“Understand trans-boundary rivers by virtue of their nature”
Latterly, The Ethiopian Herald has had a brief stay regarding how countries in the Nile basin can boost cooperation leaving aside destructive showdowns with Mr. Memar Ayalew, holder of M.A in International Relations and lecturer at Addis Ababa Science and Technology University. In 2012 he published a book titled: “The Role of Sub-Regional Organizations in Conflict Transformation in Africa: The Case of IGAD’s Mediation Efforts in Somalia.” Currently he is studying Governance and Regional Integrations at Pan-African University in Cameroun, University of Yaoundé I.
Herald: Do you think Ethiopia leaves Egypt with thirst dominating the only river it has? And do you agree with ancient saying “Nile is gift of Egypt.”
Mr.Memar :Don’t think that Ethiopia will put Egypt in hardships of water insecurity knowing that Egyptian people entirely depend on the water of the Nile for their survival. It is obvious that Egypt does not have any source of water other than the Nile River. This is not a cloak-and-dagger rather a crystal clear fact. Ethiopia has never thought of ceasing the flow of Nile to harm Egyptian people. If Nile dies unpredictably, then Egyptians follow. If the Nile stops flowing to Egypt, then Egyptians cease to exist. When sprit [Nile] separates from the body, then the flesh of Egyptians can no longer exist.
It always surprises me to hear Egyptian politicians propaganda of attacking Ethiopia, a country which has been giving life to them since the creation of human being. I think they fail to remember that their life is in the middle of our hands. Under normal circumstances, how can a rational human being thinks that Ethiopia will stop the flow of Nile water. How can a country which receives more annual rainfall than Egyptian halts the flow of the river? This[Thinking that Ethiopia is to stop the flow of Nile] is a sign of abnormality! This is morally and legally unacceptable! This is the result of misperception and absolute ignorance.
From the outset, the Ethiopian government has made clear its position that the Ethiopian people do not have any intension to damage the national interest of Egypt through reducing both the flow and volume of the water. The purpose of constructing the GRD is to generate power. This objective is clear even to an ordinary person. The dam's construction will not damage Egyptian water security; instead it ensures cooperation among the Nile riparian countries, putting it on a win-win base. Nothing is a surprise with the construction of the Renaissance Dam but generation of hydroelectric power to meet domestic and regional demands.
The Nile River has been connecting Ethiopia and Egypt serving as a bridge of their intercourse and it does forever. The foreign policy of Ethiopia also recognizes this natural fact. It states that “From its inception, the Egyptian civilization is based on the waters of the Nile. Not less that 85% of the water that enters Egypt originates from Ethiopia. It can therefore be said that from the beginning, the two countries have been linked by nature”.
The government of Ethiopia has been insisting to utilize the water of Nile without affecting the water security of the lower riparian countries by re-engineering new arrangements and institutional regimes which would facilitate dialogue and negotiations. However, Egyptians have been advancing an obsolete and outdated idea of the 19th century, “I win if you lose, the zero-sum game politics”. This is totally irrational and unacceptable practices of real politics and diplomacy in the 21st century. Can a rational being in the modern world accepts the absolute rights of Egyptians to fully utilize and exploit the Nile water while countries in the lower basin, contributing 100% of the water suffer from hunger and starvation? This is ridiculous.
I completely disagree with the notion that “Nile is gift for Egypt” but I certainly agree with the idea that “Nile is gift of all riparian countries”. The Greek historian Herodotus was the first from the western world who described Egypt as “gift of Nile”. For him, Egypt and the Nile River are inseparable simply because it is impossible to imagine a country called Egypt in the Sahara desert without the existence of the Nile River. The River Nile has been flowing from the upper riparian to the lower riparian countries (Sudan and Egypt) for millions of years without any interruption. Had there not exist the Nile waters, Egypt would have been erased from the map of the world.
I can say that the Nile River is the blood and flesh of Egyptian people. The prominent Ethiopian musician, Ejigayehu Shibabaw, described the meaning of the River Nile to the Egyptians by singing:
“ Abbay, the bounteous;
Have I known that you replenish the desert?
Have I known that you are their flesh and blood?
