Egypt’s Unease about the GERD and the Possible Solutions

By Awash Lemma

The GERD has become a symbol of national pride, unity, and renaissance for Ethiopians. It embodies an expression of hope, determination, self-confidence, and sacrifice. On the other hand it drew a fervent opposition from Egypt mainly expressed in forms of gross disparagement, threats, and confusing messages. Ethiopians are increasingly expressing their puzzlement and anger at Egyptian officials’ behaviour. In this essay I discuss the concerns & strategy of the Egyptian government; how Egypt can overcome these, and the likely key issues the two sides would bring up to achieve a negotiated solution.

1. Egypt’s Concerns

The Nile Issue as a Trump Card

A writer recently claimed that the issue of the Nile is the main reason why Mr Morsi lost his power. I beg to differ. The Nile issue was not the main issue in the minds of Egyptians when they ousted President Morsi. They were mainly against his usurping their revolution, the rapid Islamisation of his administration, alienation of the secular revolutionaries, the haste in which he travelled in changing laws to keep his Moslem Brotherhood in power. He seemed to have learnt a lesson or two from the Iranians on how to build an Islamic / theocratic political system. The Egyptian people, bewildered by his actions moved to depose him. When he realised power is slipping away from him he tried to use the Nile issue as a trump card – remember the infamous meeting he chaired and televised live on TV. Remember his repeated rhetoric of ‘not a drop of Nile water..’, ‘all options are open..’, etc. etc. Desperate moves for desperate times. If, as some claim, the Nile issue was at the top of Egyptian people’s concerns at the time and if Egyptian people’s views were reflected by Mr Morsi’s hard-line position, then it is easy to conclude that Mr Morsi would have still been the president today.

The Drivers for Egyptian Officials’ Hysteria

What are the factors that shaped Egyptian officials’ minds to such hysteric reactions to the GERD? I came across with the following:
Internal / regional politics: It can be argued that one of the key reasons for the behaviour of Egyptian officials on the GERD is to divert the attention of the population from the economic, social, and political problems that are raging in the country currently. Plus, creating an imagined enemy that is determined to ‘destroy Egypt’s survival’ appeals well not only to Egyptians but also to some in the Arab Middle East; and garners support and assures flow of huge amount of money to Cairo.

Vanity – Fuelling the dispute is the dubious thinking often expressed as Egypt’s ‘natural’ and ‘historical’ rights, ‘national security’, ‘Arab ownership of the Nile’, etc. which lies deep in the psyche of Egyptians with regard to the Nile. Further, if such a mega dam was to be built at all, they seem to think, then that is the prerogatives of Egypt - not a poor country like Ethiopia which is technically and financially incapable.

Loss of territory - We know that some animals piss around natural land marks to demarcate the boundary for their territory. They feel dominant, and overlord on all animals in that defined territory. They aggressively fight off any intruder. Similarly, it seems that long ago Egypt had done something similar at two landmarks,
Lake Tana and Lake Victoria, to demarcate the southern boundary of its territory of influence. Hasn’t Egypt forbade any water development projects in the riparian countries that it does not approve of? Didn’t they claim they have a ‘veto’ on such developments? Didn’t they warn that any country planning a project on the Nile requires permission from Egypt? In effect Egypt has awarded itself the power of controlling the territories of other Nile countries. Therefore, the GERD implies loss of territory for Egypt. Call it virtual territory loss, if you wish. Even though the GERD is built in Western Ethiopia, much farther away from Egyptian real border it transgresses the sovereignty of the virtual territory they considered their own for millennia.

Population growth: Very fast growth of Egyptian population is a big concern for the government, and rightly so. However, it is surprising to observe why such a country as Egypt which has a uniquely limited natural resources, particularly habitable and arable land, and water to support a large population has allowed such a high rate of growth in the first place. Egypt can learn a lot from countries, such as China and India that have effectively controlled population growth through various strategies including family planning.

Rivalry - Militarily the most powerful country of the continent, leader of the Arab world, one of the anchors of stability in the Middle East, Egypt cherishes its International and regional positions. A recent rise of Ethiopia as a regional power coupled with the internal political upheaval it faced seems to shake the established position of Egypt. Ethiopia - arising, confident, and aspirant, is drawing a lot of global attention and this seems to rattle Egyptian elite class.

Fear - For some reason Egyptians appear to ignore the fact that water contained in a dam for power generation eventually flows only downwards. As an Ethiopian commentator rightly indicated recently, Ethiopia neither can nor has the intention of forcing the Nile to flow upwards. A grain of racism probably; it seems for Egyptians that Black Africans proposing on matters of the Nile is inconceivable. It must be stopped at any cost. If it dealt with Ethiopia through blackmail, threats, propaganda, or even direct attack it would be a lesson for other riparian countries. They fear that while Ethiopia’s dam is purely for energy generation dams in the upper riparian countries could be worse for Egypt – they could be multi-purpose including irrigation.

2.. To Bomb or not to Bomb – Is That the Question?

The Revolution and the Generals

I do not think Egypt has even convinced itself that it should go to war on the issue. It knows that all its objections and tantrums are built on empty rhetoric, and have no substance. If Egypt were blessed with a democratic and civilian government I would rule out any notion of military conflict. Just recall the period during the height of Egypt’s revolution some two years ago. Citizens initiated people to people dialogue and there were visits and discussions between Ethiopians and Egyptians. Egyptians were as surprised as Ethiopians; it was all about friendship, cooperation, and win-win solutions. It was proof to Ethiopians that Egypt is full of people of goodwill, looking and working as they do for dialogue and lasting friendship. The sincerity and honesty these encounters demonstrated seemed at odds with Egyptian government officials’ daily rhetoric. Unfortunately, that initiative was short lived; the Egyptian elite went back to their old bad ways. Now the revolution seems defeated and Egypt has fallen back into the arms of its generals. It is a sad thing for Egyptians and for the region.

The Role of the International Community

One Mr Hussein (I think) writing for Aljazeera recently tried to analyse the various options Egypt has to confront the Ethiopian project. As one of the options he said Egypt could bomb the dam. But then he claims Egypt may not take this action because it would fear repercussions from the International Community. I couldn’t but laugh at such analysis. Fear of repercussions? If it is an existential, national security issue, as Egyptian officials tirelessly propagate, would fear of repercussions from the International Community stop them? By the way, Egypt wouldn’t be alone in ignoring the International Community. Look at Israel; Iran, no,

look at Eritrea; they go on doing what they think is right for them despite various resolutions and sanctions from the International Community. Further, what makes him believe Egyptians are, in fact capable of successfully launching such an attack? Why did Mr Hussein think Ethiopia would be sitting idle while her dam is bombed?

If such a conflict takes place what position powers behind the ‘International Community’ would take is difficult to predict. Speaking of the International Community that probably matters most is the US. As far as the US is concerned the main concern it has in the region are three - Israel, oil, and terrorism. The position it would take is likely to be weighed against these interests rather than justice or other moral imperatives. It can be assumed that both Ethiopia and Egypt are allies and friends of the US, and in time of conflict between the two the US might be in a difficult position. But let’s not forget that all friends are not equal and the US my tilt to the one which is more important to its ‘national interest’.

As to Russia its international stand and role are often confusing. The recent Egyptian purchase of huge amount of armaments from Russia is puzzling. Why did Egypt go to Russia rather than stick to the American supply? Is it because Egypt wants to counter the US’s displeasure and a half-hearted criticism of the coup against a democratically elected president? Or, is it that the US knows about the objective of this purchase and disagreed? Haven’t the Russians asked questions and set conditions when they sell these armaments?

In any case, while the International Community matters a lot in maintaining world peace it has not been always successful. Ethiopia cannot depend on the protection of the International Community only, as her recent history testifies that the International Community has failed it whenever it appealed for support (the Italian invasion and the recent Eritrean invasion are cases in point). As always the only assured defence for Ethiopia is its patriotic army and people.

What Would President Al-Sisi Do?

Despite all his failings and hostility towards Ethiopia, I feel Sadat had shown some courage and wisdom in bringing to an end the perpetual hostility Egypt and Israel had, and negotiating a peaceful settlement. This resulted in a lot of condemnation from some political circles and eventually his loss of life. But his action brought peace to his country and the region at large.

Egyptian generals turned presidents often appear stern, detached, and grand -avatars of pharaohs past. One feels they are nearer to the moon than to us humans living on Earth. Will President al-Sisi (I predict he will be President winning more than 85% of the votes) be any different? Would he be a modern leader with new ideas, and new ways? Would he follow Sadat’s courageous change of heart and embrace negotiation and compromise for solving regional problems? Or, would he continue with the old bad ways? Hopefully, he may see the futility of hostility of the past, and take steps to build peace, friendship, and cooperation with Ethiopia and other riparian countries. Let’s wait and see.

3. The Way Forward

From Confrontation to Cooperation

In my view, the way forward for a win-win outcome for all can be outlined as follows. Generally speaking, Egypt should make a 180 degrees turnabout - a total overhaul of its policy, strategy, and total thinking on the Nile, from confrontation to cooperation.

3.1 Forget the past (‘historical rights’, ‘colonial treaties’, etc.) and look to the future through the Nile Basin Initiative. Work on a win-win solution to any problem along with riparian countries within the framework. Egypt doesn’t seem to realise that its demand for intervention in the affairs of the GERD would apply the other way round as well; that is, all other riparian countries’ governments would have the same desire. That is, to intervene in the affairs of all water projects and dams, existing and future, including those in Egypt. It is unlikely that any of the riparian countries will agree with one rule for Egypt and another for the rest of them. In effect, therefore, this means that there is no option other than to work together under the Nile Basin Initiative.

3.2 An apology is due – It would be a sign of goodwill and a beginning of a new chapter in relations if the Egyptian government would apologise to the Ethiopian people and government for its past and present hostile stances and policies. It should take the open arm invitation of Ethiopia for cooperation and friendship on the Nile and beyond. They will find that Ethiopians may not be forgetting but are forgiving.

3.3 Embrace Africa - Egypt should not get stuck just at looking towards the North (Europe) and the Middle East only, should also genuinely turn its face to the south (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa). Africa is getting the attention of the world; there is a new scramble for Africa. Africa is where the opportunity is, it is the future (if in doubt ask the Chinese, Indians, Americans, Europeans, etc.). Egypt should abandon its long held prejudices and arrogance and build the bridge of friendship and cooperation for its own good.

3.4. Further, Egypt can take various measures to improve its water management in the short term and long term as follows:

a) Economise and preserve - Use the Nile waters along its banks only

b) Overhaul its irrigation techniques and systems and adapt modern ones. Egypt is fortunate to have powerful and rich friends. For example, it can easily get most advanced water management technology from its neighbour, Israel. Israel is reputed for highly advanced, probably the most advanced, water technology. Finance is no issue; as the Gulf States pour money into Egypt without asking any questions, including for purchase of war toys. There is the US who could convert the billions of assistance per annum in armaments to water and environmental management technologies.

c) Scrap the grand designs to divert Nile waters to the Egyptian desert at large, much further from the banks, and also to Sinai Peninsula and beyond.

d) Review its agricultural policy and focus on growing food crops only and give up water wasting cash crops.

e) Negotiate with South Sudan and the Sudan, through the Nile Basin Initiative, to harvest water from the wetlands and boost the flow of the White Nile. I think this is an existing project which is on hold partly due to the lack of peace in the area. Egypt’s hostility and sabotage of South Sudan’s aspiration for independence had a role. Now that South Sudan has achieved its independence, I think it can be persuaded to activate the project as a mutually beneficial undertaking.

f) Desalination: Reports abound that inform us that the cost and process of desalination is improving tremendously with modern technology and is becoming an important source of fresh water. Again talk to friends such as Israel, the US, and Gulf States which are very ready to help. For example, recently, it is reported that the financial pledges from Gulf States to Egypt amounted to $16 billion.

g) Dig. A recent report claims that Egypt is virtually ‘floating on water’. It is very rich in underground water, in fact much richer than Ethiopia, and is ranked second in Africa. So, dig Egypt, dig.

h) Dig more. A recent Economist article informs us that the Earth’s crust is endowed with abundant amount of water. It requires only digging deeper, according to the article. So Egypt, dig even more!

The Billion Dollar Question

Mind you, all the above are in addition to the regular flow of the Nile as usual whose flow will not be significantly affected by the GERD. So, the billion dollar question is while there are so many plausible possibilities for water development why is Egypt opting for hostility and confrontation on issues of the Nile? Ethiopia and Egypt may not be in the same ‘poverty league’, but I assume Egypt has as many social and economic problems to tackle as Ethiopia. A recent article in the Economist indicates that more than 25% of its population (that is more than 20 million Egyptians) live in poverty. As Ethiopia does, Egypt can aim fighting poverty as a priority.

Therefore overcoming Egypt’s concerns is really a matter of giving up their strong and long held prejudices and fears, grasping reality, and working in a spirit of friendship and cooperation for a win-win solution.

4. The Inevitable Negotiations

The above possible solutions are compiled by me, an individual who has no experience or expertise in water management or ‘water politics’. My views are only a common sense reflection from casual reading of current writings on the issues. On the other hand it is clear that Egyptians, endowed with tens of thousands of scientists, water experts, engineers, hydrologists, technologists, etc., and I hope equally informed politicians too, should know much much more and better than the likes of me.

Then, why are solutions along the above lines not forthcoming? What is keeping the Egyptians just to enmity, confrontation, rhetoric, threats, blackmailing, etc. on issues of the Nile for so long?

Many reports posted on related webcites indicate that the idea of building a dam on the Blue Nile is not new. It has been considered several times in the past involving Ethiopian, British, and American governments and companies from the latter two countries. Among the proposals was that Egypt / Sudan bear most of the cost of such a dam, and also should pay annual water fees to Ethiopia. Now it seems Egypt is getting the benefits of such a dam without paying any of the cost or any water fees. I think Egyptian unease about the GERD comes from this – that is; getting all the benefit of the dam free is too good to be true!

The strategy, therefore, is to continue to threaten, confuse, undermine, destabilise, pressurise; isolate, defame, encircle; campaign against Ethiopia and the dam at any and every forum. This is intended to shape world opinion and build the grounds in Egypt’s favour for the inevitable negotiations to come. Eventually, when there is some kind of mediation and subsequent negotiations Egypt will use all these as bargaining chips. It will claim it has made a lot of difficult concessions while it has made none; other than giving up the threats and rhetoric - ‘historical rights’, ‘a drop of water’, etc. From Egypt’s point of view, key issues to be tabled are likely to include - a limitation on the size of the dam, stretching the filling time of the dam, joint management, joint ownership, etc. or combinations of any of these. Egypt will try to get Ethiopia into a binding commitment that Egypt should get all the benefits from the dam free. This and future Ethiopian governments should not ask any payment from Egypt what so ever. However, current indications are that Ethiopia is unlikely to compromise on most of these issues.

On the Ethiopian part there are issues it would bring to the table. Among other things the negotiations and any agreement should come under the Nile Basin Initiative Framework. Further, on specific issues of the GERD she should insist on a trilateral rather than a bilateral agreement. The Sudan should be part of any agreements to be reached. A mechanism of managing the natural environment, particularly reforestation of the Ethiopian highlands should be agreed with a possibility of annual financial contributions from Egypt and the Sudan for this purpose. Egypt should present to the negotiation forum its short term and long term strategy and commitment for water preservation and management along the issues outlined in 3.4 above. The negotiations are likely to be mediated by the
Americans and possibly the Europeans, and Ethiopia should use the forum to demand from these powers to bringing to an end the deliberate starvation of World
Bank and IMF funds to various Ethiopian projects.

Sudan: Geopolitics On Nile Water - Its Implications On S. Sudan Conflict

By Deng Mading Gatwech, 5 May 2014

opinion


In Africa, access to water is one of the most critical aspects of human survival. Today, about one third of the total population lack access to water, constituting 300 million people and about 313 million people lack proper sanitation (World Water Council 2006). As result, many riparian countries surrounding the Nile river basin have expressed direct stake in the water resources hitherto seldom expressed in the past.

Historical perspective dubbed ancient Egypt to have natural rights on the Nile River, and principles of its acquired rights have been a focal point of negotiations with upstream states. Egyptian civilization has sustained itself utilizing water management on agriculture for some 5,000 years in the Nile River valley and virtually depends on agricultural-led economy. The fact that this rights exists means that any perceived reduction of the Nile waters supply to Egypt is tampering with its national security and thus could trigger potential conflict. Sudan also has hydraulic potential and has created four dams in the last century. This has resulted in the development so far of 18,000 km² of irrigated land, making Sudan the second most extensive user of the Nile, after Egypt, but South Sudan benefited nothing of the Nile water though the water passes through its corridor. Ethiopia's tributaries supply about 86 percent of the waters of the Nile for Egypt's sustainable economic development whilst receives nothing out of its own waters but savagery from the downstream mainly Egypt.

Arguably, the lack of common understanding over the use of the Nile basin with respect to whether or not "sharing water" or "benefit" has a tendency to escalate the situation into regional conflict involving emerging dominant states such as the tension between Ethiopia-Egypt over the Nile river basin imminent. The article further contributes to the C-H conflict model in order to analyze the regional challenges, and Egypt's position as the hegemonic power in the horn of Africa contested by Ethiopia. C-H model is used to predict the probable occurrence of conflicts as a result of empirical economic variables in African states given the sporadic civil strife in many parts of Africa. In order to make sense of the analysis, I focused on Ethiopia and Egypt to explicate the extent of water crisis in the South Sudan conflict, which is part of East Africa.

This article examines the water scarcity in the North, Horn and Eastern Africa with an attempt to focus on Egypt, Ethiopia and South Sudan through the C-H model of theory of civil wars in order to construct the model on water scarcity with an attempt to reconcile the tensions over water resources and its effects on the people of the South Sudan and Eastern African people.

There have been several applications and interpretations of the earlier conflict theorists propounded by earlier scholars such as Karl Marx, Lenin, and Weber. Collier-Hoeffler, also known as the C-H model is one of such interpretation of recent times. The analysis on conflict is based on the framework of many variables such as tribes, identities, economics, religion and social status in Africa. Subjecting the data to a rigorous econometric regression analysis of the many variables identified in Africa concluded that based on the data set that economic factor rather than ethnic, or religious, identities are the base of conflicts in Africa. In complementing this model with the earlier conflict theory propounded by Karl Marx recognized the significance of the social and interactions within a given society. These interactions according Karl Max are characterized by conflicts. Hence, the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie of the capitalist system forms a synthesis of the forces of the interaction within the system.

Marx, again reiterated the fact that these social and human interactions is dialectical in the sense that when a dominant nation seeks to control dependent nations or peripheral countries what yields in consequence is the tension to rebel against the oppressor by dependent states in order to agitate for equitable and fair share of national resources. This point is consistent with the C-H model when they argued with empirical data on the causes of conflicts in Africa, and concluded that economic factors are the significant predictor of conflict in many parts of the African continent. Therefore, according to C-H, economic reasons contributed to a large extent the greater portion of conflicts in Africa constituting the physical involvement of Egypt into current South Sudan conflict. While these economic reasons are varied and numerous due to the resources available in a given region and the allocation of resource whether naturally endowed or man-made, any form of competition to control these resources or allocation of resources will naturally generate two outcomes: tension and potential conflict, and cooperation. In this case, Egypt's sole access to the Nile for centuries now has invariably gratified itself as the sole control of the Nile water resources without considering the real damage imposed on the upstream countries.

The manifestation of the greed of Egypt on the Nile water reflected on the army involvement in the South Sudan current conflict and the agitation of other negative forces opposing to the EPRDF rule. There is now military coordination between Cairo and Juba to fight the rebel as the proxy war against Ethiopia to back down from constructing the Grand Renaissance Dam. The imminent concern of Egypt over the political tension and instability in South Sudan stems from its interests in the Nile waters. For Cairo, South Sudan is the most important strategic Nile basin country because of the possibility of implementing projects to increase Egypt's share of the river's water by harnessing water currently lost on South Sudanese territory to swamps but channel through Jonglei canal direct to Egypt, a project that was halted in 1984 after the inception of the SPA/M. Egypt's current shaky relations with the Sudan and Ethiopia are also a key factor in the desire to expand ties with Khartoum's South Sudan rival.

In 2002, a senior Kenyan minister Raila Odinga, called for the review and renegotiation of the 1929 treaty, which gave Egypt the right to veto construction projects on the Nile river basin, and said "it was signed on behalf of governments which were not in existence at that time." In actual fact, the accords are signed in the absence of the upstream countries including among other, Ethiopia, South Sudan just emerged, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi, which Egypt put on the radar in case there are capital projects impeding the flow of the waters down Egypt. This implies threat to Egypt's national security and basic livelihoods.

Cascao, argued that the asymmetrical flow of water resources in the Nile river basin and the access to physical flow of the blue Nile by Egypt and Sudan in the downstream has extremely heighten hydro-political tension over the Nile. These tensions have attracted the United Nations organizations interventions and other international organization on matters concerning the distribution and allocation of water resources in the Nile river basin and in which compensation are offered to other riparian countries unequal access to the distribution of water resources, especially those on the upstream who only benefit rainfall.

As already mentioned and by extension Herodotus comments on Egypt as "the gift of the Nile," has been extrapolated by Egypt in order to exercise hydro-political power in the Nile river basin for several decades. This status Egypt has enjoyed for some time now without allowing any riparian countries along the Nile to negotiate any form of control on water resources and development projects such as hydroelectric power by neighboring countries. The asymmetrical flow of water resources in the Nile has also afforded Egypt a position of dominance compared to other riparian countries situated upstream on the Nile.

With emerging hydro-political powers in the region, Ethiopia and Egypt could dominate other countries and for that matter wage physical wars in order to control water resources. The recent demonstration in Ethiopia by Oromo students through the long hand of Egypt is the clear violation of the sovereignty of Ethiopia. On the basis of the above discussions, it can be safely concluded that the nature of tension in North Eastern Africa most, especially the Nile riparian countries are on a brink of conflict over the control and use of Nile water resources. As already pointed out, and by extension Collier-Hoeffler's economic analysis of conflicts in Africa did not cite the potential trigger of conflict as a result of the Nile, what is significant about his model is the paradigmatic nature upon which his theory of analysis are based. And since water is a vital part of the economic resources of Africa, this article concludes that the water resources just as any other economic resource has a full potential of tension and conflict over the Nile river basin by riparian states.

Sharing such a vital and potentially scarce resource as water is seldom easy. In the case of the Nile, water management has always been a delicate exercise. With a combined population of nearly 430 million spread over eleven countries (Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR. Congo), Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda), the Nile is one of Africa's most complex cross-border river basins. From the historical point of view Burton and Speke in February 1858, discovered Lake Tanganyika as the main source of the Nile but the expedition extended by Speke, who had by now recovered from ill, set off in command of a small party and in August 1858 came upon what he later described as 'a vast expanse' of 'the pale-blue waters' of the northern lake, which was named Lake Victoria and believed, correctly, that it was the source of the Nile. However, there were long delays before the same explorers reached Gondokoro (in Juba), 750 miles south of Khartoum, in February 1862, believed to be the source of the Nile. In the bid of the above analysis, one conclude that Egypt manipulated the upstream countries together with British denies these countries their rights of water utilization and these agreements between the two states signed without the consent of the countries in question. Therefore, fighting the war against Egypt is justifiable and direct compensation would be required from the British as stakes getting high.

However, Ethiopia's decision to continue with the construction of the so-called Grand Renaissance Dam has recently heightened disputes over water security. The dam is set to become one of Africa's largest hydroelectric plants, but some studies indicate it could have a major impact on the whole basin and significantly affect the water supplies of neighboring countries. As an effort to settle the disputes, a 'Tripartite Technical Committee' was created to assess the dam's impact in Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan excluding South Sudan. At this juncture Egypt dominant strategy came into play and able to stretch its long hand reaching out to the desperate government of South Sudan militarily. The inclusion of high-level NBI representatives in the Committee is worth noting, but its limited technical mandate may hamper its capacity to provide political solutions.

In recent years, the politics of water sharing and its related diplomatic frameworks have become less predictable. The resignation of Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and the death of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in 2012 removed two old regional hands, raising many questions about the future. Domestic instability has come to characterize also the DRC, Eritrea, Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Somalia and at the crossroad South Sudan. Inter- state tensions remain dormant, but could suddenly reawaken despite the formal end of the conflict in 2000, relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea remain shaky; South Sudan has recently declared its intention to use the Nile to develop its hydropower potential, which may revive disputes with Sudan; and cross- border tensions over the Great Renaissance Dam are far from abating.

Water politics in the Nile may thus be reaching a critical juncture, especially if local political 'entrepreneurs' decide to use the Nile as a 'trump card' in elections. If this is the case, the stability of the whole region may then be put at stake. Egypt with no doubt exploited the South Sudan conflict supporting government of Salva Kiir Mayardit through military hardware and supplies, evidently the capture of 12 Egyptian fighters (their names are as follow: Aches Ahmed Gou, Capt. Abaur Ahmose, Amran Saleh, Amum Thori, Abduraman Petei, Salatis Omar, Osman Gosh, Abdulahi Said, Mohamed Raad, Yusuf Abdu, Capt. Ali Semut and Shemstedin Tihrak) as POWs in the recent battle in Ayod County of Jonglei is a significant prove. The offensive launched by the government and allied forces on rebel position meant to push them deep into the Ethiopian territory as planned by the government of South Sudan and Egypt, the consequences will have direct bearings on the construction of the Ethiopia Grand Renaissance Dam. In this regard groundwork is already prepared and this position will be used as a launching pad for Egypt to strike on the Ethiopia Grand Renaissance Dam. The government of Ethiopia should not fold its hand watching the looming threats towards its territory by Egypt and South Sudan as if the war is between the rebel and the government of South Sudan.

Multiple interests play in and those interests group should protect their sovereignty, territorial integrity and the national constitution with the great intention of safeguarding their national interests of either Ethiopia or the Sudan. It should be noted that South Sudan together with Ethiopia should see the Nile water as a binding constraint for stability and development in the region and work for mutual benefit, but Salva Kiir should not be victim for short sighted political benefits vis-à-vis Egypt's hegemonic power against the Nile water, and should refrain from opening a space for destabilizing forces that would have a spillover effect to regional peace. In this brief analysis, Ethiopia should stand tall to defend the aggression by the Egypt in the overcoat of supporting the government of South Sudan in the fight against the rebel.

Ethiopia: Wise Societies Surely Know How to Share

By Teshome Abebe

May 15, 2014

Having spent the past couple of months on diplomatic efforts against the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and failing, Egyptian authorities are now pointing accusatory finger(s) at Ethiopia for not responding to their calls for new negotiations. It would have been a most enlightened act on their part to refrain from besmirching Ethiopia’s good name all along, and rejoining the tripartite forum with Sudan and Ethiopia. Instead, they trotted the globe spreading falsehoods about the GERD, and knocking the life out of that conversation in what would amount to a diplomatic equivalent of an over chewed stick of gum. If only there were takers! Alas, the world, save a few entities, is not interested in the GERD and Egypt’s whining about it.

A woman of questionable reputation asks a journalist who was wearing a top hat and a cape, “Why do you wear that funny cloth”? He replied, “Precisely for the same reason as you: to draw attention away from my face”!

Whatever the motives, it would have been neighborly if Egypt had spent a little more time understanding what is motivating Ethiopians of this and other generations. From their visits to Chad, Equatorial Guinea and Tanzania have come some of their calls for re-engagement. Unfortunately, nothing that has been uttered so far gives rise to a belief that Egypt really understands that the sand has shifted from under her feet. Like the proverbial shifty fox, they keep repeating that they “will have the water and Ethiopia can have electricity”. In their minds, this cocoons the issue within the safe paradigm of just a lack of electricity for the Ethiopian side, and shifts it away from the central issue of equitable use of the waters of the Blue Nile-- a feeble attempt at altering the debate and sanitizing the issue for them.

It might be worth repeating what I had written before under a different title: the disagreement between Egypt and Ethiopia regarding the GERD is purely on technical matters. These matters have been taken up in the Tripartite forum, and all Egypt has to do is rejoin Ethiopia and Sudan in that forum.

There was a time in the not too distant past, when whatever Egypt stood for was drenched with celebrity, and I might even add, with euphoria out here in the West. And within Egypt itself, the idealized vision of an earlier age when other countries’ cultures and aspirations were static and subordinated can no longer be the choice of an enlightened society. Those days have come and gone because Africa is rising, and its youth are no longer content waiting for dispensations from outside. They hope for and expect well-paying jobs with realistic hopes of advancement. The motivation of Africa’s youth today is economic growth and development using available resources while at the same time, striving to balance the harmony between nature, interdependence and self-determination. The African heritage of the future is going to be one that is more compelling than the traditionally understood and devalued role of underdevelopment. Many in the continent are attempting to create IT jobs; blue-collar, pink-collar and green- collar jobs for their citizens. To this end, African’s are striving to create regional economic integration to complement the regional political integration efforts. The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is a crowning example of perseverance, grit, leadership and common interest among the countries that are signatories to it.

What is undeniable is that Egypt considers its African neighbors as junior partners (if partners at all)—a blunder of the highest order, in my opinion. To be sure, as the most aid dependent country in the African continent, Egypt has to maintain exceptionally good relationships with the Arab countries that provide the tens of billions of dollars to it. Yet, Egypt’s lifeline is connected to its African roots—roots that it had failed to pay attention to, and in the Ethiopian case, roots and connections that it had destabilized for decades. It is impossible to judge whether Egypt would negate that which is particular about her and form a respectful and mutually beneficial relationship with Ethiopia. Its track record is extremely disappointing and even shameful. Yet, and in my opinion, it is absolutely essential that Ethiopia and Egypt handle whatever technical issues there are regarding the GERD within the framework of the Tripartite forum and in accordance with the framework of the NBI. This has been the desire of the Ethiopian government from the beginning. One of the lasting legacies of Ethiopian foreign policy is that it has always been moderate and predictable. Ethiopia has led during the fight for African independence; it has demonstrated its commitment to African causes time and again; and, it has now committed itself to lead by erecting a needed dam on the Blue Nile. To an extent, Egypt’s displeasure might just be this particular leadership role of Ethiopia, and the signaling effect it has on other NBI countries with respect to their own future initiatives.

Ethiopia and Egypt share similar problems in other areas that may provide an avenue for future cooperation and partnerships. Both have problems of urbanization and land development; both face problems related to climate change; both have problems of growing populations; and both have problems of poverty and potential social fragmentation. The cooperative efforts that could be created in these arenas are likely to provide immense and strategic benefits that could serve the citizens of both countries. To accomplish these and other challenges requires leaders who accept the notion that wise societies surely know how to share. The eternal quest for self-preservation demands it!

Dr. Teshome Abebe is Professor of Economics, and may be reached at teshome2008@gmail.com

NO “WHITE ELEPHANT” IN ETHIOPIA: ALEMAYEHU’S FOLLY

By Tecola W. Hagos
• In General
A week ago I read a stupefying long article by Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam titled “Dam! White
Elephant in Ethiopia?” posted in several Ethiopian Websites. The article is about ten pages long, mostly of quoted material from an article titled “A Proxy Campaign against Ethiopia?: a response by GERD National Panel of Experts (NPoE)” posted in several Ethiopian Websites. In his article, Alemayehu expressed his anger as follows:

“The regime’s nameless, faceless and conscienceless ‘experts,’ hiding behind the anonymity
of ‘professional Ethiopians well versed with and advising on GERD Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Dam related issues,’ unloaded a torrent vituperative diatribe against International Rivers in the
vintage style of their late hate master of name-calling, cheap shots and put-downs, Meles Zenawi.
In a hatchet job polemic entitled, ‘A Proxy Campaign against Ethiopia?’ the “GERD national panel
of experts” (“GERD experts”) jumped on International Rivers like a pack of hungry junkyard dogs
on a squirrel”

First of all, the National Panel of Experts may not have listed their individual names but they are not
without identity; they have a corporate presence as members of the Ethiopian International Professional
Support for Abay (EIPSA) [http://www.eipsa1.com/cms/news] that was established on 22 June 2013 “in
response to the timely need for an organized and independent professional Ethiopian voice surrounding the
issue of the Nile River.” Writing as members of a group is not something unusual, and in no way should
excuse any writer to unleash an avalanche of vulgarity, as can be observed in Alemayehu’s article quoted
above. And ultimately Alemayehu did the unthinkable: he committed treason against Ethiopia by siding
with Egypt. He had the temerity to call the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam a “White
Elephant” and a “wasteful vanity” project. No matter who laid the first stone for the construction of the
Dam, it is now our Dam, our national effort of the people of Ethiopia, our precious act of patriotic zeal and love of country. Above all else, it is both the moral and physical antidote to the Kilil ethnic fracturing of Ethiopia. In situations of this type, one must look beyond one’s own frustration and personal ambition.

The first unusual feature of Alemayehu’s response article is that it jumps out at any reader due to the
extreme vulgar language Alemayehu used in his comments. Reading the whole article, both quoted material
and the insertions, I am left scratching my head for the article does not make much sense despite the fact that I tried to find even some tangential merit that would help clear the fog that has descended on the legal and political regime surrounding international rivers in general and the Abay River (the Blue Nile) and the building of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) in particular. To say Alemayehu quoted extensively in his article is a gross understatement; it is more like he reprinted the original article titled “A Proxy Campaign against Ethiopia?” reinforced with his own straw insertions here and there. I do have my own criticism on the style as well as the content of the article by the Ethiopian experts who wrote the article titled “A Proxy Campaign against Ethiopia?” the same article that Alemayehu let loose his unlimited wrath against. If I were the Ethiopian Government, I would have used a more direct approach by going loggerhead using governmental lower level functionaries to go against the International River Network (IRN) rather than relying on a private highly respected members of a professional association as defenders of the interest of Ethiopia. Moreover, I do not find the article by the Ethiopian panel of experts as objectionable as Alemayehu made it out to be. There are several stylistic approaches I would have avoided if I had written that response essay by the panel of Ethiopian experts, for example, I would have written the response less personal and more focused on legal, technical, and operational issues.

A thorough reading of the Final Report of the International Panel of Experts (IPoE) on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is the first duty of any one before making any kind of statement about the response of the Ethiopian panel of experts who wrote the response article on the GERD by the International River Network. However, the best source to read for a well-reasoned evaluation of the technical aspect of the Dam is the entire project literature of the GERD. In short of that one must read first, at the very least, all the available official documentations of the owner of the Dam, the Ethiopian Government representing Ethiopia and its Citizens. The IRN also did not seem to have read any of the original studies, the project evaluation documents, et cetera of the GERD. Its statements and articles by its members seem to have been based solely on scant statements of third party reports, tangential at best, contained in a forty eight page non-binding report, but not dispositive of any of the issues Alemayehu attempted to bring to our attention.

I do not want to be misunderstood here, for my criticism of the article by Alemayehu is not due to any
personal problem I have with Alemayehu. In fact, I have never met Alemayehu even though I have read
almost all of his essays posted in several Websites. I may not agree with his style of writing nor with the content of most of his articles, but I truly admire his dedication to his writing, even though of late he seems to be relaying on filling up his articles with a series of quotations than laboring in his own.

• The Final Report of the International Panel of Experts (IPoE)
The Final Report of the International Panel of Experts (IPoE) on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, of
May 31, 2013 is not a binding document on anybody, but it does have some moral imperative that the
Ethiopian Government has paid great deal of attention. It is highly presumptuous of anyone that all the
highly experienced and well established professionals involved in the Dam project could be making such
horrendous errors as claimed by the IRN whose members did not have even a fraction of the professional
experience of the Dam designers, the Dam construction engineers et cetera. Moreover, neither Alemayehu
nor any of the members of the IRN have had any first-hand access to vital data and studies surrounding the origination of the Dam project. I remember in 1991 having an occasion to talk to an Ethiopian engineer
(since then deceased) who was responsible for the record keeping of precipitation for the Nile Basin, and
how he jealously guarded that record even against the demands of the New Transitional Government
established by the EPRDF. One must respect professional men and women for what they do in their
profession. If there is a question as to their efficiency, professional responsibilities et cetera it is best left to people who are in the same profession to discuss issues of a professional nature in the particular field.
The International Panel of Experts at no time and /or at any place in their report suggested to close down the Dam or stop the construction of the Dam. To the contrary they made a few recommendation in a couple of pages (pages 42-43). In summary, their recommendation mainly is in a form of enhancing existing planed for structures and on the issue of environmental impact studies on the riparian countries as the implementation of the project continues. It is commonsensical where the panel consisted of two professional Ethiopians, two Egyptians, two Sudanese, and four international experts that an adverse report would never have been issued. At any rate, one must read the objective and the mandate of the International Panel of Experts before making any type of anti-Ethiopia and anti-GERD statements.
The objective and mandate of the International Panel of Experts is clearly summarized in Sec 1.2 on page
six of the Report: “The general objective of the IPoE is to build confidence among the three riparian
countries around the GERD. The specific objective of the IPoE is to provide sound review/assessment of
the benefits to the three countries and impact of the GERD to the two downstream Countries, Egypt and
Sudan.” The Report elaborated further the nature of the work of the International Panel of Experts in
reviewing/assessing issues directly involving the design and construction of the Dam, and nowhere in that
mandate there is any element of obligatory conditions on any of the countries to follow through the
review/assessment of the IPoE. If that was the case such mandate would have contradicted the objective of
the creation of the IPoE in the first place on the initiative taken by Ethiopia voluntarily on its own.
“The IPoE mandate is to review the design document of the GERD and provide transparent
information sharing and to to solicit understanding of the benefits and costs accrued to the three
countries and impact if any of the GERD on the two downstream countries so as to build trust and
confidence among the parties. The role of the IPoE is mainly facilitative focused on promoting
dialogue and understanding around GERD related issues of interest to the three countries and thus
contribute to regional confidence and trust building.” (Emphasis mine)
There you have it! Simply put, the IPoE is a good-will mission “mainly facilitative” in its goals using its
expertise. None of its review/assessment has any formal obligatory authority on Ethiopia. It is incredible that the IRN and Alemayehu could read into the Report of IPoE an authoritative body to dispense judgmentand sanctions against Ethiopia.

• The International River Network (INR)
The International River Network is made up of Members, Board of Directors and two advisory Councils for
the United States and for Asia. The IRN members of the Board seem to be crusaders for the poor and the
disfranchised in an already struggling communities in developing countries around the world. The net
effect of their effort seems to go against the development aspirations of communities and arrest their growth at a stage of primitive existence. The protection that the IRN advocates for indigenous communities around the world seems to freeze all such communities in a state of suspended animation, as is in the case with caged wild animals in zoos around the world. Western societies can afford to pontificate from the luxury of their well-appointed homes, their great industrialized communities, sending their children to great schools, advancing their social amenities even further et cetera about the protection of the ecology and keeping rivers pristine for their occasional visits as tourists.
The hypocrisy is obvious, I need not remained anyone the fact that the IRN was never involved in the
welfare of indigenous people prior to the construction of dams at particular rivers. It seems while such
indigenous people are frozen in time living out their miserable existence in utter deprivation pain and
suffering, they were invisible to the IRN and its members, and they all come into focus when some dams are being built as a form of economic progress. If we just put aside all useless polemic and consider the claims of facts that IRN has stated in its own publication, we can see that the IRN is not a group to be trusted with anything. They distort facts, make premature conclusions from scanty information gathered from third party “reports.” Specifically, I would like to draw your attention to a statement in an article by IRN titled

“The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Fact Sheet,” of January 24, 2014 posted in their own Website, an
article posted a couple of months earlier than their ultimate condemnation of the GERD project on
insignificant points contained in a third party informal non-binding report. In that January article, the IRN opened its article, claimed as their “fact sheet” on the GERD, with a shameful lie aimed to discount and undermine the sovereign right of Ethiopia in its own Abay River. The IRN stated, “Ethiopia is building one of the largest dams in the world, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), on the River Nile near the Sudan border.” [Emphasis mine] The fact is that Ethiopia is not building any dam on “River Nile.” Ethiopia is building a dam on its own river, on the great Abay River, over thirty miles inland from the border with Sudan. . [Abay is known for English speakers as the Blue Nile so named by James Bruce.] This form of writing by the IRN using a kind of misleading lexical substituting the “Nile River” for the “Abay River” is not some kind of clerical error but a clear evidence of a deliberate conspiratorial collusion with Egypt in support of Egypt’s nefarious claim of the whole of the water of the River Nile without due respect to riparian rights who have major rivers such as the Atbara and the Abay (Blue Nile) rivers that join up with the White Nile at different places all in the Sudan. This early article clearly established the bad-faith of IRN toward Ethiopia. Nowhere in any of their publications on the GERD they attempted to be objective and fair in their evaluation of the ecology and the water issue of the region. The IRN did not mention the fact that Egypt is sitting on the largest underground water resource. Scientists in 2012 had mapped out the huge underground water for the Continent of Africa and that “Egypt's immense underground water
potential makes the nation one of the top three water rich countries in the continent!” The amount of
Egypt’s ground water storage is estimated to be 55,200 km3, while Ethiopia has only 12,000 cubic km. It is truly tragic that how depraved and corrupted people can be in the name of helping the poor.
Alemayehu should have been a lot more careful before writing an article that applauds IRN and demonize
the Ethiopian Government and devalue Ethiopia’s sovereignty on its own rivers. He never considered the
great underground water reservoir Egypt has. Furthermore, the IRN protested by claiming fairness on its
side, “We are not ‘taking sides’ – we are impartial when it comes to critiquing destructive river projects and poor river management around the globe, including in Egypt and Sudan.” This form of claim of
objectivity by IRN does not fool anyone, for the campaign by IRN against Ethiopia is part of the
coordinated campaign by Egypt against Ethiopia.

This form of criticism supporting a hostile group or foreign nation that undermines Ethiopia’s national
interest cannot be taken lightly. The article Alemayehu wrote defending IRN and ridiculing the efforts of
millions of Ethiopians who have sacrificed their time, effort, and savings in financing the project, and also insulting all those great Ethiopian Engineers, technicians, simple workers who moved mountains and
sweated their blood building such a great national project must not be trivialized by Alemayehu calling their great effort “a white elephant.” I cannot find enough words to express my contempt for any man or woman taking up the causes of our mortal enemies against our Ethiopia and insulting our dreams and our blood sweat effort to beat poverty and be on our own. First of all, Alemayehu is not an engineer of any kind to make such categorical evaluation and derogatory statements and undermine a national project wherein seasoned engineers of dam design and construction, geologists/geophysicist, hydrologists, environmental experts spent tens of thousands of hours studying, designing, and setting up the construction of such a major public work such as the GERD.

I doubt whether Alemayehu has even read that significant Report of IPoE closely for him to make such
allegations and insulting remarks. The Report of the IPoE is far from being categorical condemnation or
criticism of the GERD, but it suggests some understandable changes to be made on specific aspect of the
construction of the Dam and/or suggested further studies to be made on some impacts on the ecology of the
basin. These suggestions in their scope or magnitude are not in any way bases for the type of condemnations
and negative evaluation of the Dam to a point where the IRN calls for stopping the project. The
International Panel of Experts (IPoE) were gracious in acknowledging the positive role that the Ethiopian
Government played in setting the Panel on Ethiopia’s own initiative. To wit, they stated in their Forward of
the Report, “The Government of Ethiopia invited in good faith the two downstream countries…The IPoE
appreciates the initiative taken by the Government of Ethiopia to invite two downstream riparian
countries… ” As anyone can see that the formation of the Panel on the invitation of the Ethiopian
Government that also bore a good portion of the financial burden of such sponsorship was an act of
cooperation and concern by the Ethiopian Government for all riparian states and communities. Nowhere in
their Report had the Panel of Experts suggested to stop the Dam construction.
It is also telling that Egyptian leaders always had threatened Ethiopia with violence anytime the issue of
sharing the waters of the Nile is raised. I shrugged off such threat as nothing more than a school boy’s
tantrum not having his way; nevertheless, Ethiopia must arm herself to the teeth in case of some such
stupidity on the part of Egypt (or any other fanatical Arab nation such as Saudi Arabia). Some Egyptian
politicians seem to have a very bizarre idea of Ethiopia forgetting the historical fact that every time Egypt
tried insurrection into Ethiopia in our past history, their military campaign resulted in disaster for them. It is
tragic that I hear on the news and read reports all kind of belligerent statements by some prominent
Egyptian politicians and some journalists/intellectuals advocating the use of force against Ethiopia to
destroy the GERD.

I have to make an exception here, for the current Egyptian Ambassador to Ethiopia, Ambassador
Mohammed Idris is the most amicable Egyptian personality who seem to have genuine respect for the
people of Ethiopia and the state of Ethiopia. I have watched and listened to his very many statements in
interviews and formal addresses on ETV and YouTube postings, how he is always differential and
genuinely respectful of the host nation of Ethiopia. He insist on “cooperation” between Egypt and Ethiopia discounting historical or colonial period rights. I could also mention here the former Director General of IAEA Mohamed El Baradie, one among many enlightened Egyptians who are against those who threaten Ethiopia and favor cooperation.

IV. Why I support the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam
The greatest mistake the EPRDF committed against Ethiopia is not the introduction of the concept of
“federalism” per se, but the fact that it forced the Ethiopian people to accept a federal structure based on ethnicity (language). Right now the country is fractured across ethnic lines. The current Government of Hailemariam Desalegn seems to be engaged in a subtle fight to reverse such disastrous course of national disintegration. It is obvious that a more unitary government structure must be pursued to preserve a sovereign Ethiopia. I believe national projects like the Renaissance Dam acts as antidote to the poisonous divisive Kilil system of national destruction. Such national project like the GERD tends to bring individuals from the many Kililized regions of Ethiopia, wherein given time such individuals would have drifted off to go their separate ways, back to the fold of Ethiopiawinet endowing them with a sense of oneness and a national identity. Another project I am enthusiastic about is the planned railway system projected to crisscross Ethiopia North-South, and East-West. It may be indeed the case that the forces that could hold our fractured Ethiopia from falling apart might be such grandiose national projects such as the GERD and the planned national railway project, and the national grid work for the distribution of power.

If we consider the GERD project on its own, we can see its very many positive contributions to the people
of Ethiopia already. According to Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn in his recent state address of the
Ethiopian Parliament of 25 April 2014, already the project has generated through bond sales and donations
over 27 billion Birr i.e., over thirty percent of the project cost, and over 20 billion Birr is also generated for the railway project. This in itself is a monumental achievement and cannot be scorned or degraded as
“White Elephant” by anybody, even more so by Alemayehu. There was also an impressive detailed
presentation in the form graphic simulation of the project prepared by one of the Ethiopian Corporations
involved in the construction of the Dam.
About a month ago, in “Africa Review” Zadig Abraha, deputy general director of GERD's National
Coordination Office is quoted having stated, "Once GERD is finished and other hydropower projects
including the 1,870 MW Gibe III are online, Ethiopia may earn US$2bn a year from the exports” of electric
power to neighbouring countries. This means in less than twenty years the GERD would have been fully
paid up and generating net profit for the next couple of centuries. Hailemariam Desalegn in his address of Parliament stated also that several nations in the area are already entering into agreements or negotiating to enter into long term agreement to buy electric power from the GERD. The reality of the construction of the GERD and the economic benefit to Ethiopia and the region is not some figment of the imagination or as Alemayehu discounts it to be a White Elephant.
Should the identity of the person who initiated the construction of GERD be of great concern to us? Is that important that Alemayehu takes issue with the fact that the Dam project was started by Meles Zenawi? The idea of building Dams or diverting the Blue Nile is as ancient as Pharaohnic period. We have come a long way from such ancient ideas. We live now in the age of advanced technology—with advanced knowhow in controlling and harnessing the fury of nature to our benefit. Is it possible that Alemayehu is totally misreading the reality on the ground concerning our need for the use of our Abay River (Blue Nile) water?

“Researchers from the British Geological Survey and University College London have for the first time
mapped the aquifers, or groundwater, across the continent and the amount they hold. ‘The largest
groundwater volumes are found in the large sedimentary aquifers in the North African countries Libya,
Algeria, Egypt and Sudan,’ the scientists said in their paper.” The experts have estimated in their pioneering and highly scientific research that the reserves “of groundwater across the continent are 100 times the amount found on its surface, or 0.66 million cubic kilometers.” There is no way Egypt would suffer from lack of fresh water. It is sitting right on top of one of the great reservoir of fresh water. All it needs to do to supplement any shortage of water if at all any from the GERD, is simple dig wells.

Alemayehu even wrote that the Dam is “Meles Zenawi Memorial Dam” insinuating that the Dam has no
bearing on the lives of Ethiopians. As I stated earlier there are numerous articles and detailed feasibility studies/articles about the GEDR enormous economic advantage to Ethiopia and to a number riparian countries too. There is even claims that even countries in the Middle East across the Red See such as Yemen are negotiating with the Ethiopian Government. I have read in a couple of articles by Egyptians about their concern being not of water shortage but the economic growth of Ethiopia that might undermine their businesses with the countries in the region and elsewhere.

AFRICA: UNDERGROUND WATER RESERVOIR DISTRIBUTION
Source: Environmental Research Letter
V. Alemayehu G. Mariam: “Ye Afe Wolemta Beqibė Eyitashim”
It is unfortunate that a professional who is well trained both in philosophy and in the law, a person like Alemayehu resorts to vulgarity and name calling rather than presenting his ideas and criticism against the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and/or against the leadership of Ethiopia and the many professionals and political leaders involved in the planning and implementing of the project. It seems that his justification for such vitriolic response is the fact that an unnamed Ethiopian Panel of Experts denigrated the IRN. The IRN is a fringe organization with a confused sense of responsibility to the disfranchised and the downtrodden. I have no problem with the aspirations of the IRN, the problem is in the details of their activities. Being fanatical in their own righteousness, has lead the IRN members into direct conflict with the aspirations of the very people the IRN is aspiring to help. Good intention by itself is not something that one can consider as beneficial.
Alemayehu should have followed his own admonishment about proper discourse, in his article “Dam!
White Elephant in Ethiopia?” of April 22, 2014, wherein he stated: “Temper tantrums and name calling are
a poor substitute for a rigorous fact-based refutation of another expert’s opinions. Experts do not prove their cases by moaning and groaning, bellyaching, griping, grousing and whining. Experts do not engage in teeth gnashing, mudslinging and finger wagging. Could it be that the ‘GERD experts’ are really ‘no experts’ but mindless apparatchiks and cadres who will say and do anything to earn their daily bread from their paymasters?” The rest of his comments are riddled with such vulgarity and ad hominem statements. Is there any gain from such form of statement denigrating and insulting individuals? It is truly a disappointment that individuals such as Alemayehu would stoop down to a gutter level and demonize individuals rather than
addressing the ideas of such individuals. What are we going to learn about the issues by reading an
avalanche of insults as stated in the above quotation from Alemayehu’s article?
There is no question that Alemayehu does not make much of a distinction between the personal life of a
leader and his activities that might be beneficial to the people or the state he heads.
“Is GERD an Ethiopian white elephant? Dam right, it is! In my commentary, ‘Ethiopia: Rumors of
Water War on the Nile?’ I argued that GERD/MZMD is the white elephant in the room that no one
wants to talk about openly and earnestly. Meles, like all of his predecessor African dictators
suffered from delusions of grandeur. Like his brethren African dictators, Meles wanted to have a
big project that could immortalize him as the little “Big Man” of Africa. By undertaking white
elephant projects, Meles sought to attain greatness and amass great fortunes in life and immortality
in death. He only managed to amass mass contempt in life and in death. To be sure, he had a ‘dry
run’ on immortality when he commissioned the construction of Gilgel Gibe III Dam on the Omo
River in southern Ethiopia which has been dubbed the “largest hydroelectric plant in Africa with a
power output of about 1870 Megawatt.” …
“Like all of the African white elephants, the so-called GERD is a vanity make-believe project
principally intended to glorify Meles posthumously, and magnify his international prestige while
he was alive diverting attention from the endemic corruption that had consumed his regime as
documented in the a 448-page World Bank report, “Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia”. Meles
sought to cover his bloody hands and clothe his naked dictatorship with megaprojects and veneers
of progress and development. Meles was the little “Big Man” of Africa with a Napolenoic [sic]
complex. He sought to overcome his complex by making outrageously bogus claims of 11-15
percent annual economic growth and launching big dam and infrastructure projects”
Is this type of language in the above quoted material necessary to discuss issues of national import? Even if one is addressing an article that may not be as well written as desirable as was the case with the response prepared by unnamed Ethiopian experts, there is no need to be vulgar and belligerent oneself in responding to such writings. I have stated earlier that the Ethiopian experts should have written their response to the IRN’s decidedly biased and unprofessional writing promoting the interest of Egypt against that of Ethiopia, with a degree of decorum and propriety. In their writing I saw zeal in protecting our national interest, and if they are not eloquent in their criticism of the IRN it is quite understandable.

I do not have any special personal admiration for Meles Zenawi, except maybe as a family man. During the
time I spent with the Transitional Government of Ethiopia, about a year and a half, I did observe Meles
Zenawi at work. No one questions Meles’s dedication or stamina for work—he worked continuously
through day and night. However, I am absolutely miffed that Alemayehu would stoop so low to write about
the valuation of school credentials in regard to the academic credential of Meles Zenawi. Personally,
almost everything Meles worked on irritated me then, for I always saw something divisive or cruel behind
most of the things he did, especially how he created dissonance within political Parties and effectively
defanged the veteran commanders of the struggle into toothless individuals. But he had improved his policy
toward the end of his life and carried out some landmark programs such as getting Sudan on board for the
GERD, and gaining goodwill from European and Asian countries for Ethiopia. However, he is dead now.
And talking about him has no value to our future development, except as a learning tool in order for us to learn from his excess and mistakes. Nevertheless, I will not dwell that much about his credentials that he attended an open university, for such form of evaluation is neither here or there. Who is going to say Meles was any less intelligent because he did not attend the University of Maryland like Alemayehu did. If I were Alemayehu I would not care to mention the University of Maryland especially when I am in the company of individuals who studied at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Georgetown.

One’s association matters greatly especially to young Ethiopians who need to have role models to grow up
with. I am always pained to watch Ethiopians who are public personalities such as Prof Berhanu Nega
associating himself with Ethiopia’s arch enemy Issayas Afeworki, and recently Alemayehu is sitting along
Kassa Kebede on a platform organized by the Ethiopian National Transitional Council (ENTC). Kassa
Kebede is the blood soaked close associate of the murderous Mengistu Hailemariam. Kassa Kebede who is
currently residing in Washington DC is slowly ingratiating himself to the Ethiopian Diaspora community as
if he is innocent of the ‘Red Terror’ and other crimes of seventeen years of absolute terror of Mengistu and his Regime, in which Kassa Kebede was the very soul of that Regime. The Ethiopian Diaspora’s fragile
psyche is very suitable to mood swings of extreme range. It is incredible that such criminals could rear their murderous heads and talk about “regime change” in Ethiopia. Those criminal officials of Mengistu—mass murderers, torturers, and detainers of innocent Ethiopians—should have been in prison except that some of the Leaders of the Ethiopian Government saw in them kindred spirit and freed them from punishment contrary to the provisions of EPRDF’s 1995 Constitution Article 28. The irony and hypocrisy of some of the Ethiopian Diaspora is that I who never hurt anyone but was a victim of the terror of the Derg/Mengistu is denigrated by some of such individuals for having tried to channel a revolution in 1991-1992 into a humane and democratic matrix as adviser of the TPLF/EPRDF for a year or so, even after I left the EPRDF/organization over twenty years ago.

VI. Off Course Side Remark: Abebe Haregewoin Since I have my readers’ attention now, I need to clear the air. A few weeks back my distinguished younger
contemporary Dr. Abebe Haregawoin wrote an article “Tecola Hagos’ historical fabulism: truth is funnier
than fiction,” Ethiomedia, March 18, 2014, highly critical of my art work and my essay from some ten years ago dealing with the Ethiopian aristocracy from the time of King Sahle Selassie through Emperor Menilik
II. The article by Abebe, is rather well written but seriously flawed, the tone and its assessment describing motives and attitudes is quite a difficult task and presumptuous. The reason that I did not write anything in response for so long was in the interest of maintaining harmony among the badly fractured Ethiopian community in the Diaspora. A number of my close friends who had read the article, and some of whom knew Abebe in person, reminded me that I might have met him in my last year at HSIU. Regrettably, I could not recall who Abebe was, not that my recall mattered but it would have eased my mind.

Some of my friends urged me not to respond to that article. On the other hand, there were also other friends
and relations who were very upset with the tone of Abebe’s criticism of my article of over a decade old and his criticism of my person and my art works. Those friends were relations from Menz area and a couple had families that hailed from Ankober, the very birth place of Emperor Menilik II. Even Menilik himself is not that remote a person to me, for one branch of my ancestors were from Efrata, the home of Asfawossen, one of the founders of the Shoan dynasty. At any rate, a close friend who had read my article a few years back admonished me for being harsh in my criticism of Emperor Menilik II by reminding me that Paulos Gnogno in his book on Menilik had quoted a letter the Emperor wrote to my Grandfather Memher Akale Wold, the great Ethiopian scholar, who was very old and sick at that time, wherein the Emperor was writing that he was planning to visit my Grandfather by traveling from Addis Ababa to Boru, Wollo where my Grandfather resided. Certainly my heart has softened about the Emperor for some time now, for the Emperor’s humility and kind words did touch my hardened heart of “revolutionary” zeal, Keeping all that in mind, I decided to respond to Abebe Haregewoin very briefly here to let him know that I am sorry that I caused him much pain all these years since our college days. As to the content of my criticism of both Emperor Tewodros and Emperor Menilik II, I regret using insulting words; I could have been gracious in my criticism even if all of the facts I stated are true to the dote. I need not be mean or uncouth even when pointing out facts that can be easily substantiated. I should have also balanced my criticism with some of the meritorious activities those two Emperors are known for. As to my art works, I would love to fantasize that they are immortal and would stand the test of time. And time would tell how future generations would look at such works, for example, “The Ethiopian” is over half a century old. One thing for sure, all of my art work were products of my great love for Ethiopia that I wanted to preserve from my boyhood’s jaded enthusiasm for vignette/scenes from pages of captivating slices of Ethiopian life and history. As to Abebe’s allegation of narcissism on my part, I am not so sure whether such tendency is
unusual in any artist, for the great art historians, philosophers of aesthetics, and great painters down to our
time all tell me such is the case with artists. For example, Afework Tekle, Gebrekristos Desta, Dali, Durer,
Cezanne, Giotto, Michelangelo, Picasso, Raphael, Rembrandt, Renoir, Van Goh et cetera painted numerous
self-portraits. May be we should not put much into that narcissism business, for the fact is that the artist himself is the cheapest model around to paint! However, I am not the model for “The Ethiopian” or for the “Grandfather.”

In Conclusion
Bringing you back to the subject of the GERD from my side remarks, in my private skirmish with one of
Ethiopia’s distinguished physician and scientist Dr. Abebe Haregewoin, let me reemphasize that we do
not lose sight of the most important matter in our ongoing discourse—the survival of Ethiopia. I understand
Alemayehu’s anger and frustration caused by the dictatorial government of Meles Zenawi, but the man is
now dead for almost two years. And in a number of ways the current Government of Hailemariam Desalegn
is different from the previous Government in being quietly engaged in correcting the excess and abuses of
power of his predecessor. I am not trying to get favors from the current Ethiopian leaders, that will never
happen, for my enemies who could harm me physically are still in power, almost all of the Members of the
TPLF Central Committee, most of the Central Committee members of the ANDM, close advisors and
fellow ethnic friends of Hailemariam Desalegn, such as the Ethiopian Ambassador to the United Nations et
cetera. Such individuals who are still in power are individuals whom I despise and have the least respect, for
they are all responsible for the type of predicament we are in now due to their sycophantic pampering of
Meles Zenawi and allowing him to do whatever he wanted, wherein we end up being land-locked, our
people fractured and on the brink of disintegration, and also having lost our territory and people to a vicious
leader and group. This is not the figment of my imagination but the reality of my life. I cannot even visit my aged Mother. There is a world of difference between being overly enthusiastic about a cause thereby attacking all those who oppose such cause, and totally being derogatory discounting and degrading a national effort that is aimed at bringing about prosperity to its citizens no matter how clumsy the effort might be. It so happened the GERD is superbly designed, its feasibility much better than a gold or oil mining, and its symbolism eternal. In his response article, sadly, Alemayehu miserably failed to see the obvious; he not only betrayed Ethiopia but also committed economic treason that he could be prosecuted in an Ethiopian Court. I am absolutely offended by such an article by a learned Ethiopian thinking only of his ways more than the long term national interest of Ethiopia and Ethiopians.

I am tempted her to suggest to all who bear ill-will against Ethiopia that they learn from the reality of the last twenty years, for every Regime that tried to harm Ethiopia was either destroyed or is in critical turmoil as in the case of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, or Pakistan. I am starting to believe in what I had considered and arrogantly discounted as being mystical that a good friend of long standing always reminded me that there is a mysterious force that protected and continue to protect Ethiopia from all of its enemies—may be it is the spirit of all the great Ethiopian patriots. Long live Ethiopia. Ω

Tecola W. Hagos,
April 30, 2014
Washington DC

Misplaced opposition to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

By Minga Negash, Seid Hassan and Mammo Muchie


I

The 1929 Nile water allocation agreement that was signed by Egypt and the United Kingdom (which excluded Ethiopia and nearly all other upper basin countries) allocated 48 billion (65%) cubic meters of water per year to Egypt and 4 billion to the Sudan. The 1959 agreement between Egypt and the Sudan raised the share to 55.5 (75%) billion and 18.5 billion cubic meters to Egypt and the Sudan, respectively. This agreement also excluded all the other upper Nile riparian nations. Egypt wants to keep the colonial-era agreements and the 1959 accord. This unfair allocation of the Nile water enabled Egypt to construct the Aswan Dam and the two countries never cared to consult the upper riparian nations. As argued by Badr Abdelatty, a spokesman for Egypt’s Foreign Ministry, Egypt wants to keep the status quo because it needs all the “assigned 55 billion cubic meters a year for vital use such as drinking, washing and sanitation needs” by 2020. This clearly indicates Egypt’s desire to secure its own Nile water-related benefits intact while at the same time denying other (Sub-Saharan) Nile riparian countries from using their own waters for alleviating poverty and enhancing sustainable development. Contrary to the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) that was formalized in 1999 that Egypt was a party to, it is now saying that any change to the colonial era agreement would be tantamount to affecting its strategic interests and repeatedly threatens to use all means available if Ethiopia continues to build the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Egypt continues to escalate the confrontation despite

Ethiopia’s claim that the dam would have no appreciable negative impact on Egypt. Ethiopia, along with the other upper Nile riparian countries object the privileges that Egypt gave itself and consider Egyptian monopoly over the Nile waters as a violation of their sovereignty. In accordance to the 2010 Entebbe Agreement by the upstream countries, which included Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania, and now effectively Sudan and South Sudan), Ethiopia, therefore, insists on adhering to its plan and is forging ahead on constructing the dam.

In what follows, we use an amalgam of economics, history, law, security and environment factors to examine the Egyptian opposition to the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). We try to triangulate these factors hoping to contribute to the debate and gain insight into the current tension between Egypt and Ethiopia. We attempt to make a dispassionate analysis of the water sharing problem between upstream and downstream countries. Consistent with theory and real life cases, we surmise that water has been and continues to be the cause for conflict in a number of regions in the world and, unfortunately, water wars tend to be irrational, unsustainable and economically and socially destructive. Trans-boundary water sharing and pollution (environmental-ecological) problems are never resolved through hegemonies, militarism and ultra-nationalism.

​Dissenting voices against mega projects such as GERD are not new- the criticisms ranging from cost and scheduling overruns (as a recent study by Ansar, Flyvbjerg, Budzier and Lunn of Oxford University shows), to their impacts on population dislocation, corruption, transparency in awarding of contracts, the manner in which such projects are financed, social and environmental impacts in upstream and downstream countries and water security concerns. Hence, Ethiopians may legitimately ask questions and raise concerns about the manner in which the Government of Ethiopia is handling the project. In this article, however, we focus on trans-boundary environmental problems, the fair use of the Nile water and address Egyptian concerns. This is important because the construction of GERD has reignited the long standing explosive issue of the equitable use of Nile waters. We also believe the recent (counterproductive) Egyptian threats of war and various forms of diplomatic offensives require the attentions of scholars of substance and policy makers.

Egyptian worries and aspirations over the Nile River system however is historical and goes back to the days before the formation of the Egyptian nation/state even though the issue began to dominate the country’s political landscape with the generation of militarism and ultra-nationalism (from Gamal Abel Nasser to the late President Sadat’s 1979 threat of war and to the current leaders of Egypt vowing not to lose a “drop of water).” The recent political instability in Egypt must have made the trans-boundary water sharing problem a point of political opportunism. Reports indicate that Egypt may indeed be laying the ground work to “destroy the dam before Ethiopia starts filling it with water or risk flooding Sudan's flat eastern territories upon its destruction.” A WikiLeaks report is also known to have revealed that Egypt, in collaboration with Sudan, had plans “to build an airstrip for bombing a dam in the Blue Nile River Gorge in Ethiopia.” In its June 2013 analysis of Egypt’s military options, Straighter, a global intelligence organization indicated that the country does have military options against Ethiopia’s dam, but noted that distance will heavily constrain Egypt’s ability to demolish the work. The options, however, may include air attack from bases in the Sudan, Djibouti and Eritrea and/or sponsoring present day local “militants” to frustrate the construction of the dam. Obviously, Ethiopia is aware of the Egyptian options and its age-old aspiration to control the sources of the Nile River system. For example, on April 17, 2014, amid reports that Egypt was trying to woo South Sudan towards its dispute over Nile waters, the Voice of America reported that the President of South Sudan assured the Ethiopian authorities that the recently signed military and economic cooperation between Egypt and South Sudan would not allow Egypt to attack Ethiopia or allow subversive activities.

Egypt’s policy towards upstream countries is primarily driven by its interest on the water which aims at thriving at the misery of downstream countries, apparently without any form of substantive reciprocity. In contrast to the present day relationship between Egypt and Ethiopia, their ancestors, despite their limited knowledge of geography and hydrology, had a better understanding of the economics of water sharing. As the renowned historian Richard Pankhurst documented, the Turkish Sultan who ruled Egypt before the British, had “paid the ruler of Ethiopia an annual tax of 50,000 gold coins” lest the latter diverts the Nile. Nowadays, and not surprisingly, even the Egyptian Minister of Antiquities is against the GERD. In fact, institutional memories and abundant documents of the last sixty years indicate not only just the inconsistency, but also an immense level of damage that Egyptian foreign policy has done to Ethiopia and the Sudan. Egyptian interference in the two countries’ internal affairs has been largely driven by the Ethiopian and the Sudanese use of the Nile waters. For instance, Egypt objected the independence movement in South Sudan but promoted the separation of Eritrea and the creation of one of the most densely populated landlocked countries in the world. The international community is not unaware of these facts but Egypt’s strategic location and its pivotal role in the politics of the Middle East did not allow the powers to be to call a spade a spade. As of late, intergovernmental organizations like the African Union which were once mute about the behaviors of successive military rulers of Egypt, who often controlled political and economic power under the cover of phony elections and revolutions, have started to recognize the problems of the Nile River system. Ethiopia’s and the other upstream riparian countries’ rights to equitably share the waters of Nile is now an African agenda though key members of the Arab League continue to support the position taken by Egypt.

Ethiopia’s right to use the water that originates within itself would have included (and, in our view, should include), in addition to power-generating purposes, irrigation, water recreation and navigational services, flood control as well as water storage and supply. It is obvious, therefore, that dams provide valuable economic benefits. Just like any mega project, dams also involve several side-effects, which could be summarized as environmental and ecological, social (forced relocation of locals), economic and even political. Other concerns may include evaluating and managing the risks associated with dam construction as well as asking questions whether the product (GERD in our case) would provide the desired and needed benefits to stakeholders such as access to electricity. A reasonable framework of concern about dam construction, therefore, would include a thorough benefit-cost analysis, not just one-sided focus on the costs. This is our major concern in regards to environmentalists and some of their Ethiopian supporters who campaign against the 6000 MW dam.

The environmentalists refer to the GERD as a “white elephant,” despite the fact that the project’s leaked document, alleged to be prepared by International Panel of Experts (IPE) showing favorable financial and social benefits to Ethiopia and the Sudan. Environmentalists such as the International Rivers Network (IRN) need to, therefore, quantify the magnitude of the side effects of the project and should not rely on “covert” and “secondary” data. More importantly, rather than being the butterflies of potential conflict in the Eastern Nile region, they need to: (i) acknowledge Ethiopia’s sovereign rights to use its own resources in accordance to international law and without hurting downstream countries; (ii) identify mitigation strategies so that genuine concerns are addressed before the construction is finalized; and (iii) propose how the mitigation strategies are going to be financed. In April 2014, the California based environmental pressure group which is against any form of large dam that is proposed to be built in Africa and Asia leaked the 48 pages long confidential document that was prepared by International Panel of Experts (IPE) on Ethiopian Grand Renaissance Dam. Now that the confidential report is in the public domain, it allows everyone to put to test the concerns of both the friends and foes of the GERD.

II

The key features of the IPE’s report could be summarized as follows:- (i) unlike the options of smaller dams which would have included potential irrigation projects, GERD is an energy production project and any fear of large and permanent reduction in the flow of freshwater to downstream countries is unfounded; (ii) the filling up of the dam is planned, to be done in stages by taking into account rainfall patterns and the catchment area; (iii) both the financial and social cost-benefit preliminary analysis of the project on upstream and downstream countries are favorable and the expected damages on downstream countries are not insurmountable; (iv) the preliminary findings about the project’s side effects on Egypt is not sufficient and hence there is an information (hydrological) void, and much of the current allegations and threats are based on unfounded Egyptian fears; (v) work has progressed to the extent that, at the time of writing this article, the project has reached a degree of completion rate of 31% and the water diversion has been successfully carried out; (vi) the expected loss of water due to evaporation for the new project is not worse than what Egypt is currently losing from its environmentally unfriendly projects and poor water management; (vii) recent geological and hydrological studies have documented an abundant level of ground water in the Nile basin countries and hence downstream countries will not be thirsty if upstream countries build dams that generate electricity. It is clear, therefore, that Egypt’s no dam policy or stance against large energy producing dams in upstream countries is a misplaced opposition and therefore calls for a new thinking in Cairo.

As Professor Aaron Wolf of Oregon State University observes, there are about 261 trans-boundary rivers across the world and unless carefully handled a significant proportion of these rivers could be causes of conflict. Wolf documented that water has been the cause of political tensions between a number of countries, including but not limited to Arabs and Israelis; Indians and Bangladeshis; Americans and Mexicans, the Chinese and other downstream countries, Brazilians and Paraguayans and all the ten riparian states of the Nile River system. He observes that “war over water seems neither strategically rational, nor hydrographically effective nor economically viable.” In other words, there is little reason for a “water war” between Egypt and Ethiopia. The two countries can also learn from inter-basin development projects that are successful, such as the Colorado River Basin allocation between the US riparian states and Mexico, the Columbia River Agreement between the US and Canada and the numerous European collaborative projects and integrated river basin managements of the River Rhine. In particular, Egypt and Ethiopia could learn a lot from South Africa paying Lesotho to quench its increasing thirst from the Lesotho Highlands Waters Project. The framework for exploiting the Niger River Basin, the Zambezi River basin and the Nile Basin Initiative itself could serve as useful points of departure for cooperation.

Notwithstanding the above, Egyptian politicians often argue about “historical rights” and connect the water issue with the civilizations of the antiquities on the Nile delta and forget about the history of the formation of nations and states. Evidently this stance is self-serving in that it ignores historical tensions between black people in the region (present day Sudan, South Sudan, Niger, Eritrea and Ethiopia, among others) and the race controversy in the African origin of humanity and the history of the Nile Valley (see for example Martin Bernal’s Black Antenna, 1987; Anta Diop, among others). The politics of the Nile River system thus has an Africa-Arab dimension and hence sensitive to Pan Africanist and Pan Arabism agendas. Hence, if a conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia erupts, it is more than likely to have spillover effects on the rest of Africa.

Like most of the post colony states of Africa, modern and independent Egypt was created out of the ashes of colonialism (see for example Achille Mbembe and Samir Amin, among others). Britain’s colonial interest on the Nile dam at Lake Tana (main source of Abay/Blue Nile) is the foundation of Egypt’s historical and legal claims to the water. Britain’s interest however was primarily driven by its desire to irrigate its large cotton plantations in the Anglo Egyptian colony of the Sudan and supply its factories which were located in the United Kingdom. Modern day cotton plantations in Egypt are entirely dependent on the soil that gets exported by the river primarily from Ethiopian highlands. In a series of short articles, Dr. Yosef Yacob documented the history of colonialism in the region and indicated how Emperor Menelik (1844-1913) and Emperor Haile Selassie (1892-1975) managed to escape Britain’s colonial ambitions over the Ethiopian highlands. He also revealed how Emperor Haile Selassie was visionary in that he successfully resisted Britain’s encroachments on Lake Tana by hiring an American engineering company to construct the dam and trying to finance the project through the issuance of debt securities in the United States. In other words, had the Emperor’s wishes were realized, the GERD would have been built a long time ago. We have yet to see any reasonable criticism of Dr. Yosef Yacob's treatise by those who oppose the construction of the dam.

The next leg of the Egyptian opposition is international law. Here too the argument collapses before it faces the scrutiny of legal scholars. Egyptian officials often refer to the 1929 colonial era agreement and the 1959 agreement signed between Egypt and the Sudan (both former British colonies) that Ethiopia was not party to and had never consented to. First, it is important to note that colonial treaties have no direct relevance for resolving Africa’s contemporary problems. The Nile basin countries have already rejected it. Thus, the dominant view is that trans-boundary assets belong to the post-colonial states and the new states have to agree how to share their jointly owned assets. Second, Ethiopia was and is an independent state and it was not a party to the 1929 and 1959 agreements. Historical records also indicate that Britain, Egypt and the Sudan conspired and excluded Ethiopia from the negotiation. In this respect, Wuhibegezer Ferede and Sheferawu Abebe, writing on the Efficacy of Water Treaties in the Eastern Nile Basin, Africa Spectrum, 49, 1, 55-67 (2014) outline two approaches that evolve from the principles of international law. The authors show the fundamental differences between upstream and downstream countries in that upstream countries (Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea and South Sudan) appear to favor clean slate policy while downstream countries (Sudan and Egypt) favor colonial treaties. Notwithstanding the preference of one or another form of legal principle, Egypt’s insistence on colonial treaties collapses simply because Ethiopia was not a colony of Britain or indeed any other European power.

III

Now that we have seen Egypt’s historical and legal arguments falling apart, the next step is to examine the third foundation of the Egyptian stance - the environmental aspects of the dam. Previous literature indicated that carbon emissions and contaminations of rivers that cross national boundaries are examples of trans-boundary environmental problems. Hence, policy formation requires enforceable global treaties, sound national policy and the examination of advances in a number of disciplines. Furthermore, investments in big national projects such as stadiums, mineral extraction, oil and gas, canals, big dams, highways, and big architectural projects add behavioral and political dimensions to the science, technology and the economics of such undertakings. Most of the finest buildings and stadiums that host world cup games were and are being constructed in that national pride. And behavioral and emotional factors dominate financial arguments. In other words, national projects by their nature have behavioral dimensions and may not be captured by the paradigms of rationality and net present values. Time will tell whether the Ethiopian dam is different.

The mainstream literature on environmental economics focuses on welfare measurement, sustainability, technological change, externality and green accounting. The world commission on environment and development (aka the Bruntland Commission, 1987), for example, states that “sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Consistent with this understanding, the Nile River system has both trans-boundary and non-trans-boundary features for the riparian states and hence Egypt, in theory, may have a cause for concern. This concern can nonetheless be resolved through international instruments and institutions and bilateral relations that are based on mutual respect and trust. The international convention on the protection and use of trans-boundary and international lakes which was signed by nearly 40 countries does not provide the base for resolving disputes, and worse, no country from Africa (including Egypt) has actually ratified it. It nonetheless can be another point of departure. The United Nations Environmental program could also be a facilitator. Furthermore, as noted earlier, Africa has frameworks for inter-basin development. The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) has been a major institutional development which enables all riparian states to collaborate and act as equal members. Egypt’s effort to undermine this agreement is a mistake.

Other features of the leaked report of the International Panel of Experts covers the main factors of the project. Among other things, it confirms that: (i) GERD is economically feasible; (ii) the design meets international standards, subject to minor “corrections”; (iii) the contractor is reliable and has extensive international expertise and reputation in building large dams; (iv) the environmental impact study within Ethiopia is adequate and the trans-boundary effect on the Sudan is favorable and controls flood; and (v) the section on trans-boundary effect on Egypt requires additional study using complex models and actual data rather than reliance on desk work. In short, the authors of the 48 pages-long confidential report did not say that they expect a catastrophe and the vanishing of the Egyptian nation if the project gets completed. In short, Egypt is not in any imminent danger. This conclusion has ramifications for the multilateral institutions that refused to finance the project. In summary, Egypt’s opposition to GERD is indeed misplaced. Its return to the negotiation table and the African Union and the ratification of the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework and Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Watercourses and International Lakes are avenues for resolving the sticky problems of water sharing.