States was reluctant to support Ethiopia’s ambitions; as were most
Western governments at the time. It is ironic that, today, the International
Monetary Fund and others talk of the need for greater competition with regard
to water resources development and others. They were completely silent when
Egypt exercised dominance over the Nile for decades. 4/

My contention here is that peaceful and fair competition
and war like rhetoric do not go together. The national security and strategy
meeting called and chaired by President Morsi on June 3, 2013 surfaced the dark
side of Egyptian foreign policy which has been at play ever since anyone of my
generation would remember. Has Egypt ever stopped subverting and sabotaging
Ethiopian unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity and development, especially
Ethiopia’s right to harness its water resources at an optimal level?
Egypt uses religion as a tool in its foreign policy with regard to Ethiopia and
will continue to do so in the future. There is no evidence of non-interference
and non-sabotage of Ethiopia by Egyptian political leaders. The prospect of
war, “bombing the dam, arming and financing opposition groups” etc.
is not new.  However, fueling
instability in Ethiopia and other countries of the Horn is no longer in the
interest of the Egyptian or Ethiopian people. Sabotaging Ethiopia’s dams
would mean perpetual wars between the two countries. In war, even the Aswan Dam
won’t be safe. Contrary to the views of some commentators, I suggest that
Ethiopia did not start claiming its water resources after the Egyptian revolution
that toppled Mubarak. On the contrary, “In fact, Ethiopia started work on
the new dam in 2011 and had ‘been planning this and other projects on the
Blue Nile’ for decades.” Ethiopia’s otherwise weak and timid
parliament “unanimously ratified the Nile Basin Cooperative Agreement on
June 13, 2013 and thereby annulled all treaties on the Nile signed between 1891
and 1959 that had solidified Egypt’s hegemony over the Nile.”
Therefore, the recommendation offered by the Egyptian academics and experts is
incongruent with a rising and assertive Sub-Saharan Africa of which Ethiopia is
a part. 5/

I should like to remind Ethiopian readers of the
following. Whatever one may want to say about the political gridlock, current
turmoil, incompetence of government officials and disarray in the country, the
consistency and harmony of Egyptian academic and expert view on the GERD is
nothing less than impressive. On the religious front, both Egyptian Coptic
Christians and Muslims are united in their stand with regard to the Nile. I do
hope that Ethiopians of all faiths take a common stand too. Egyptians have a
common view, namely, “Egypt before ideology and religion.” This shows
that, despite the turmoil, Egyptian nationalism is still strong and enduring.
This is in contrast to Ethiopian academics, individual intellectuals, political
elites and opposition parties who do not seem to show a unity of purpose on
compelling national policy issues such as building the GERD. Egyptians are
doing both. I believe we can and should do the same. I mean, Egyptians are
fighting an increasingly non-secular and undemocratic government and a highly
economically vested and entrenched military establishment to realize the full
benefits of the “Arab Spring” while showing solidarity on the
future of the Nile. Ethiopians had the “yekatit and kinjit spirits”
too.

 Dr.
Mamdouh Hamza, “one of Egypt’s leading hydraulic engineers”
who studied the blueprint of the GERDG shares many of the central policy
options of the GNB and others. He represents Egyptian nationalism and recommends
that:

“Ethiopia’s Dam must be used for electric
power generation and never for irrigation.

The price of electricity sold to Egypt and Sudan should
be at cost,” thereby nullifying the value added from the project and
negating the market itself. Ethiopia does not dictate at what price Egypt
should sell its gas, it oil and its cotton and textiles. This is absolutely
arrogant and a non-starter.

Filling the waters of the Dam’s reservoir should be
staggered over 6 years to reduce disruption to Egypt’s  supply and

The operation of the hydro plant should be coordinated
with Egypt,” thereby undermining Ethiopia’s sovereignty and
diminishing its power. 6/

In comparison to the draconian recommendations of the GNB
that simply provide modern languages to colonial scripts, Hamza comes across as
mild and reasonable. For example, staggering the fill of the reservoir is an
option and a potentially win-win formula to consider. However, his fundamental
prescriptions have more in common with his compatriots than with international
norms, African needs and global trends that offer win-win solutions. My rebut
to Dr. Hamza is that one sided solutions will undermine the entire intent of
the GERD and Ethiopia’s sovereign right to harness its waters without
undue influence and pressure from Egypt or other third parties.  Egyptian experts are telling us that
nothing has changed for thousands of years and nothing should change for
another thousand years. A Washington Post article by Griff Wifle on June 13,
2013, “Egypt frets and fumes over Ethiopia’s Nile Plan” says
it all. “Since long before the Pyramids towered above the rich soil of
the Giza, Egyptians have given thanks to the muddy waters of the Nile”
and have been assured that nothing will change its constant flow. Successive Egyptian
governments have known that their primary responsibility is to defend this
sacred water—the source of life—by any means necessary, including
financing Ethiopian opposition groups, sabotaging the dam itself and making
Ethiopia unstable. I challenge Ethiopian experts and intellectuals to come
together, diagnose the issues and offer alternatives in the same way that
Egyptian experts and academics have done.

In a nutshell, this is the unchanging Egyptian position.
If you are an Egyptian, you have a solemn duty to yourself and to your country
to defend the status quo. However, unlike 1929, 1959 and the rest of the 20^th
century, maintaining the status quo is antiquated. In a rapidly changing world
with new vested interests and stakeholders, and in a fast changing Sub-Saharan
Africa, the status quo is no longer acceptable. The other side wishes to be
heard in real terms. I stand on the side of this changing trend. I will show
the reason why in a series of articles on the subject.