That they drink from you and eat water;
Abbay, generous to those of the desert;
Abbay, the bounty and of the great tension” (Taken from Yacob Arsano’s book, Ethiopia and the Nile: Dilemmas of National and Regional Hydro-politics, 2007)
Herodotus description entails the message that Egyptians are the beneficiaries of the Nile water without contributing any drop of water. In other words, he underlined that Egyptians do not have the absolute control of the Nile water and the power to deny the right of the lower riparian countries from exploiting the river is not on their hands. His description was certainly right in that the ownership of the water is to all the riparian countries, not to the downstream countries only. The concept ''Egypt is the gift of the Nile” invites negotiation and cooperation among the basin countries to ensure mutual benefits based on the principle of equity and equality. It opens opportunities of cooperation and a win-win approach. But successive Egypt governments have persistently rejected it. Herodotus concept, by implication, also discarded the 1929 and 1959 colonial agreements on the Nile which allocated majority of the water to Egypt; and century old zero-sum game politics advanced by Egypt in the utilization of the water. His notion offers possibilities of dialogue and negotiations.
Nevertheless, the notion that says “Nile is gift of Egypt” diametrically contradict with Herodotus conception of Egypt, “Egypt is gift of Nile”. It is clear that this argument carries a seed of contradiction in it because of three major reasons. First, it grants Egypt (contribute 0%) the right to monopolize the Nile water independently by undermining the right of upstream countries (contributes 100% of the water) from obtaining their legal share and benefit from the Nile. Second, it advances zero-sum politics of Egyptians on the utilization of the Nile water; and recognizes the 1929 and 1959 colonial agreements on the Nile water as binding legal instruments. Egyptian present “historical rights” and population size as a critical determinates for their zero-sum politics on the Nile. Finally, it eliminates the chance of negotiations and dialogue among the basin countries on the use of the river.
The new geo-political and security development in the Nile basin challenged the old 19th century Egyptian thinking. The notion that says “Egypt is the gift of the Nile” reflects cooperation and mutual benefits among the riparian countries where as concept “Nile is the gift of Egypt” reflects their zero-sum game politics, “I win if you lose”. This conclusion is misleading and unacceptable argument in the 21st century. If Herodotus was living in the context of today, he would say that “Nile is the gift of all riparian countries”.
Herald: Recently Egyptian President Morsi has opened 'psychological warfare' against Ethiopia, do you think this approach help the people of Egypt to secure their benefits from Nile waters? Why?
Mr.Memar: In order to understand why the Morsi government is advocating a psychological warfare against Ethiopia, it is necessary to examine and analyze the internal political development in Egypt since coming to power of the Islamic Brotherhood from which Morsi is hailing. In Egypt, the Morsi government has been suffering from legitimacy internally for taking the state to a direction in contradiction with the overall objective of January revolution which toppled down Mubarek's regime. And the government is unable to resolve the legacies of the Mubarek regime such as unemployment and deep economic crises, budget deficit and debt, and devaluation of their pound.
Hence, the government become fragile and fails to bring significant benefits to the Egyptian population especially to the youth who are orchestrator of the revolution. As to official figures, 13 per cent of Egyptians are unemployed, of whom 74 per cent are between 15 and 29 ages, and some believe the real number of unemployment is even much- 8 out of 10 university graduates are jobless.
Egypt has a system of subsidies for commodities such as petroleum and flour that is hugely expensive and works very poorly. It spends about 20 per cent of its national budget on keeping down fuel prices for the general public but the government has taken progressive measure to remove government subsidies from some forms of energy and to establish ration cards for gasoline which ignited popular anger. According to the Central Bank of Egypt, the inflation rate increased over the last month from 5.23 to 7.68 per cent. This is considered to be the highest increase in more than a year. These economic measures have been exacerbating the current political turmoil which challenged the legitimacy of the Morsi's administration. In order to stimulate the economy and solve the crises, oppositions have planned to organize a mass anti-Morsi rally by the end of this month. This is the real political situations in Egypt that the government in Cairo has been facing since it came to power.
Therefore, the psychological warfare against Ethiopia is the reflection of their internal economic stagnation and political tension. The government is trying to use the construction of the dam and the diversion of the water by the Ethiopian government as a playing card to divert the attention of the Egyptian public and externalize internal tensions. This is Machiavellian principle of “the end justifies the means”. War will never bring any benefits to the Egyptians. I would like to tell the Egyptian people that the consequences of attacking Ethiopia will be very severe. They have to think for a moment that the things that will achieve out of military action. As I clearly mentioned in my recent article, “Egyptian Approaches to the New Development in the Nile Politics: Water Diplomacy or Water War? Which way?”, that the only solution to the utilization of the Nile river is a win-win approach which secure the interest of all riparian countries. Egyptian politicians and policy makers have to realize the changing geo-political and security situation in the Nile basin and must recognize the rights of the lower riparian countries to utilize the water based on the principle of equality and fairness as they recognize its share on the Nile water. This will help us to find all inclusive approach to the use of the Nile. Let us turn our face to negotiation and diplomacy which is the rule of the game in the 21st century.
Herald: Some Egyptians say Ethiopia should be abound by the 1929 and 1959 agreements. What do these agreements say with respect to share of water? And is that applicable for Ethiopia?
Mr.Memar : The Nile River, being international and trans-boundary in nature, has been the subject of various agreements. However, there is no internationally agreed treaty on the management and utilization of the Nile River which secures the benefit of all riparian countries. Therefore, the legal instruments for the utilization and management of the water consists disputed bilateral agreements concluded amongst the basin countries. The treaties and legal regimes regulating the use of Nile River can be divided into different categories. For instance, Yacob Arsano in his book “Ethiopia and the Nile: Dilemmas of National and Regional Hydro-politics, 2007:95”, divided the agreements related to the utilization of the river in to three categories based on historical sequence.
Agreements between colonial powers comes first. This category consists of the Anglo-Italian protocol of 1891, The 1906 agreements, The 1925 Anglo-Italian agreement and The 1934 Agreement concluded between Britain and Belgium. The second one is agreements between colonial powers and regional states. It includes the 1902 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement, The 1929 Agreement signed between Britain and Italy and The 1952 Agreement. Agreements between independent states of the basin can be listed third. In this category one see three treaties such as The 1959 Agreement signed between Egypt and Sudan, the 1993 Ethio- Egyptian Agreement and the Comprehensive Framework of Agreement (CFA) singed among the seven basin countries in 2010. The bilateral agreements in the first and the second category signed were primarily initiated by then colonial powers.
The colonial powers which had involved in the making of the agreements were Britain, France, Italy and Belgium. It is important to look the colonial possession these countries in the political map of the Nile basin to understand why they engineered the agreements. Britain had colonized Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. It had a greater interest on the Nile waters. Italy had territorial possession in the Horn of Africa such as Eritrea and the Italian Somaliland in Somalia. France had a monopoly over the present day Djibouti. Among the Nile basin countries, Ethiopia is the only which has never been colonized. The overall intension of the colonial powers in signing the agreements was to exploit the resources to the extent possible for their colonial project.
In 1929, for instance, Britain and Egypt signed an agreement on the utilization of the Nile water to exploit the river independently. They concluded this agreement without consulting the upper riparian countries. The agreement gives a veto power to Egypt.
Herald: How does modern ways of foreign relations state in terms of solving cross -boundary river and lake disputes?
Mr.Memar: In the modern world we are living today, interactions among states and non-state actors have become more complicated than ever before due to the eruption of scientific and technological advancements, which minimizes the significance of geographical and time barriers. States being the primary actor of international politics, play an important role in defining the patterns and rules of global politics and the path of history as well. States formulate their own foreign policies reflecting internal demands in their matters transending national boundaries. Foreign policy of states mainly defines the methods to be applied in perusing national interests. For instance, propaganda had been largely used by the USA and USSR, the super power during the cold war era, in order to achieve their own respective national interests by creating psychological fear/ tension in the hearts and minds of opponents. Still other states opt to use diplomacy, economics and military assistance and war [as a last resort] based on their capacity and availability of resources to make sure that their national interests are achieved.
