Djibouti – Editorial Note from the Editor of Geeska
Afrika Online – Interim President Adly Mansour said that the security of the
Middle East and North Africa zone are one of Egypt’s national security
priorities, and that Egypt was fighting the war on terror on behalf of the
Middle East regions interests.
Answering a question about the Grand Renaissance
Ethiopian Dam, currently under construction on the Blue Nile in Ethiopia,
Mansour said the project was a “great challenge.”
The Egyptian and Ethiopian leaders have met last year in
Kuwait for the first time to discuss tensions over Ethiopia’s construction of a
huge hydropower dam on the river Nile but the meeting ended without any
agreement, sources said. “The problem of
the Renaissance Dam is that some countries want to have big projects without
consultation. This is a dangerous matter as they neglect the interest of other
countries like Egypt,” he said. Egyptian interim president Adly Mansour has
promised the to the Egyptian People that he will “spare no effort” in his
attempts to secure their Great Assets -Nile water.
Official Opinion By, Ahmed Sayed El-Naggar chairman of
state-owned media organisation Al-Ahram : Ethiopia’s ‘logic’ behind the
construction of the Renaissance Dam is shocking, perhaps even more so than the
issue of the dam itself.
Addis Ababa is either unaware of such a thing as
international law, in place to regulate water relations among countries sharing
the same watercourse, or has no respect for it to begin with. Its absurd
position regarding the Renaissance Dam encourages lawless handling of water
relations beyond the rules of justice.
Several Ethiopian officials, including the country’s
ambassador to Cairo, said the construction of the dam is a sovereign affair and
of no other country’s business, arguing that Egypt built the Aswan High Dam
without consulting them. These statements do not differentiate between the
source country, Ethiopia — whose actions regarding Nile water affect downstream
countries — and the last downstream country on the river, Egypt, which is free
to do what it wishes with its share of water because it does not affect any
other state. Thus, Ethiopia does not have the right to take measures regarding
the Nile without consulting other Nile Basin states.
Ethiopia’s actions require Egypt to take immediate and
firm measures to address the Renaissance Dam through exercising international
law and former agreements on water from Ethiopian tributaries that reach the
Nile River, most prominently the Blue Nile. It also draws attention to
international laws governing global water relations among countries sharing the
same watercourse basin.
International law, from
theft to justice
Many phases and stormy exchanges characterised the
formulation of the founding principles of the international law regulating
joint watercourses between two or more states. They were primarily linked to
troubles, or real conflicts, over joint watercourses, although these disputes
only emerged after technology advances allowed the construction of huge water reservoirs,
dams and the transportation of water from natural basins to waterways in areas
of fertile agricultural land suffering the absence of water.
In the beginning, it appears that the regulation of water
relations among countries sharing international watercourses was more akin to
robbery, as will be evidenced later.
The 19th century, especially its second half, saw the
emergence of real disputes over water distribution triggered by attempts at
controlling major shared watercourses. Before that, control over permanent
major rivers was near impossible; only small seasonal rivers, some tributaries
or minor branches of major rivers were subjected to such control.
Prior to the arrival of technology allowing humans to
manage the storage and transportation of water from major permanent
watercourses, main trans-border rivers naturally flowed downstream from source
countries. Water usage was usually far below the river’s renewable annual
revenue of water which, for long periods in history, had allowed slow agricultural
expansion, usually without causing disputes over water distribution of shared
rivers.
However, the population explosion that accompanied the
industrial revolution — as a result of great leaps in healthcare which resulted
in a sharp drop in deaths and higher birth rates — escalated the demand for a
rapid agricultural expansion to meet growing needs for food and agricultural
raw materials used in industry. Thus was born the necessity to provide water
for the large-scale horizontal expansion of agriculture as well as its vertical
intensity. The need additionally arose to enhance the use of industrial
fertilisers and pesticides while balancing between soil and climate on the one
hand, and appropriate crops on the other. Meanwhile, rain-fed land also began
to be switched to irrigated farms, since the latter yields far higher
production than the former.
All of the above begs more water, creating the incentive
to build mega irrigation projects to reserve, store or transport water from
natural river basins to other regions. These projects are the cause of water
distribution disputes for trans-border watercourses, because shifts in
demographics and technology result in interference with the natural flow of the
river.
Perverse “absolute
sovereignty” — from the US and Turkey to Ethiopia
This “theory”, if it can even be called that, basically
states that any country has the right to exercise absolute sovereignty on the
segment of any international watercourse that flows through its territories.
Thus, if it is a source country then this “theory” gives it the absolute right
for complete control over its waters and none to downstream states.
Known as the Harmon Doctrine, the “theory” is named after
US Attorney General Judson Harmon who, in 1895, authored it to resolve the
US-Mexican dispute over the Rio Grande River, which begins in the San Juan
Mountains in southwest Colorado, with all its tributaries also beginning in the
US. It is 3,040-km long and ends in the Gulf of Mexico.
In response to rising demands for water by US farmers to
cultivate more land, water from the Rio Grande was diverted to the US states of
Colorado and New Mexico in the last decades of the 19th century.
Mexican farmers suffered as a consequence and their
agricultural land dried up after the Boulder Dam was built in New Mexico,
depriving them of water they had previously relied on for farming and drinking.
Mexico petitioned to the US, stating that diverting the river violated the
interests and rights of Mexicans. The US State Department asked Attorney
General Harmon to prepare a response. He wrote: “The fundamental principle of
international law is the absolute sovereignty of every state, as against all
others, within its own territory.” Harmon argued that control of the water
originating in any country is part of the state’s absolute sovereignty over
these territories, even if this control results in partial or complete
deprivation for the other countries where the water naturally flowed (reference
to Dr Ali Ibrahim, Laws of International Rivers and Watercourses in Light of
Recent Developments in the Final International Law Committee Project Draft, Dar
Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, Cairo, 1997).
The US relied in part on Harmon’s absolute sovereignty
theory in resolving its Rio Grande water dispute with Mexico at the turn of the
20th century by signing a treaty in May, 1906. Although the preamble states the
desire of the US and Mexico for fair and equitable distribution of the Rio
Grande, the treaty requires Mexico to waive all former or future demands on its
waters. The US asserts the principle of absolute territorial sovereignty, which
means it falls under no obligation towards the downstream state, Mexico.
Absolute sovereignty theory in favour of the source
country is based on power and the protection of its monopoly of river water.
This is a perverse foundation not unlike the laws of the jungle, far from a means
of safeguarding rights or justice in the context of international relations and
distribution of shared natural resources.
Since the 1906 treaty rested on unfair terms, Mexico
later demanded its amendment. In February 1944, a new treaty was signed on the
basis that the two countries have rights to Rio Grande waters. Nonetheless,
since the US pledged in the treaty to give Mexico an annual water quota at no
cost, it made it appear as though the US was granting Mexico the water rather
than recognising the latter’s rights to it.
Also in the 1940s, Turkey diverted the course of the
Queiq River — which begins there and irrigates the land in Syria’s Aleppo
region, whose inhabitants also relied on the river for drinking — damaging
large areas of Syrian farmland. In the 1980s, Turkey once again triggered a
similar crisis with Syria and Iraq over the waters of the Euphrates River,
based on Harmon’s doctrine, even if it did not officially admit to that. Turkey
unilaterally decided to obtain, at the source, what it determined to be its
water rights. It paid no consideration to Iraq and Syria’s historical claims to
the river for human, livestock and agricultural life. While the water going to
Iraq did indeed exceed the country’s needs, the problem was not that Turkey wanted
a share of the river water, but rather the unilateral action taken by Ankara.
The Ataturk Dam and chain of Anatolia dams constructed by
Turkey at the source and tributaries of the Euphrates are used to store and
transfer water to flat lands beyond the river basin for agriculture as well as
to generate electricity.
Although Turkey has a legitimate right to a quota of
Euphrates water, especially since it is wasted in the marshes at Shatt Al-Arab
and eventually washes up into the Arabian Gulf, negotiations and understandings
with Syria and Iraq to determine Turkey’s share should have preceded the move
so as to avoid harming the basic needs of the two other countries.
There are also examples of failed attempts to evoke
absolute sovereignty by some countries to resolve disputes over shared
international watercourses, such as the Ganges River between India and
Bangladesh which ended in a settlement based on joint use of the water.
Absolute sovereignty or Harmon Doctrine is
internationally unacceptable from a theoretical perspective, especially since
it is not based on fair principles that are intellectually, conscientiously or
morally acceptable. Yet, this does not prevent some countries from applying it.
While this perverse principle is unacceptable to the world,
Ethiopia’s stance is rooted in it when it behaves as though no other countries
existed along the river. And although it maintains it will not touch Egypt’s
and Sudan’s quotas, Ethiopia refuses to sign an agreement confirming this
commitment, which reduces it to mere publicity.
Absolute river rights: the
opposite extreme
The complete reverse of Harmon’s Doctrine is the theory
stating that all countries sharing a river basin possess the right to equal
water quotas without interference or pollution. In other words, river water
should follow historical flow patterns. Since this theory serves the interests
of downstream states, these countries naturally champion it during water
distribution negotiations with source countries.
This theory, however, is unjust to source and upstream
countries because it does not allow them to use river water for agricultural or
industrial purposes, which is both unreasonable and unacceptable. The only part
of this theory that should be adopted is that upstream countries should not
pollute the water.
Water sharing should be equitable and take into account
historical quotas that are actually utilised and upon which rely the lives of
people, livestock and agriculture. It should also consider the various needs of
each river basin country, which this unjust theory does not. There are,
however, some special cases where the river ends in an enclosed lake around
which a community is founded on fishing and shore farming. In this case, the
lives of the people, crops and livestock would be threatened by any reduction
in water flow, which in this case would require a special review of the share
of the downstream country. The absolute river rights theory, or absolute
regional integration, actually becomes an extreme in the face of another, namely
the “theory” of absolute sovereignty, or Harmon Doctrine, previously discussed.
Fair distribution of water
The theory of fair distribution of water, also known as
limited territorial sovereignty, is based on reconciling the water interests of
river basin countries in a fair manner, taking into consideration the needs and
historical shares of each state when deciding water quotas.
Part of this theory states that the river cannot be
diverted if this seriously violates the water rights of communities or countries
across or alongside which the river flows – meaning source and upstream
countries have no right to divert the watercourse because of the harm inflicted
on downstream states.
Meanwhile, any action by the latter does not affect the
former. Accordingly, this theory, advocated by prominent Swiss jurist George
Sauser-Hall, allows downstream states broader freedoms in river water and
course within the limitations of their water quotas. This more realistic,
humane and moral theory form the basis of modern international law on rivers
and shared international watercourses.
Egypt in an inevitable
showdown with Ethiopia
When considering irrigation projects, Egypt was always
focused on fair water distribution, taking into account the historical use,
rather than historical flow, of river water and its impact on the lives of
people, crops and livestock and resulting agricultural, industrial and service
projects.
Accordingly, when Egypt carried out joint water ventures
with other Nile basin countries it invariably upheld the principle of fair
distribution of revenue from these projects, although it often unilaterally
forked all or most of their costs.
For example, Egypt was entirely responsible for the cost
of the High Dam construction, although 60 percent of the saved water went to
Sudan. Also, and although it did not benefit from it at all, Egypt footed the
bill for the Owen Dam in Uganda because countries along Lake Victoria refused
to reserve water there for Egypt since any rise in lake water levels would harm
them.
Egypt had reservations about the Framework Convention on
Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses endorsed by the UN in 1997
because it allowed the amendment of existing agreements and the drafting of new
ones on the distribution of international watercourses.
Ethiopia, as a source country, has no right to
unilaterally and deliberately impact life in Egypt. On 15 May 1902, Great
Britain, which occupied Egypt at the time, signed an agreement with Ethiopia’s
King Menelik II who pledged Ethiopia would not build or allow the construction
of works on the Blue Nile, Sobat River or Lake Tana that would restrict water
flow to Egypt and Sudan without first reaching an agreement with the
governments of Britain and Egypt.
France, Italy and Britain also signed an agreement in
London on Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in which the fourth article states the three
countries agreed to work together to protect the interests of Great Britain and
Egypt in the Nile basin, especially guaranteeing that water from the Blue Nile
and its tributaries reach Egypt.
Time is racing along without an agreement being reached
with Ethiopia about the Renaissance Dam, safe practices, the size of its
reservoir and its filling time. Taking advantage of the political situation in
Egypt, Ethiopia is wasting time in endlessly evasive negotiations. Egypt has no
option but immediately take the necessary steps to stop construction on the dam
until an agreement is reached between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. It is critical
for Egypt to prepare a thorough portfolio about the dam, including all former
agreements with Ethiopia, and Egypt’s actual use of every drop of its Nile
water quota on which the lives of people, crops and livestock entirely rely.
Cairo should present its case to all relevant regional
and international agencies, or others who could galvanise a global or regional
position on the matter. Egypt must also address the countries and companies
participating in the construction of the dam, to convince them to stop work
until an agreement is reached among Blue Nile countries.
All conscious measures must be instantly taken to compel
Ethiopia to respect Egypt’s rights. The legitimate defence of Egypt’s life and
its citizenry’s rises above any other. Sources: Al-Ahram
Egypt challenges Ethiopia’s ‘logic’ the dam is ‘Sovereign Affair’
96
Google +0
Djibouti (HAN) April 21, 2014 – Editorial Note from the Editor of Geeska Afrika Online
– Interim President Adly Mansour said that the security of the Middle
East and North Africa zone are one of Egypt’s national security
priorities, and that Egypt was fighting the war on terror on behalf of
the Middle East regions interests.
Answering a question about the Grand Renaissance Ethiopian Dam,
currently under construction on the Blue Nile in Ethiopia, Mansour said
the project was a “great challenge.”
The Egyptian and Ethiopian leaders have met last year in Kuwait for
the first time to discuss tensions over Ethiopia’s construction of a
huge hydropower dam on the river Nile but the meeting ended without any agreement, sources said. “The
problem of the Renaissance Dam is that some countries want to have big
projects without consultation. This is a dangerous matter as they
neglect the interest of other countries like Egypt,” he said. Egyptian interim president Adly Mansour has promised the to the Egyptian People that he will “spare no effort” in his attempts to secure their Great Assets -Nile water.
Official Opinion By, Ahmed Sayed El-Naggar chairman of state-owned media organisation Al-Ahram : Ethiopia’s
‘logic’ behind the construction of the Renaissance Dam is shocking,
perhaps even more so than the issue of the dam itself.
Addis Ababa is either unaware of such a thing as international law,
in place to regulate water relations among countries sharing the same
watercourse, or has no respect for it to begin with. Its absurd position
regarding the Renaissance Dam encourages lawless handling of water
relations beyond the rules of justice.
Several Ethiopian officials, including the country’s ambassador to
Cairo, said the construction of the dam is a sovereign affair and of no
other country’s business, arguing that Egypt built the Aswan High Dam
without consulting them. These statements do not differentiate between
the source country, Ethiopia — whose actions regarding Nile water affect
downstream countries — and the last downstream country on the river,
Egypt, which is free to do what it wishes with its share of water
because it does not affect any other state. Thus, Ethiopia does not have
the right to take measures regarding the Nile without consulting other
Nile Basin states.
Ethiopia’s actions require Egypt to take immediate and firm measures
to address the Renaissance Dam through exercising international law and
former agreements on water from Ethiopian tributaries that reach the Nile River,
most prominently the Blue Nile. It also draws attention to
international laws governing global water relations among countries
sharing the same watercourse basin.
International law, from theft to justice
Many phases and stormy exchanges characterised the formulation of the
founding principles of the international law regulating joint
watercourses between two or more states. They were primarily linked to
troubles, or real conflicts, over joint watercourses, although these
disputes only emerged after technology advances
allowed the construction of huge water reservoirs, dams and the
transportation of water from natural basins to waterways in areas of
fertile agricultural land suffering the absence of water.
In the beginning, it appears that the regulation of water relations
among countries sharing international watercourses was more akin to
robbery, as will be evidenced later.
The 19th century, especially its second half, saw the emergence of real
disputes over water distribution triggered by attempts at controlling
major shared watercourses. Before that, control over permanent major
rivers was near impossible; only small seasonal rivers, some tributaries
or minor branches of major rivers were subjected to such control.
Prior to the arrival of technology allowing humans to manage the
storage and transportation of water from major permanent watercourses,
main trans-border rivers naturally flowed downstream from source
countries. Water usage was usually far below the river’s renewable
annual revenue of water which, for long periods in history, had allowed
slow agricultural expansion, usually without causing disputes over water
distribution of shared rivers.
However, the population explosion that accompanied the industrial
revolution — as a result of great leaps in healthcare which resulted in a
sharp drop in deaths and higher birth rates — escalated the demand for a
rapid agricultural expansion to meet growing needs for food and
agricultural raw materials used in industry. Thus was born the necessity
to provide water for the large-scale horizontal expansion of
agriculture as well as its vertical intensity. The need additionally
arose to enhance the use of industrial fertilisers and pesticides while
balancing between soil and climate on the one hand, and appropriate
crops on the other. Meanwhile, rain-fed land also began to be switched
to irrigated farms, since the latter yields far higher production than
the former.
All of the above begs more water, creating the incentive to build
mega irrigation projects to reserve, store or transport water from
natural river basins to other regions. These projects are the cause of
water distribution disputes for trans-border watercourses, because
shifts in demographics and technology result in interference with the
natural flow of the river.
Perverse “absolute sovereignty” — from the US and Turkey to Ethiopia
This “theory”, if it can even be called that, basically states that
any country has the right to exercise absolute sovereignty on the
segment of any international watercourse that flows through its
territories. Thus, if it is a source country then this “theory” gives it
the absolute right for complete control over its waters and none to
downstream states.
Known as the Harmon Doctrine, the “theory” is named after US Attorney
General Judson Harmon who, in 1895, authored it to resolve the
US-Mexican dispute over the Rio Grande River, which begins in the San
Juan Mountains in southwest Colorado, with all its tributaries also
beginning in the US. It is 3,040-km long and ends in the Gulf of Mexico.
In response to rising demands for water by US farmers to cultivate
more land, water from the Rio Grande was diverted to the US states of
Colorado and New Mexico in the last decades of the 19th century.
Mexican farmers suffered as a consequence and their agricultural land
dried up after the Boulder Dam was built in New Mexico, depriving them
of water they had previously relied on for farming and drinking. Mexico
petitioned to the US, stating that diverting the river violated the
interests and rights of Mexicans. The US State Department asked Attorney
General Harmon to prepare a response. He wrote: “The fundamental
principle of international law is the absolute sovereignty of every
state, as against all others, within its own territory.” Harmon argued
that control of the water originating in any country is part of the
state’s absolute sovereignty over these territories, even if this
control results in partial or complete deprivation for the other
countries where the water naturally flowed (reference to Dr Ali
Ibrahim, Laws of International Rivers and Watercourses in Light of
Recent Developments in the Final International Law Committee Project
Draft, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, Cairo, 1997).
The US relied in part on Harmon’s absolute sovereignty theory in
resolving its Rio Grande water dispute with Mexico at the turn of the
20th century by signing a treaty in May, 1906. Although the preamble
states the desire of the US and Mexico for fair and equitable
distribution of the Rio Grande, the treaty requires Mexico to waive all
former or future demands on its waters. The US asserts the principle of
absolute territorial sovereignty, which means it falls under no
obligation towards the downstream state, Mexico.
Absolute sovereignty theory in favour of the source country is based
on power and the protection of its monopoly of river water. This is a
perverse foundation not unlike the laws of the jungle, far from a means
of safeguarding rights or justice in the context of international
relations and distribution of shared natural resources.
Since the 1906 treaty rested on unfair terms, Mexico later demanded
its amendment. In February 1944, a new treaty was signed on the basis
that the two countries have rights to Rio Grande waters. Nonetheless,
since the US pledged in the treaty to give Mexico an annual water quota
at no cost, it made it appear as though the US was granting Mexico the
water rather than recognising the latter’s rights to it.
Also in the 1940s, Turkey diverted the course of the Queiq River —
which begins there and irrigates the land in Syria’s Aleppo region,
whose inhabitants also relied on the river for drinking — damaging large
areas of Syrian farmland. In the 1980s, Turkey once again triggered a
similar crisis with Syria and Iraq over the waters of the Euphrates
River, based on Harmon’s doctrine, even if it did not officially admit
to that. Turkey unilaterally decided to obtain, at the source, what it
determined to be its water rights. It paid no consideration to Iraq and
Syria’s historical claims to the river for human, livestock and
agricultural life. While the water going to Iraq did indeed exceed the
country’s needs, the problem was not that Turkey wanted a share of the
river water, but rather the unilateral action taken by Ankara.
The Ataturk Dam and chain of Anatolia dams constructed by Turkey at
the source and tributaries of the Euphrates are used to store and
transfer water to flat lands beyond the river basin for agriculture as
well as to generate electricity.
Although Turkey has a legitimate right to a quota of Euphrates water,
especially since it is wasted in the marshes at Shatt Al-Arab and
eventually washes up into the Arabian Gulf, negotiations and
understandings with Syria and Iraq to determine Turkey’s share should
have preceded the move so as to avoid harming the basic needs of the two
other countries.
There are also examples of failed attempts to evoke absolute
sovereignty by some countries to resolve disputes over shared
international watercourses, such as the Ganges River between India and
Bangladesh which ended in a settlement based on joint use of the water.
Absolute sovereignty or Harmon Doctrine is internationally
unacceptable from a theoretical perspective, especially since it is not
based on fair principles that are intellectually, conscientiously or
morally acceptable. Yet, this does not prevent some countries from
applying it.
While this perverse principle is unacceptable to the world,
Ethiopia’s stance is rooted in it when it behaves as though no other
countries existed along the river. And although it maintains it will not
touch Egypt’s and Sudan’s quotas, Ethiopia refuses to sign an agreement
confirming this commitment, which reduces it to mere publicity.
Absolute river rights: the opposite extreme
The complete reverse of Harmon’s Doctrine is the theory stating that
all countries sharing a river basin possess the right to equal water
quotas without interference or pollution. In other words, river water
should follow historical flow patterns. Since this theory serves the
interests of downstream states, these countries naturally champion it
during water distribution negotiations with source countries.
This theory, however, is unjust to source and upstream countries
because it does not allow them to use river water for agricultural or
industrial purposes, which is both unreasonable and unacceptable. The
only part of this theory that should be adopted is that upstream
countries should not pollute the water.
Water sharing should be equitable and take into account historical
quotas that are actually utilised and upon which rely the lives of
people, livestock and agriculture. It should also consider the various
needs of each river basin country, which this unjust theory does not.
There are, however, some special cases where the river ends in an
enclosed lake around which a community is founded on fishing and shore
farming. In this case, the lives of the people, crops and livestock
would be threatened by any reduction in water flow, which in this case
would require a special review of the share of the downstream country.
The absolute river rights theory, or absolute regional integration,
actually becomes an extreme in the face of another, namely the “theory”
of absolute sovereignty, or Harmon Doctrine, previously discussed.
Fair distribution of water
The theory of fair distribution of water, also known as limited
territorial sovereignty, is based on reconciling the water interests of
river basin countries in a fair manner, taking into consideration the
needs and historical shares of each state when deciding water quotas.
Part of this theory states that the river cannot be diverted if this
seriously violates the water rights of communities or countries across
or alongside which the river flows – meaning source and upstream
countries have no right to divert the watercourse because of the harm
inflicted on downstream states.
Meanwhile, any action by the latter does not affect the former.
Accordingly, this theory, advocated by prominent Swiss jurist George
Sauser-Hall, allows downstream states broader freedoms in river water
and course within the limitations of their water quotas. This more
realistic, humane and moral theory form the basis of modern
international law on rivers and shared international watercourses.
Egypt in an inevitable showdown with Ethiopia
When considering irrigation projects, Egypt was always focused on
fair water distribution, taking into account the historical use, rather
than historical flow, of river water and its impact on the lives of
people, crops and livestock and resulting agricultural, industrial and
service projects.
Accordingly, when Egypt carried out joint water ventures with other
Nile basin countries it invariably upheld the principle of fair
distribution of revenue from these projects, although it often
unilaterally forked all or most of their costs.
For example, Egypt was entirely responsible for the cost of the High
Dam construction, although 60 percent of the saved water went to Sudan.
Also, and although it did not benefit from it at all, Egypt footed the
bill for the Owen Dam in Uganda because countries along Lake Victoria
refused to reserve water there for Egypt since any rise in lake water
levels would harm them.
Egypt had reservations about the Framework Convention on
Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses endorsed by the UN
in 1997 because it allowed the amendment of existing agreements and the
drafting of new ones on the distribution of international watercourses.
Ethiopia, as a source country, has no right to unilaterally and
deliberately impact life in Egypt. On 15 May 1902, Great Britain, which
occupied Egypt at the time, signed an agreement with Ethiopia’s King
Menelik II who pledged Ethiopia would not build or allow the
construction of works on the Blue Nile, Sobat River or Lake Tana that
would restrict water flow to Egypt and Sudan without first reaching an
agreement with the governments of Britain and Egypt.
France, Italy and Britain also signed an agreement in London on
Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in which the fourth article states the three
countries agreed to work together to protect the interests of Great
Britain and Egypt in the Nile basin, especially guaranteeing that water
from the Blue Nile and its tributaries reach Egypt.
Time is racing along without an agreement being reached with Ethiopia
about the Renaissance Dam, safe practices, the size of its reservoir
and its filling time. Taking advantage of the political situation in
Egypt, Ethiopia is wasting time in endlessly evasive negotiations. Egypt
has no option but immediately take the necessary steps to stop
construction on the dam until an agreement is reached between Egypt,
Sudan and Ethiopia. It is critical for Egypt to prepare a thorough
portfolio about the dam, including all former agreements with Ethiopia,
and Egypt’s actual use of every drop of its Nile water quota on which
the lives of people, crops and livestock entirely rely.
Cairo should present its case to all relevant regional and
international agencies, or others who could galvanise a global or
regional position on the matter. Egypt must also address the countries
and companies participating in the construction of the dam, to convince
them to stop work until an agreement is reached among Blue Nile
countries.
All conscious measures must be instantly taken to compel Ethiopia to
respect Egypt’s rights. The legitimate defence of Egypt’s life and its
citizenry’s rises above any other. Sources: Al-Ahram
- See more at: http://geeskaafrika.com/egypt-challenges-ethiopias-logic-dam-sovereign-affair/2555/#sthash.AC3QQhxc.dpuf
