(Photo by Cattan 2011 via Flickr/CC BY 2.0)
Listen to this article:
In a letter sent to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in early September, the Arab Republic of Egypt alleged that Ethiopia had violated international law by filling their proposed dam without agreement from countries downstream from the Nile. In response to this, Ethiopia refuted Egypt’s claim, insisting that “the use of natural resources falls within the national jurisdiction of states,” citing reports that state that the majority of the water in the Nile originates from within Ethiopia.
Additionally, the risk of conflict between Somalia, Somaliland, Ethiopia, and Egypt continues to increase as disagreements over borders and sovereignty continue to expand.
Whose Water is it Anyway?
In 2011, Ethiopia began construction on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) —Africa’s largest hydroelectric power plant—on the Nile, Africa’s longest river. Since the beginning of construction, Egypt has repeatedly opposed the dam, stating that it would affect the country’s ability to supply water from the Nile to its citizens.
Countries like Sudan have stated that the GERD could “threaten the safety of its own dams and make it much more difficult for the government to manage its own development projects.” Nonetheless, Ethiopia continues to insist that the dam will not have the adverse effects these countries claim but will benefit all involved. Additionally, Ethiopian leaders insist that the dam is needed to develop their country further and could benefit the region.
In asserting its right to stop the dam’s construction (and others like it), Egypt has continuously referred to different colonial-era agreements. For example, in 1929, Egypt and Great Britain—a colonial power in Northeastern Africa at the time—signed a joint agreement giving Egypt the right to veto any future projects upstream from the Nile that would affect the country’s water share.
A subsequent 1959 version outlined the specific amount of water Egypt and Sudan allot yearly. Countries like Ethiopia continue to challenge the validity of these agreements, highlighting that it was signed by a colonizing power and, as such, is no longer binding. Furthermore, neither of these agreements outlines any water allotments for any other countries.
Modern attempts to outline which country controls which portions of the Nile have largely failed as Egypt and Sudan are often eager to register their protests to changes to the current system. The most notable case comes from the Entebbe Agreement of 2010, which sought to replace the 1959 agreement and establish a more relevant distribution of water rights. However, Egypt refused to be a party to the agreement as their veto would effectively be nullified for future projects. As such, all involved parties remain at an impasse while construction on the dam continues.
Wider Implications within Northeast Africa
The issue of the GERD and the sharing of the Nile between countries in Northeastern Africa are only some of the underlying reasons for growing tensions within the region. Concurrently, Somaliland’s quest for self-determination further adds another dimension to the ongoing discord.
Earlier this year, Somalia and Egypt signed a military pact in response to a prior agreement between Somaliland and Ethiopia. The military pact between Somalia and Egypt has already seen Egypt provide weapons to Mogadishu in support of Somalia’s troops. Additionally, the agreement between Somaliland and Ethiopia will reportedly see Somaliland grant Ethiopia about 20-kilometre sea access in exchange for possible recognition as an independent country.
This form of recognition would be a first for Somaliland since declaring independence in 1991. While Somalia has long disputed the status of Somaliland as an independent country, the entrance of Ethiopia and Egypt into the fray has brought a new level of uncertainty to the discord.
According to Mariam Wahba, an analyst for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the movement of Egyptian troops into Somalia is a calculated move that reflects Egypt’s frustrations with the construction of the GERD.
As such, this alliance with Somalia is supposed to act as a deterrent and indicate to Ethiopia that Egypt is not afraid to escalate in other matters if needed. While this issue of sovereignty and self-determination is separate from the issue of the Nile, Egypt has seemingly recognised it as an avenue that the government can use to pressure Ethiopia into thinking twice about the construction and use of the GERD.
With both countries (Somalia and Egypt) having geopolitical issues with Ethiopia, this alliance is only natural. Moreover, it poses a threat to Ethiopia’s stated goals of (i) having sea access and (ii) being able to use the Nile for the GERD. Unfortunately, all of this only increases the possibility of a proxy conflict in the region.
The Role of Colonialism
The effects of colonialism can be found all over Northeastern Africa, especially in the current row. Firstly, with the signing of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty in 1929, Britain effectively created a colonial institution which Egypt still clings to today. The 1929 agreement essentially grants Egypt a veto for all future constructions on the dam, making it unlikely for the country to agree to any other agreements without said veto.
Till date, international law remains divided on whether former colonies are responsible for treaties signed by their former colonial masters.
Additionally, the creation of colonial states that have become sovereign countries has contributed to the ongoing unease in the region. The union of British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland, two colonies ruled by the colonial powers of Britain and Italy, created Somali. However, the union was not entirely peaceful, and Somaliland, which claimed to be the direct descendant of Italian Somaliland, declared independence in 1991.
The occurrence is reminiscent of the relationship between English Cameroon and French Cameroon, which led to the Ambazonian declaration of independence. Within these scenarios, the effects of colonialism are shown. The creation of Somalia and the subsequent push for self-determination by Somaliland is a direct consequence of colonialism.
We Need Liquid Solutions
As always, there are various resolutions to these issues. The leaders of the affected countries have already identified the first. Six Nile Basin countries have signed the aforementioned Entebbe Agreement. Egypt’s and Sudan’s refusal to discuss this proposal alienates the signatory countries and makes a conflict-free solution to the issues surrounding the Nile and the rest of the region difficult.
Egypt and Sudan must come to the table to diffuse the current tensions and make concessions. The colonial era agreements they continue to cling to do not serve the region well and the relevant countries should look to replace them with more pertinent ones. The current water allocation from the Nile is unfair and creates classes of haves and have-nots. The GERD changes this and allows Ethiopia to take advantage of the Nile as these two countries did in the past.
Oppositional countries like Ethiopia must also be ready to make concessions. While the GERD is a notable feat, they must be careful to not use it to negatively affect Egypt’s development. Instead, it must truly be used to better Northeastern Africa as promised. Additionally, Ethiopia’s new dam should enforce an equitable sharing of the Nile without hoarding by the involved parties. All the involved parties must also take Egypt’s fears of water poverty seriously, as a drought would be disastrous for the region.
Small Drops of Water Make a Mighty Dam
Per Ethiopia, the construction of the GERD is almost complete and the dam has reportedly also started generating power for the country. At this stage, without violence, it is almost impossible to stop the construction and function of the dam. As such, current opposition to its construction and use might be fruitless.
Instead, countries like Egypt need to register their complaints constructively, which helps outline the way forward for all involved. In the past, their absence from conferences and agreements on the GERD has meant that work has continued behind their back. Taking part in these conversations will allow for a better consensus on the use of the dam and its implications for the region.
Finally, all of the countries involved in the escalation of tensions must seek to de-escalate actively. The deployment of weapons and troops in the region is an unnecessary exercise that will only serve to fan the flames of violence. Ethiopia’s possible recognition of Somaliland should not invite violence or threats of the use of violence. Instead, Somalia should learn from countries like Sudan to avoid the use of violence against secessionist movements.
Somalia and other regional powers would also do well to recognize that a failure to proactively engage with the demands of Somaliland’s secessionist movement ultimately led to the country’s declaration of independence and possible recognition from members of the international community. If the well-being and protection of their citizens is their number one priority, the governments in this region must engage with them quickly and effectively.
Edited by Gustavo Villela