In the modern world, however, diplomacy pays an important role in reconciling contradictory issues among states which can lead to destructive wars. I observed that many states are highly relied on diplomacy in dealing matters related to their national interests. That is why states have been investing large amount capital to reach areas where their national interest falls by establishing embassies and sending diplomatic missions. Especially states that are connected each other by trans-boundary rivers have been using water diplomacy as an instrument to ensure “equitable, reasonable” utilization by avoiding “significant harm” over the downstream countries. This in turn minimizes the outbreak of potential violent water related conflicts by re-engineering new arrangements to address major challenges in managing water resources.
We need to understand that Trans- Boundary Rivers by virtue of their nature do not belong to a single riparian state. In other terms, water is not innate objects but a shared resource. They are the property of basin countries. It is because Trans- Boundary Rivers cross the life of different societies living along its courses as they cross the boundary of states. As state’s interests are interconnected by shared water courses, all inclusive ownership of tarns-boundary rivers is quite important to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Thus, managing conflicts in relation to the management and utilization of the water resources originates from deeply understanding of this nature of trans-boundary water resources. States have shown significant improvements in utilizing shared water resources by arranging forums of negotiations and legal instruments, which benefits both upstream and downstream countries. Despite there have been disagreements on the utilization of the water resources between upper riparian and lower riparian countries, they managed to minimize the explosion of violent conflicts by establishing institutional regimes which enables them to negotiate diplomatically. For instance, Israel and Jordan on the Jordan River, Indian and Pakistan on the Indus River, Euphrates -Tigris basin in the Middle East, the seven upper riparian states on the Nile River have been negotiating so as to manage water related conflicts.
These countries ensure equitable use of trans-boundary rivers by building trust and confidence. In fact, lower riparian countries in the Nile basin have been reluctant to negotiate on the colonial agreements which declined to recognize the rights of the upper riparian states to use the water for developmental purposes. They did not show any sign willingness to turn their face into negotiating table. However, the experiences of some countries, sharing trans-boundary rivers, tell us that there is an alternative way of avoiding disagreements on water issues by approaching it diplomatically. Therefore, I believe that diplomacy and win-win approach to issues of the Nile water can solve the current political tension between Ethiopia and Egypt, if Egypt and Sudan are ready to negotiations. Let me finish by using Egyptian proverb: “Repetition teaches (even) a donkey”.
The writer can be contacted at ayalewmemar@gmail.com.
Herald: Do you think Ethiopia leaves Egypt with thirst dominating the only river it has? And do you agree with ancient saying “Nile is gift of Egypt.”
Mr.Memar :Don’t think that Ethiopia will put Egypt in hardships of water insecurity knowing that Egyptian people entirely depend on the water of the Nile for their survival. It is obvious that Egypt does not have any source of water other than the Nile River. This is not a cloak-and-dagger rather a crystal clear fact. Ethiopia has never thought of ceasing the flow of Nile to harm Egyptian people. If Nile dies unpredictably, then Egyptians follow. If the Nile stops flowing to Egypt, then Egyptians cease to exist. When sprit [Nile] separates from the body, then the flesh of Egyptians can no longer exist.
It always surprises me to hear Egyptian politicians propaganda of attacking Ethiopia, a country which has been giving life to them since the creation of human being. I think they fail to remember that their life is in the middle of our hands. Under normal circumstances, how can a rational human being thinks that Ethiopia will stop the flow of Nile water. How can a country which receives more annual rainfall than Egyptian halts the flow of the river? This[Thinking that Ethiopia is to stop the flow of Nile] is a sign of abnormality! This is morally and legally unacceptable! This is the result of misperception and absolute ignorance.
From the outset, the Ethiopian government has made clear its position that the Ethiopian people do not have any intension to damage the national interest of Egypt through reducing both the flow and volume of the water. The purpose of constructing the GRD is to generate power. This objective is clear even to an ordinary person. The dam's construction will not damage Egyptian water security; instead it ensures cooperation among the Nile riparian countries, putting it on a win-win base. Nothing is a surprise with the construction of the Renaissance Dam but generation of hydroelectric power to meet domestic and regional demands.
The Nile River has been connecting Ethiopia and Egypt serving as a bridge of their intercourse and it does forever. The foreign policy of Ethiopia also recognizes this natural fact. It states that “From its inception, the Egyptian civilization is based on the waters of the Nile. Not less that 85% of the water that enters Egypt originates from Ethiopia. It can therefore be said that from the beginning, the two countries have been linked by nature”.
The government of Ethiopia has been insisting to utilize the water of Nile without affecting the water security of the lower riparian countries by re-engineering new arrangements and institutional regimes which would facilitate dialogue and negotiations. However, Egyptians have been advancing an obsolete and outdated idea of the 19th century, “I win if you lose, the zero-sum game politics”. This is totally irrational and unacceptable practices of real politics and diplomacy in the 21st century. Can a rational being in the modern world accepts the absolute rights of Egyptians to fully utilize and exploit the Nile water while countries in the lower basin, contributing 100% of the water suffer from hunger and starvation? This is ridiculous.
I completely disagree with the notion that “Nile is gift for Egypt” but I certainly agree with the idea that “Nile is gift of all riparian countries”. The Greek historian Herodotus was the first from the western world who described Egypt as “gift of Nile”. For him, Egypt and the Nile River are inseparable simply because it is impossible to imagine a country called Egypt in the Sahara desert without the existence of the Nile River. The River Nile has been flowing from the upper riparian to the lower riparian countries (Sudan and Egypt) for millions of years without any interruption. Had there not exist the Nile waters, Egypt would have been erased from the map of the world.
I can say that the Nile River is the blood and flesh of Egyptian people. The prominent Ethiopian musician, Ejigayehu Shibabaw, described the meaning of the River Nile to the Egyptians by singing:
“ Abbay, the bounteous;
Have I known that you replenish the desert?
Have I known that you are their flesh and blood?
That they drink from you and eat water;
Abbay, generous to those of the desert;
Abbay, the bounty and of the great tension” (Taken from Yacob Arsano’s book, Ethiopia and the Nile: Dilemmas of National and Regional Hydro-politics, 2007)
Herodotus description entails the message that Egyptians are the beneficiaries of the Nile water without contributing any drop of water. In other words, he underlined that Egyptians do not have the absolute control of the Nile water and the power to deny the right of the lower riparian countries from exploiting the river is not on their hands. His description was certainly right in that the ownership of the water is to all the riparian countries, not to the downstream countries only. The concept ''Egypt is the gift of the Nile” invites negotiation and cooperation among the basin countries to ensure mutual benefits based on the principle of equity and equality. It opens opportunities of cooperation and a win-win approach. But successive Egypt governments have persistently rejected it. Herodotus concept, by implication, also discarded the 1929 and 1959 colonial agreements on the Nile which allocated majority of the water to Egypt; and century old zero-sum game politics advanced by Egypt in the utilization of the water. His notion offers possibilities of dialogue and negotiations.
Nevertheless, the notion that says “Nile is gift of Egypt” diametrically contradict with Herodotus conception of Egypt, “Egypt is gift of Nile”. It is clear that this argument carries a seed of contradiction in it because of three major reasons. First, it grants Egypt (contribute 0%) the right to monopolize the Nile water independently by undermining the right of upstream countries (contributes 100% of the water) from obtaining their legal share and benefit from the Nile. Second, it advances zero-sum politics of Egyptians on the utilization of the Nile water; and recognizes the 1929 and 1959 colonial agreements on the Nile water as binding legal instruments. Egyptian present “historical rights” and population size as a critical determinates for their zero-sum politics on the Nile. Finally, it eliminates the chance of negotiations and dialogue among the basin countries on the use of the river.
The new geo-political and security development in the Nile basin challenged the old 19th century Egyptian thinking. The notion that says “Egypt is the gift of the Nile” reflects cooperation and mutual benefits among the riparian countries where as concept “Nile is the gift of Egypt” reflects their zero-sum game politics, “I win if you lose”. This conclusion is misleading and unacceptable argument in the 21st century. If Herodotus was living in the context of today, he would say that “Nile is the gift of all riparian countries”.
Herald: Recently Egyptian President Morsi has opened 'psychological warfare' against Ethiopia, do you think this approach help the people of Egypt to secure their benefits from Nile waters? Why?
Mr.Memar: In order to understand why the Morsi government is advocating a psychological warfare against Ethiopia, it is necessary to examine and analyze the internal political development in Egypt since coming to power of the Islamic Brotherhood from which Morsi is hailing. In Egypt, the Morsi government has been suffering from legitimacy internally for taking the state to a direction in contradiction with the overall objective of January revolution which toppled down Mubarek's regime. And the government is unable to resolve the legacies of the Mubarek regime such as unemployment and deep economic crises, budget deficit and debt, and devaluation of their pound.
Hence, the government become fragile and fails to bring significant benefits to the Egyptian population especially to the youth who are orchestrator of the revolution. As to official figures, 13 per cent of Egyptians are unemployed, of whom 74 per cent are between 15 and 29 ages, and some believe the real number of unemployment is even much- 8 out of 10 university graduates are jobless.
Egypt has a system of subsidies for commodities such as petroleum and flour that is hugely expensive and works very poorly. It spends about 20 per cent of its national budget on keeping down fuel prices for the general public but the government has taken progressive measure to remove government subsidies from some forms of energy and to establish ration cards for gasoline which ignited popular anger. According to the Central Bank of Egypt, the inflation rate increased over the last month from 5.23 to 7.68 per cent. This is considered to be the highest increase in more than a year. These economic measures have been exacerbating the current political turmoil which challenged the legitimacy of the Morsi's administration. In order to stimulate the economy and solve the crises, oppositions have planned to organize a mass anti-Morsi rally by the end of this month. This is the real political situations in Egypt that the government in Cairo has been facing since it came to power.
Therefore, the psychological warfare against Ethiopia is the reflection of their internal economic stagnation and political tension. The government is trying to use the construction of the dam and the diversion of the water by the Ethiopian government as a playing card to divert the attention of the Egyptian public and externalize internal tensions. This is Machiavellian principle of “the end justifies the means”. War will never bring any benefits to the Egyptians. I would like to tell the Egyptian people that the consequences of attacking Ethiopia will be very severe. They have to think for a moment that the things that will achieve out of military action. As I clearly mentioned in my recent article, “Egyptian Approaches to the New Development in the Nile Politics: Water Diplomacy or Water War? Which way?”, that the only solution to the utilization of the Nile river is a win-win approach which secure the interest of all riparian countries. Egyptian politicians and policy makers have to realize the changing geo-political and security situation in the Nile basin and must recognize the rights of the lower riparian countries to utilize the water based on the principle of equality and fairness as they recognize its share on the Nile water. This will help us to find all inclusive approach to the use of the Nile. Let us turn our face to negotiation and diplomacy which is the rule of the game in the 21st century.
Herald: Some Egyptians say Ethiopia should be abound by the 1929 and 1959 agreements. What do these agreements say with respect to share of water? And is that applicable for Ethiopia?
Mr.Memar : The Nile River, being international and trans-boundary in nature, has been the subject of various agreements. However, there is no internationally agreed treaty on the management and utilization of the Nile River which secures the benefit of all riparian countries. Therefore, the legal instruments for the utilization and management of the water consists disputed bilateral agreements concluded amongst the basin countries. The treaties and legal regimes regulating the use of Nile River can be divided into different categories. For instance, Yacob Arsano in his book “Ethiopia and the Nile: Dilemmas of National and Regional Hydro-politics, 2007:95”, divided the agreements related to the utilization of the river in to three categories based on historical sequence.
Agreements between colonial powers comes first. This category consists of the Anglo-Italian protocol of 1891, The 1906 agreements, The 1925 Anglo-Italian agreement and The 1934 Agreement concluded between Britain and Belgium. The second one is agreements between colonial powers and regional states. It includes the 1902 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement, The 1929 Agreement signed between Britain and Italy and The 1952 Agreement. Agreements between independent states of the basin can be listed third. In this category one see three treaties such as The 1959 Agreement signed between Egypt and Sudan, the 1993 Ethio- Egyptian Agreement and the Comprehensive Framework of Agreement (CFA) singed among the seven basin countries in 2010. The bilateral agreements in the first and the second category signed were primarily initiated by then colonial powers.
