Zero sum politics, politicizing science never water down GERD construction

  BY WORKU BELACHEW

Cooperation among Nile Basin countries had been moulded badly on a destructive base. That was enormously ascribed for colonial agreements signed in 1929 and 1959. Particularly the latter “bilateral agreement”— Between Egypt and Sudan— guaranteed Egypt to obtain an unfair share of waters of the Nile that was as big as 55.5 bln. cubic metres of the estimated total of 84 bln. cubic metres produced each year. But, for the basin countries these treaties were no more acceptable since the days they were liberated from colonialism.

One manifestation of the said fact could be the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) signed between these states which, inter alia, recognizes the Nile as an “asset of immense value to all the riparian countries”.

Diametrically opposite to the above fact, some “politicians and scholars”, if at all they are, of Egypt persistently work to resuscitate the outdated treaties aiming at keeping domination over the water. This is evident in their repeated destructive endeavours that are tailored to hinder— though it has not and will not be succeeded— the construction of the Ethiopian Grand Renaissance Dam. Ethiopia, unlike many other nations which utilized cross border rivers without consulting riparian states, has initiated, supported and realized a tripartite committee that assessed the impact of the dam on downstream countries. From the onset of this effort, however, Egyptian officials tried countless arms twisting tactics to influence the normal functioning of the committee. It was no surprise when such officials and scholars also tried to reject the report of the committee in which Egypt itself had been represented.

Same attempt was also seen in the third round of talks of the trio, Sudan, Egypt and Ethiopia, held in Khartoum which had been deemed to advance the negotiation headfirst but ended up pulling them back. They met to form a committee that oversees the implementation of recommendations given by the International Committee of Experts which assessed and reported as the dam poses no significant harm to downstream nations. From Egypt's side, however, an unexpected agenda rolled up. They reflected an awkward proposal—i.e., to hire a special committee that controls the enforcing committee itself. To the surprise of everyone, they also tried to make the CFA a point of discussion.

The critical questions that must be answered are: Would it be essential to hire independent experts panel while experts represented from the respective countries can monitor the enforcement and why do they wish to make the CFA a fresh agenda for the trio? In addition, what do these proposals imply?

In the first place, it is critically important to reach agreement on the formation of experts’ panel with representatives from the three countries namely, Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt that monitors the enforcement of the recommendations of the previous trio. With no doubt, the needed experts are available in all the nations. What comes then is, to let this committee carry out its tasks independently. It is palpable as no task would go beyond the committee's capacity. But, it could be appropriate to propose for external bodies in case the committee fails to do its responsibilities effectively. Even that can be made real when respective Ministries of each nations accept the proposal. Therefore, for Egypt it is too early to stick on such agenda.

The second point is that the CFA has already been signed. And some countries turned it into a law endorsing the agreement by their respective parliaments. More importantly, the third round of talks had nothing to do with the CFA. Attempting to discuss the CFA on the wrong platform and in the absence of other members of the basin countries is obviously undermining their ownership of the basin, which is impossible.

When one critically examines the track some Egyptian officials and scholars travelled through time, it leads to the origin where their mindset had been shaped. Totally, it is the colonial attitude that left its remnants of an evil mentality which is “assuring” veto on the riparian countries. There seems also a tendency to disregard Basin countries natural rights of utilizing the river. The three countries, undoubtedly, can resolve disputes that may arise as far as GERD construction is concerned. It is the mutual trust created among Ethiopia and Sudan that eliminates the previous ambivalence. Now Sudan has fully understood the benefit it can get out of the dam. But, some scholars and officials are giving a deaf ear to this reality. The officials are attempting to lag the enforcement of the trio behind while scholars are trying to influence the international community using their famous universities. The former is a zero sum political game. And the latter is merely politicization of science.

It is high time for Egyptian officials, therefore, to stop their games and cooperate with the solution seeking trio in particular and with the riparian countries in general. There are a lot of rooms for cooperation. As has been told repeatedly, Ethiopia has no intention to harm any country. And the reality on the ground also proves that. The electricity generated in Ethiopian soil is giving light and energy in Sudan and Djibouti.

PUBLISHED ON 11 JANUARY, THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD