If Egypt is the gift of the Nile, then the Nile is Ethiopia’s gift.

An English rendition of a stimulating article first written in Amharic by Meles A and entitled:

By: Dilwenberu Nega

It is often cited that the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had once remarked that Egypt would regard any measure which threatens the continued flow of the Blue Nile as casus belli and would be spurred into mounting robust retaliatory action. On his part, a one time Egypt’s Deputy Foreign Minister, who later became Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Ghali, on his part warned that the next world war would be a “Hydro-war.” Although such statements, which carry strong life-and-death connotations, were said in the past, they surely continue to be echoed today by key members of the current Egyptian leadership every time the Nile Question is raised. Egypt’s Ministers of Irrigation and Water, the Speaker of the Egyptian Parliament and the Minister of Agriculture all continue to reflect a similar stand. Egypt’s media, on the other hand, had over-egged Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit’s “no party must cross the red-line” stern warning. What is incredible, however, is that some Ethiopians have also resorted to blindly echo Egypt’s stand without properly studying the pros and cons inherent in the pronouncements of leading Egyptian personalities. It is strange, then, is it not, that we have refused to acknowledge our reason for not making use of the Nile water was based not only Egyptian obduracy, but on our own difficulties.

There are those who like to link recent Egyptian statements with the recently signed The Nile Initiative Cooperation Framework Agreement (CFA) and reach the conclusion that war with Egypt is inevitable. Some Ethiopian newspapers have even gone as far as predicting that the end is near. Foreign-based Ethiopian web-sites, on the other hand, saw it fit to demonstrate a modicum amount of ‘literary sabre-rattling’ by proclaiming “Bring it on Egypt!” and by citing the bravery of our forefathers in the face of blatant Egyptian incursion from the annals of history. I, however, believe that not only is there nothing new in what has been flowing from the mouth of Egyptian officials, the intelligentsia and the press, but it would be wrong to relate it to the recently concluded Agreement. Moreover, we should make an effort to understand Cairo’s hue and cry over the issue, because, after all, Egypt without the Nile is a nonentity. While I appreciate journalists’ urge to provide accurate and detail information to the public, I, however, see no rhyme or reason to overegg the Nile Question to this extent. My reasons are crystal clear. Not only has any action that endangers the basic interest of Egypt been taken, but our country has no wish to indulge in such act of provocation. The root cause for the stream of official Egyptian statements and comments is neither the Nile water nor the Agreement signed by Riparian Countries, but it is a clear reflection of Egypt’s prevailing political, economic and social crises.

Nile, O Nile, thou art a nation’s blessing!

Ethiopian folkloric songs are dedicated to the Nile. Though it would be hard to state that Riparian Countries’ efforts on the equitable use of the Nile water in the past has been as ceaseless as that of Ethiopia, we can nonetheless, confidently talk of their grieve over their inability to share the dividends of the Nile. It is, therefore, my guess that the people of the signatory countries of the CFA share Kenya’s daily, The Standard’s vision of: “Now the Agreement has been signed, we can start planting trees.”

Given this earnest desire, therefore, it is incredible to note that there had so far not been concerted efforts by Riparian Countries to make use of the Nile water. Though the river bank occupies one-tenth of Africa’s land mass where close to 300 million people live in a habitat blessed by nature, not much of it has been developed. The Riparian Countries had, therefore, found themselves in the unfortunate circumstances of being unable to tap the Nile, because they were firstly made victim of a colonial agreement between Egypt and the Sudan which solely respected their “historical right” to the Nile. Secondly, because the absence of peace and stability in the Upper Riparian Countries, and the fact their weak economies were not in a position to fund hydro-based developmental projects, had meant that they could not possibly address Ethiopia’s and other Riparian Countries’ demand for fair and equitable use of the Nile water. Other states’ political, economic, military and diplomatic support for Egypt are believed to have been carved out in line with the lending of tacit support for the prolongation of the tendentious Agreement between Egypt and the Sudan. While Egypt’s influential position within international organisations as well as the Arab world had succeeded in warding off Riparian Countries’ attempts at securing loans to tap the Nile water, Riparian Countries’ capacity to mount a concerted countervailing action against Egypt was also weak. When all these pressure failed, Egypt would resort to its usual, “Whosoever-tampers-with-the-Nile-tampers-with-Egypt’s-eyeball” threats. In point of fact, a cursory glance of our last hundred year’s history is testimony to the state of direct or indirect confrontation we had with Egypt. In point of fact, in anticipation of a possible war with Ethiopia, many military analysts claim Egypt has readied a highly-pronged military unit specialized in guerrilla warfare. Moreover, as Egypt’s former Defence Minister, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi once highlighted: “Egypt’s defence strategy was carved-out with a possible war over the Nile very much in our mind.”

Apart from Egypt’s adamantine and threatening mode, nothing of significance had taken place all these years. The life of meaningful co-operation among Riparian Countries’ hardly exceeds 10 years. In “The History of Conflict and Cooperation,” Expert on Horn of Africa Affairs, the late Dr Kinfe Abreha cites that real efforts on proximity and cooperation talks started with the UN-commissioned work on the flow of Nile water and the nature of the Nile. Two cases in points of cooperative efforts are mentioned. In 1993 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) made an effort to reach The Nile Riparian Countries’ Development and Environment Agreement, and the World Bank in 1997 initiated Nile Riparian Countries’ Cooperation Efforts.

Relative peace as well as subsequent economic growth which the Nile Riparian Countries secured was the main stimulus for the prevalence of a common spirit of cooperation among the concerned states. Consequently, Riparian Countries galvanized their resolve to harness Nile’s resources for hydro-electric power, for irrigation and for similar uses. With rapid growth of population in their respective countries, the Riparian Countries have now made Food Security a top priority of their development agenda. It is, therefore, a sad case scenario to witness these Riparian Countries - for whom the lakes of the Nile, Victoria, Albert and Edward – are all a stone throw away and, yet, inaccessible to their peoples. As we say in Ethiopia, it surely is a case of “The son of the Nile suffers from thirst of water.” Fortunately, the journey Nile Riparian Countries had undertaken in fits and starts has today reaped the desired fruit. On the 14^th May 2010 Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda signed The Nile Initiative Cooperation Framework Agreement (CFA) in the Ugandan capital, Entebbe. A week later Kenya, too, signed the CFA. While Burundi and Democratic Congo are both expected to sign the CFA well before the one year dead-line for signing of the CFA expires, Eritrea, which has an observer status, on the other hand, has totally rejected the CFA. Sudan’s and Eritrea’s unsavoury stand toward the CFA has more to do with politics than anything else. The fact that Sudan decided to back off from the CFA after its Water-resource and Irrigation Minister had assured Nile Riparian Countries at the 10^th Anniversary of the Initiative in 2007 that Sudan is committed to fair and equitable distribution of the water of the Nile only goes to demonstrate that Khartoum may have succumbed to Cairo’s arm-twisting. However, for Eritrea’s President Isaias Afewerki to oppose an anachronistic bilateral Agreement which prohibits even a bottle of water from the Nile to Eritreans, is further proof of Isaias Afewerki’s continued resolve to oppose everyone and everything which Ethiopia supports. Moreover, as an influential Eritrean online publication had further exposed, Mubarak has now requested for an Eritrean base to be made available to the Egyptian military.

Once the CFA is signed by six Nile-basin countries, and subsequently approved by their respected parliaments, the African Union will officially be notified. Egypt, on its part, has mounted a robust diplomatic manoeuvre, the aim and goal of which is to scupper the CFA and to give new lease of life to the anachronistic and unfair Agreement that it has with the Sudan. Egypt is, then, leaving no stone unturned to cut a wedge between the signatories of the CFA, and is applying her influence within the Arab world and among its Western allies to achieve its objectives. Egypt has so far invited the Presidents of Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi for talks in Cairo. The CFA has set out in no ambiguous manner the Nile Riparian Countries’ rights and responsibilities on use of the water, development and environmental protection. Each CFA signatory country will be able to know in due course the exact amount of water it is allowed to use per annum. CFA has already raised the hopes and dreams of millions of people living in the signatory countries. As Tanzanian Vice President, Dr Mohammed Shein, had observed at CFA signing ceremony, “Though the Nile-basin countries’ initiative will inevitably encounter all sorts of challenges in the years to come, CFA has for now succeeded in removing the miasma of fear and suspicion from among member states.”

Contrary to CFA signatories’ positive spirit of hope of a better tomorrow, Egyptian officials and their media have resorted to sabre-rattling, reminiscent of their preoccupation of 30 years ago. Further more, an influential Egyptian official told Cairo’s daily “Al Tayaar”: “Egypt could be forced to take military action. She can also attack Ethiopia via Sudan or Eritrea.” Now an Agreement which guarantees common ownership of the Nile water had been signed, a sense of utter trepidation seem to have engulfed those very Egyptians who, on earlier occasions, had been advocating the enlargement of the ‘cake’ (Nile) rather than fighting about the ‘cake.’ Notwithstanding the above-mentioned threats by Egypt, it is important to follow up the case in a composed and meticulous manner. As a UNESCO-funded research had pointed out – with the exception of a war between the Iraqi cities of Uma and Erkak - no war was caused over right to harness water of a river in the last 5000 years from the Tigris to the Euphrates, from the Nile to the Danube.

Egypt: the gift of the Nile

There is no wander, then, that many Egyptians now view the Entebbe Agreement as a national security and existential threat. According to Professor Kinfe Abreha successive Egyptian administrations had been waging a psychological war on the Nile Question. Egyptians have for long come to worship the Nile, so much so that the Greek historian, Herodotus’ “Egypt is the gift of the Nile” – spoken by him some 5000years ago – still blends well with the Egyptian blood today. On another level, the American Sociology Researcher, P.Godyear Oct had also concluded that because Egypt is in hock to the fear of water scarcity, she suffers from “Water-stress-phobia.”

On the other hand, today, one comes to detect a dichotomy in the prevailing schools of thought that shape Egyptian public opinion. On one side of the argument are followers of the famous contemporary Egyptian philosopher who promotes an “Egypt is African by soil and water, but ethnically it is European” policy. Then you have the commonly held view which places blame on Egypt’s blurred African policy coupled with her incapacity to broker a deal to the Israel, as being responsible for the continued chipping away of Egyptian dominion over the Nile. Ever since he escaped unscathed from a road-side assassination attempt on his way to an AU summit in Addis Ababa, President Hosni Mubarak’s role in African matters had started to wane. Similarly, as the Political Analyst at the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies (ACPSS), Nabul Abdel Fattah, had put clearly the fact that Ethiopia, and not Egypt, is today playing an enhanced and influential role at international forums, coupled with the growth of development Nile-basin countries have registered in the recent past, have all contributed to the decline of Egypt’s suzerainty over the Nile. Worse still, there are, then, the views of conspiracy theorists who claim that the Nile Question – far from being a matter of scarcity of water – does have a geo-political dimension of great magnitude. They, then, indulge in making preposterous allegations. They claim that Israel has effectively infiltrated the Nile-basin countries for its own advantages, and that Israeli Intelligence Service, Mosad, has set-up its biggest African centre in Addis Ababa – all engineered to scupper Egypt’s role in the Middle East as well as pose an existential threat to Egypt. The United States of America, too, shares Egypt’s concerns that the actions taken by the Nile Riparian Countries constitute an existential threat to Egypt. America’s reasons revolves around caring less about the imminent cessation of Southern Sudan who would become the Nile-basin countries’10 member, but more on it’s fear that these countries will then slide into Somalia-type terrorist-style anarchy, and on its concern that this may lead to the Nubia ceding from Egypt.

Contrary to these highly confrontational stands, however, you nowadays witness the emergence in the court of Egyptian public opinion the ‘Voice of Reason.’ One such ‘Voice’ is Cairo University’s Geography Professor, Said Ibrahim Elbadawi, who given that the pluses which unite Egypt with the Nile-basin countries by far outweigh the minuses which separate them, claims that it would be prudential for Egypt to, instead, work together with the countries towards maintaining regional peace and security and get involved in developing their economies. Although droves of experts on the Nile have come to the conclusion that it is unfair and immoral to allow Egypt – which does not contribute a drop of water to the Nile – have access to 86% of the Nile water, while at the same time deny Ethiopia –which contributes 85% to the flow of the Nile and which is struggling hard to come out from abject poverty – have sole access to the Nile water; they have, unfortunately, been unable to alter Egypt’s flawed perception of the use of the Nile.

Elections in Ethiopia and Egypt

Elections were held in both Ethiopia and Egypt during May 2010. Opposition parties in Ethiopia’s 4^th National Elections had made Ethiopia’s policy toward cross-border Rivers – including the Nile – one of the main planks of their election manifestoes. In a vain attempt to portray the EPDRF as a party not interested in defending the national interest of Ethiopia, opposition parties made an earnest attempt to bury EPDRF under an avalanche of unsubstantiated accusations. But EPDRF hit back successfully by citing that not only does its track record prove that the national interest was safe and sound under EPDRF, but the stark reality was that opposition parties lacked the vision and commitment to shoulder the onerous duties of a responsible government. Furthermore, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi did not mince his words during an Al Jezera interview: “The only solution is to agree on the diplomatic way forward for a fair and equitable use of the Nile water. It’s high time that Egypt realises that her ‘you-sit-on-your-hands-while-I-eat’ approach is wholly unacceptable.” Cairo’s influential daily Al Ahram did report that though Egyptian officials were monitoring the Ethiopian election debates on cross-border Rivers closely, they, nonetheless, did not favour either side of the argument.

In a related development, when Egypt held General Elections to the Shura Council on 14^th May President Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, opposition parities including independent candidates had made the recently signed The Nile Initiative Cooperation Framework Agreement (CFA) the main plank of their election campaign. Opposition parties, including independent candidates who espouse some of the extremist policies of the banned Muslim Brotherhood, had been vehemently accusing the Government of handing over the Nile to the Nile-basin countries. Some opposition party’s websites, too, joined in the fray by posting such incredible stories as: “Ethiopia ready to build 35 dams on the Nile!” (May it be so!) and “Prime Minister Meles Zenawi warns Egypt!” Some political analysts had, in fact, gone a long way to question whether or not both the inauguration of Ethiopia’s hydro-electric dam in Tana Beles, and the simultaneous signing of the CFA in Entebbe, were orchestrated to coincide with Egypt’s General Elections on the 14^th May 2010.

When will the Seat be stable?

No one can be certain of what the future holds for Egypt. Although the Election held on May 14^th 2010 did give President Mubarak’s National Democratic Party 80 of the 88 seats of the Shuria, none to those who espouse the policies of the banned Muslim Brotherhood and 8 to other parties, it had managed to provide nothing more than a sigh of relief to ordinary Egyptians and still leaving Egyptian politics on the cross-road. It is said that the octogenarian President’s health is cause for concern, and the issue of who Mubarak’s successor would be still remains headache to many Egyptians. However, Egyptian politicians – conscious of the presence within the society of a sense of great concern and uncertainty over a possible power vacuum – are seen ventilating the Nile issue as a diversionary tactic. As the influential analyst Mohamed Abu Elhagar stated: “What Egyptian official are worried about is their domestic issue. They don’t care if the Nile dries up.”

During his recent visit to Italy, President Mubarak quibbled when asked to name his successor. He preferred reply was: “Whoever God anoints will be my choice.” Such a statement has created great consternation among the people who have not seen any other administration for the past 30 years. Though Mubarak is reputed to have groomed his 46 year old son, Gamal Mubarak, who currently occupies a key position in the ruling party, many analysts agree that because he does not command the confidence of Egypt’s defence, security and police establishments, as well as because he is viewed by many as corrupt individual, trying to galvanize support for Gamal would be a futile exercise. If Mubarak’s choice of a successor fails to materialise, then, either Mubarak will hold on to power until his dying breath, or resort to using the ruling party’s last remaining card by transferring power to Egypt’s National Security Chief. According to Amr El Shobaki, Head of the Institute of the Arab World Forum, “The National Democratic Party is still in limbo having repeatedly tried and failed to come up with a compromising candidate who would be acceptable to all.” What about the opposition?

Though Egypt had been following a limited form of multi-party democracy since 1968, not once had the opposition been able to form a government. As extremist-filled Muslim Brotherhood was banned 25 years ago, the only time independent and opposition candidates were able to secure 80 seats in the Shuria was in the 1997 Election. While there are 24 registered parties in Egypt, the absence of genuine democracy in opposition parties, has turned the great majority of them into fiefdoms of personalities. Now, however, Egyptians have pinned their hopes on one man – Nobel Prize winner and former Head of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Muhammad Al Baradei, who is in the process of bringing together disunited opposition parties under his new-fangled National Association for Change.

Al Baradei has, so far, managed to draw the full support of opposition parties including the 25 years ago banned Muslim Brotherhood. Teachers, students and the intelligentsias have all voiced their solidarity with Al Baradei. By creating a great sense of positivity and expectation within Egyptian society, Al Baradei has been able to effectively make use of his seasoned diplomatic skills and influence at international forums to come up with a 7 point stimulating agenda for the way forward, chief among which are the rescinding of the more than 2 decades old Emergency Law, the creation of an enabling environment for a free and fair election and the right of individual candidates to stand for the presidency. However, according to the Constitution of Egypt, Al Baradei, is highly unlikely to get the support of 230 members of the Senate and Parliament. Although he obviously represents a large coalition of opposition parties, because Mubarak has extended the Emergency Law for a further 2 years and because he, as yet, does not command the confidence of the intelligence services, it would be difficult to be certain of Al Baradei’s triumph. Nevertheless, the rise of Al Baradei is bound to spur President Mubarak to usher in some reforms.

Though Egyptian officials had been overegging the Question of the Nile, the reality is that beyond the uneasiness over political transition lies the fact that Egypt is also up against pressing socio-economic problems. In an Egypt where 40% of the population remains poor, long queues for bread outside bakeries have become a daily ritual. To make matters worse, the continued rise of people out of work, as well as the deterioration of frontline services like education and health, has increased Egyptians’ longing for change. As a seasoned observer would come to conclude cogently, all the scaremongering and sabre-rattling over the Nile which Egyptian officials were deliberately ventilating, had more to do with whipping up Egyptian nationalistic feelings and had nothing to do with the perceived threat posed by the signing of an agreement by the Nile basin countries. We must, therefore, not lose sight of the fact that we need – for the sake of ensuring the triumph of the ‘voice of moderation’ in Egyptian society – to refrain from engaging in a tit-for-tat at with Egyptian Government.

Ethiopians are expected to forgo their political differences and be able to speak with one voice on the Question of the Nile. So far, the long and tortuous diplomatic journey that the Government has traversed along with the Nile-basin countries has ushered in a new chapter in the history of the use of the Nile water. It was proper for opposition parties to support the EPDRF government on this burning issue. As we have not reached our final destination, our final goal, we should resist the temptation to celebrate a win, to mourn, to turn ballistic and to sabre-rattle. We, of course, acknowledge that Egypt is the gift of the Nile. All we ask is for the world to equally acknowledge that the Nile is one of the blessings Ethiopia has offered to world. The Question of the Nile can only be addressed in a cognitive manner. We must ensure that it will never descend into an emotive issue. By benefiting from the dividend of this ‘blessing’ with all Nile-basin countries on a fair and equal basis, would we be able to ensure that the Nile becomes the origin of development rather than the cause of strife. We can do it; yes we can!