The colonial powers which had involved in the making of the agreements were Britain, France, Italy and Belgium. It is important to look the colonial possession these countries in the political map of the Nile basin to understand why they engineered the agreements. Britain had colonized Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. It had a greater interest on the Nile waters. Italy had territorial possession in the Horn of Africa such as Eritrea and the Italian Somaliland in Somalia. France had a monopoly over the present day Djibouti. Among the Nile basin countries, Ethiopia is the only which has never been colonized. The overall intension of the colonial powers in signing the agreements was to exploit the resources to the extent possible for their colonial project.
In 1929, for instance, Britain and Egypt signed an agreement on the utilization of the Nile water to exploit the river independently. They concluded this agreement without consulting the upper riparian countries. The agreement gives a veto power to Egypt.
Herald: How does modern ways of foreign relations state in terms of solving cross -boundary river and lake disputes?
Mr.Memar: In the modern world we are living today, interactions among states and non-state actors have become more complicated than ever before due to the eruption of scientific and technological advancements, which minimizes the significance of geographical and time barriers. States being the primary actor of international politics, play an important role in defining the patterns and rules of global politics and the path of history as well. States formulate their own foreign policies reflecting internal demands in their matters transending national boundaries. Foreign policy of states mainly defines the methods to be applied in perusing national interests. For instance, propaganda had been largely used by the USA and USSR, the super power during the cold war era, in order to achieve their own respective national interests by creating psychological fear/ tension in the hearts and minds of opponents. Still other states opt to use diplomacy, economics and military assistance and war [as a last resort] based on their capacity and availability of resources to make sure that their national interests are achieved.
In the modern world, however, diplomacy pays an important role in reconciling contradictory issues among states which can lead to destructive wars. I observed that many states are highly relied on diplomacy in dealing matters related to their national interests. That is why states have been investing large amount capital to reach areas where their national interest falls by establishing embassies and sending diplomatic missions. Especially states that are connected each other by trans-boundary rivers have been using water diplomacy as an instrument to ensure “equitable, reasonable” utilization by avoiding “significant harm” over the downstream countries. This in turn minimizes the outbreak of potential violent water related conflicts by re-engineering new arrangements to address major challenges in managing water resources.
We need to understand that Trans- Boundary Rivers by virtue of their nature do not belong to a single riparian state. In other terms, water is not innate objects but a shared resource. They are the property of basin countries. It is because Trans- Boundary Rivers cross the life of different societies living along its courses as they cross the boundary of states. As state’s interests are interconnected by shared water courses, all inclusive ownership of tarns-boundary rivers is quite important to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Thus, managing conflicts in relation to the management and utilization of the water resources originates from deeply understanding of this nature of trans-boundary water resources. States have shown significant improvements in utilizing shared water resources by arranging forums of negotiations and legal instruments, which benefits both upstream and downstream countries. Despite there have been disagreements on the utilization of the water resources between upper riparian and lower riparian countries, they managed to minimize the explosion of violent conflicts by establishing institutional regimes which enables them to negotiate diplomatically. For instance, Israel and Jordan on the Jordan River, Indian and Pakistan on the Indus River, Euphrates -Tigris basin in the Middle East, the seven upper riparian states on the Nile River have been negotiating so as to manage water related conflicts.
These countries ensure equitable use of trans-boundary rivers by building trust and confidence. In fact, lower riparian countries in the Nile basin have been reluctant to negotiate on the colonial agreements which declined to recognize the rights of the upper riparian states to use the water for developmental purposes. They did not show any sign willingness to turn their face into negotiating table. However, the experiences of some countries, sharing trans-boundary rivers, tell us that there is an alternative way of avoiding disagreements on water issues by approaching it diplomatically. Therefore, I believe that diplomacy and win-win approach to issues of the Nile water can solve the current political tension between Ethiopia and Egypt, if Egypt and Sudan are ready to negotiations. Let me finish by using Egyptian proverb: “Repetition teaches (even) a donkey”.
The writer can be contacted at ayalewmemar@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment