A Proxy Campaign against Ethiopia? -Response by GERD National Panel of Experts

International River Network (IRN): “GERD Panel of Experts Report: Big Questions Remain, Monday, March 31, 2014”


-Response by GERD National Panel of Experts

For so many years now the IRN, International River Network, this self-appointed “guardian” of all rivers of the world, has been leaving no stone unturned in its effort to subvert Ethiopia‟s efforts to develop its water resources and lift its vast and growing population out of poverty. This is manifested most glaringly in its incessant negative campaign against the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), initiated from the very first days when the idea of water resources development on the Abbay was floated, including even through the Nile Basin Initiative.

Apart from being amused, the NPOE so far had chosen to ignore IRN‟s anti-Ethiopia lobbying which is driven by an ideological, if not fanatical-messianic mission to “protect [the world‟s] rivers and … to stop destructive dams”. IRN is accuser, police, judge and jury all rolled into one. IRN determines for countries, particularly for developing and poor countries like Ethiopia, how to do water resources development projects the “right” way. For these “backward” countries, IRN is the high priest that communes with God the Almighty and determines what is the most environmentally appropriate, most efficient and economical, and most beneficial for local, national and regional not only flora and fauna but also human communities too. What paternalism!!

Until now we did not find it worthwhile to get into polemics with what we thought were basically misinformed and misguided IRN campaign. That is, until now. But now we are compelled to revise our stance toward these people. The straw that broke the camel‟s back, so to speak, happened on March 31, 2014 when IRN posted on its website a piece entitled “ GERD panel of Experts Report: Big Questions Remain” in which IRN explicitly called on Ethiopia to halt the construction of GERD!!

It would be unconscionable for us as professional Ethiopians well versed with and advising on GERD related issues to keep on looking at these people with bemusement and indifference when they peddle, clearly siding with Egypt, distorted, unsubstantiated and hostile mercenary propaganda against GERD and the Ethiopian people. It would take pages and pages to show the intense partisan nature of IRN in its entirety. However, the next few paragraphs suffice to illustrate our concern and to show a clear pattern of IRN‟s growing hostility toward Ethiopia. IRN‟s campaign against GERD and Ethiopia happened in four overlapping but discernable distinct stages:

Stage 1: Dissuade them!

True to its anti-dam creed, IRN did its best to discourage the idea of dam building in Ethiopia in the first place. IRN put forth whatever argument to dissuade decision makers. Arguments included those dams of a GERD scale would drain the national budget, would distort priorities, would be difficult to fund, etc. Here is one quote from their website:
“The US$5 billion scheme [GERD] is out of scale for such a poor country; the current cost estimate equals the country’s entire annual budget. The costly project is monopolizing government funding for the energy sector, leaving many worthy projects that would directly address the nation's high energy poverty underfunded.”

IRN, in a piece titled “A Tale of Two Dams: Comparing Ethiopia‟s Grand Renaissance to Hoover” and “drawing lessons” from „follies‟ of the Hoover Dam, offered advice to Ethiopia: do not repeat USA‟s mistakes! We will not go into the contentious and invalid arguments, to say the least, put forward and better ignore IRN‟s unsolicited advice. What is interesting is the poison that is wrapped in the package of IRN‟s advice. Read on:

“Ethiopian engineers recently compared the Grand Renaissance Dam to Hoover as a project that can lift a struggling nation out of poverty, and a project whose accomplishments will go down in history. Yet the darker lessons from Hoover’s long history might be equally relevant for Ethiopia to review. Consider: The mega dam model is a dinosaur. Ethiopia would be better off leapfrogging over it to a more modern and efficient system, and find less provocative ways to assert its interests over the Nile waters” (emphasis added)
IRN‟s message is not only that Ethiopia should not build big dams. The message is also that Ethiopia should stop being “provocative”. IRN advises Ethiopia to assert its right other than through being provocative i.e. other than through deciding to build GERD. To IRN, Ethiopia‟s decision to build GERD is provocation!! So much, for IRN‟s “advice”!

When the above tactics fail, IRN, referring to an expert (which it conveniently pluralizes), sheds crocodile tears by stating that Ethiopia is wasting its scarce resources on oversized projects like the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Here is another quote from their website:
“Ethiopia’s Biggest Dam Oversized, Experts Say Date: Thursday, September 5, 2013.
In May, Ethiopia diverted the Blue Nile to begin building its largest dam project to date, the 6,000 MW Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam (GERD) – a move that angered Egypt, which fears its water supply will shrink over the many years it will take to fill the huge reservoir. Besides the tensions this huge project is causing politically, there is growing concern that the dam will not produce nearly as much power as it has been designed to.” (Emphasis added)

Again, IRN never loses opportunity to lobby for its Egyptian paymasters. Not only does IRN talk about the “oversize” of GERD, but also about the Egyptians‟ negative emotions over GERD: anger and fear!
In yet another alarmist piece related to GERD, IRN bemoaning “Ethiopia's Dam Boom”, fabricates outrageous white lies:

“International Rivers is monitoring dam planning in Ethiopia, working to keep international donors from investing in the worst projects on the drawing boards, and sharing knowledge about better alternatives and the legacy of Ethiopia's past dams with international civil society.
Water for irrigation from large reservoirs is mostly earmarked for large-scale agricultural producers – and increasingly, for foreign agricultural developments taking advantage of a government-sponsored land leasing program. (Emphasis added)

Alas, IRN has nothing factual to show, in any of the GERD plans, to substantiate its claim that GERD is an irrigation project!! We should not dwell on this any longer for the facts speak for themselves.
Stage 2: Smear campaign
When its dissuasion tactic failed and GERD implementation proceeded on with earnest, IRN had to embark on what we may term its Stage 2 tactics: a smear campaign. Here IRN does all it can to find any fault – big or small, real or imagined- with GERD in a bid to discredit it in the eyes of the world, particularly funders. Here is one quote from an IRN piece of 06/07/2013 with an eye catching alarmist title “Why has the Nile become a Battleground?:
“This week, Ethiopia announced it was diverting the flow of the Blue Nile to begin building the huge Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Within days, water-stressed Egypt – a downstream Nile Basin nation – called for Ethiopia to halt its work on the giant new dam. Why is the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam causing such strife? In addition to Egypt’s fears that it will reduce its lifeline of Nile waters, the tensions have been fanned by the project’s “SAD” planning process: • Secretive: Although it is Africa’s biggest dam project and will have lasting impacts on its longest river, it has been developed under a veil of secrecy. • Autocratic: The dam will impact Ethiopians and downstream neighbors, yet its planning process has been top-down and unilateral. The public and dam-affected people have not been given a meaningful opportunity to critique the project or process. • Dismissive: Ethiopian government officials have flatly stated they will not make changes to the project, and have asserted that the project will not have impacts on downstream countries
4 | P a g e
The dam poses a number of risks to these downstream neighbors; one reason for the growing tension is that these risks have not been properly analyzed. Egypt has virtually no other sources of water for its people, and is already making do with less water per person than the international average. By at least one estimate, the Grand Renaissance reservoir could evaporate 3bn cubic meters of water a year – three times Egypt’s annual rainfall, and enough to meet the basic needs of up to half a million people. The reservoir could take 3-5 years to fill, reducing Egypt’s water supply by up to 25%.
However, damming off a shared river in a secretive and unilateral fashion is a provocative approach to resolving conflict in a water-stressed basin such as the Nile. Says Mohamed Allam, former minister of irrigation and water resources in Egypt: “This is not just about Egypt and Sudan. International rivers are governed by laws and conventions, in accordance with which any action that affects water quotas requires advanced notice and guarantees against possible harm.” The Nile situation is not an isolated incident. Ethiopia is being similarly aggressive over the development of the shared Omo River, where it is building the controversial Gibe III Dam and developing large-scale plantations. These developments threaten Kenya’s Lake Turkana”. (Emphasis added)
IRN, the all-knowing God of water resources development, is angry that Ethiopia did not observe its commandment of good water resources planning.
Oh, GERD planning is too “secretive” concludes IRN. As if Egypt shared hers with us! IRN can dream all
it wants. But we deal in and with the real world.

GERD planning is autocratic says IRN – it was not discussed with its neighbors!
GERD planning is dismissive judges IRN – since Ethiopia will not change the parameters of the project!
Oh GERD is wasteful condemns IRN - It will evaporate 3 BMC of water annually, equivalent to a non-existent Egyptian rainfall! IRN is making this fabricated statement, while keeping mum on the 10-15 BMC annual evaporation loss the Egyptian High Aswan Dam is causing in the middle of the Sahara Desert! How “fair” of IRN!!

Oh yes, GERD is provocative, says IRN, referring to Mohamed Allam, of all people, a former Egyptian Minister hostile to Ethiopia and eternal defender of the self claimed Egyptian quota.
Oh yes, GERD is harmful bemoans IRN, because it is going to affect Egypt, which has no other source of water, which is making do with less water per person.

Oh, dear IRN folks, need we tell you that of all African Countries, surely of all Nile Basin countries,
potable water, while an Ethiopian girl of sixteen has to go on average 6 kilometers each day back and forth to fetch a gallon of water from a river or a dug hole!! How “fair” of IRN! IRN, as usual, never missed this opportunity to work on and provoke friendly and neighboring Kenya! As far back as Mach 2004, IRN, in a cynical piece on the Nile Basin Initiative titled “Can the Nile States Dam Their Way to Cooperation?” in the part which discussed the Tekeze Dam had “warned”:

“Ethiopia has reportedly neglected to formally consult with downstream Sudan and Egypt on the scheme, a decision which could further strain relations between the countries”
Oh IRN folks. What do you say to the appreciation Sudan is heaping on Ethiopia for the positive impact of that dam!!

Stage 3: Create Alarm!
IRN, noticing that its dissuasion and smear campaigns did not achieve its goals of stopping GERD at its inception or planning stages, embarked desperately to create alarm among the international community and downstream countries the fervor of which the Egyptians might envy.
IRN first attempted spinning or otherwise amplifying a conspiracy theory about GERD thus:
“The project’s launch came in the midst of the Egyptian revolution, which some observers believe was intended to take advantage of the more powerful nation’s confused political state at a time when the issue of who controls the Nile is heating up.”

IRN also “psychologized” Ethiopia‟s decision to build the GERD thus:
“Egypt has long held the majority rights to the Nile – a situation that especially angers Ethiopia, which is the source of 85% of the river’s waters.”
Be that as it may, the worst is that IRN seems to wish any conflict, violent or otherwise, between Egypt and Ethiopia is better than seeing the GERD completed. Here is another one:
“While there are no known studies about the dam’s impacts on the river’s flow, filling such a huge reservoir (it will hold up to 67 billion cubic meters of water, and could take up to seven years to reach capacity) will certainly impact Egypt, which relies almost totally on the Nile for its water supply. Development Today magazine reports that the Nile flow into Egypt could be cut by 25% during the filling period. Many fear the project could set off a water war in the region, and indeed, in mid-2013, tensions flared dramatically. Climate change could increase the project’s many risks. The potential for conflict is probably the main reason international funders have shown no interest in supporting the project.”
Again IRN‟s concern is Egypt‟s water security, not Ethiopia‟s poverty, water, energy and food insecurity! And then the allusion to conflict, referring to Many” (whoever they are!) who fear the almost inevitable conflict and war that would follow if Ethiopia proceeds with GERD. Oh, international financiers beware! Do not put your money there. What shameless partisanship of IRN. Should we be accused if we suspect payment under the table?

Stage 4: Conduct a Stop Them Campaign!

IRN, realizing its preceding three maneuvers did not yield any meaningful result, had to come to the open, reveal itself and launch its outright and blatant campaign against the GERD.
In a June 2013 piece titled “Why has the Nile River Become a Battleground?” the IRN speculated:
“But what if Ethiopia refuses to engage? Some believe the International Court of Justice should be called in. – a move that Ethiopia rejects. Others hope Ethiopia’s major donors will use their diplomatic leverage to intervene. . . .” The article further urged that “Western donors have thus far mostly stayed out of the debate on Ethiopia’s dam building. Yet Ethiopia is one of the world’s largest recipients of foreign aid. The US has been the largest donor to the country, through a range of programs. Ethiopia has been receiving $3.5 billion on average from international donors in recent years – a critical portion of its national budget. This assistance explains how such a poor nation can afford to build costly dams and irrigation infrastructure without dedicated funding. Western donors such as the United States have a responsibility to step up diplomatic pressure on Ethiopia …”
IRN‟s maneuverings and multifaceted campaigns notwithstanding, the GERD progress has continued unabated, almost a third complete, thanks to the whole hearted and unequivocal support for and rally of the Ethiopian people behind their project! IRN seems to have gotten desperate. There is nothing more telling of this than its latest piece, dated March 31, 2014, apparently based on a “leaked” IPOE report, full of lies and distortions, entitled “GERD Panel of Experts Report: Big Questions Remain.” Here is an extensive quote from that piece:

“The mega dam is being built on the Blue Nile in Ethiopia, near the Sudan border, and has created conflict with Egypt over its downstream impacts; the experts' study confirms Egypt’s concerns that the project’s impacts could be significant and are not well understood. Egypt has called for mediation if further studies are not allowed; at this writing, Ethiopia had refused, and was continuing with dam construction.

…. It is also clear that there is precious little oversight on Africa’s largest dam project to date. While the international panel has brought a type of oversight, it may be too little, too late – and with too little teeth; it seems the panel does not have a continuing role in ensuring best practices as construction proceeds. The panel’s report is almost a year old at this writing, yet its members have been mostly silent since their report was completed (as far as we know, none of the panelists have made public statements about the project). The Egyptian and Ethiopian governments continue the war of words, while at the same time construction on the mega dam proceeds, and questions raised by the panel remain unanswered. Going forward, International Rivers recommends

construction on the project be halted until all necessary studies recommended by the panel are completed, and a process is in place for ensuring public accountability on the project. Given the panel's findings, Egypt’s call for mediation in the process is reasonable, and donor governments and international bodies should support such a process” (emphasis added)
In the first place the IPoE did not have an “oversight” role as erroneously stated by IRN. The IPoE‟s role as defined by the three Ministers of water affairs of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan is “ mainly facilitative, focused on promoting dialogue and understanding around GERD related issues of interest to the three countries so as to build trust and confidence among all parties.”
We appreciate the response to the biased IRN article posted on hornaffairs.com by Mr Danieil Berhane entitled, “ Anti=dam group doctors report, joins Egypt to stop Ethiopia’s dam” (April 6, 2014 hornaffairs.com). We invite readers to read this article for a line by line rebuttal to the IRN unsubstantiated and distorted writing entitled, “GERD Panel of Experts Report: Big Questions Remain,

Monday, March 31, 2014”
We would however like to pose our own BIG QUESTIONS to IRN:
Where in the IPoE report do the IRN experts find recommendation of the IPoE that states to stop or delay the GERD until the recommended additional studies are conducted??! Where in the report do the IRN experts find a statement that states “the experts' study confirms Egypt‟s concerns that the project‟s impacts could be significant and are not well understood.” ??!

What is peculiar with the panel‟s recommendation to conduct “a full transboundary environmental and social impact assessment … conducted jointly by the three countries.”, since theTransboundary Environmental and Socioeconomic Impact study conducted through the initiative of Ethiopia and based on desk study requires more data and information from the downstream countries??!

The desk study has clearly shown that all expected downstream impacts can be mitigated and thus the more detailed recommended studies will not change the major findings of the desk study. Other studies done by the Eastern Nile Technical Regional Office of the NBI have also confirmed that changes in hydrological conditions due to GERD are all manageable. Thus these additional studies do not necessitate the delay or stopping of the construction of the GERDP .

Instead of sowing seeds of mistrust with your unsubstantiated writings among the people of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, we offer our humble advice to appreciate the most obvious benefits of the GERDP for the downstream countries that may assist you to be rational and refrain from propagating irresponsible and biased information.

1. The energy generation from the GERD will enhance regional and economic integration such as through power interconnectedness, regional cooperation, trust and confidence building
2. Due to regulated and increased flows a longer period of navigation on the Nile River downstream HAD will be possible. This will have important benefits for the tourism sector by extending the present touristic period
3. The HAD reservoir capacity loss due to sedimentation will be reduced since the GERD Reservoir will store substantial quantity of sediments.
4. With GERD operating upstream, average annual HAD losses will be 9.5 BCM/year instead of 10.8 BCM/year in case of HAD alone. Losses by evaporation, decrease by 12% comparing to HAD alone situations
5. With GERD there will be increased flood control and due its routing capacity there will be better flood control downstream of HAD and Risk of HAD overtopping will be eliminated.
6. With GERD, the total storage capacity along the Nile River will significantly increase in the long term. This will reduce the risk due to hydrological variability with sequences of dry and wet years.
7. The GERD will regulate the flows of the Blue Nile and this will support flows arriving at HAD.
8. The GERD will reduce negative impacts on population and infrastructures in Sudan caused by recurrent floods.
9. The GERD will capture sediment, protecting irrigation canals and equipment from damages caused by sedimentation.
Conclusion

It is obvious that in its desperation the IRN has been forced to come out and show its true color: a proxy for Egypt masquerading as an international environmental group fighting for the health of rivers!!
In all its ranting does IRN feel obliged, even if to feign decency, neutrality and disinterest, to mention Ethiopia‟s need and desperation. By the way, is not Sudan a downstream country? Why does IRN shut up about Sudan‟s identification with and support for GERD?!!!!!!!!!

Why does IRN dwell and fight exclusively for Egyptian interests, harps on their real or imagined and fabricated fears, while not uttering a single word about the waste incurred via the High Aswan Dam (HAD), via the Toshka project, etc?
By contrast, IRN never feels obliged to mention a single merit of GERD. It is a taboo!
IRN has no boundaries of shame. It accuses the IPOE members of „keeping silent”! Should every sensible human being on the face of the earth turn into a corrupt IRN partisan activist?
The IRN! The IRN that resides in California, USA, whose activists never have endured or experienced what it means to go thirsty or hungry for days; the IRN, if it had all the power to do so would have halted all water resources development projects all over the developing world.
Or, is it only in Ethiopia?

Consider this: Prior to1950 large scale dams worldwide did not number more than 5000. By 2000 large scale dams were more than 40,000. As of 2006, they stood at over 50,000. IRN‟s campaigns notwithstanding, big dams are there to grow, especially in the developing world. So, given these trends what is IRN talking about, except to single out a single country, Ethiopia, and treat it as pariah and discourage its progress? Ethiopia never forgets the pains it had to bear due to its geography. Ethiopia has endured centuries of invasions and subversions by powers from far and close that aspired to control the headwaters of the Nile. Ethiopia has been prevented physically from accessing its water resources by keeping it busy with wars, direct or proxy wars. IRN‟s anti Ethiopia campaign is but a continuation of that history - by another means, that is.

Be that as it may, we condemn IRN‟s unfair and biased support for Egypt in its disagreements with Ethiopia contrary to its own mission state. We categorically reject IRN‟s paternalist and condescending advice to Ethiopia to accept its proposal and halt construction of GERD. What more do we need to prove our contention that IRN is doing ethically dubious job and propagating proxy campaigns against Ethiopia on behalf of Egypt.
We would like IRN, all friends and foes to know that the Ethiopian people are determined to develop their water resources and the construction of GERDP will not stop or delayed for a second.
***

Ethiopia: The Clash of Pax Britannica and Pax Africana Over the Nile River

By Nurye Yassin, 1 March 2014


opinion

Egypt's incessant insistence on its singular utilization, use and development of the Nile River remains a mantra, lingering on in north-eastern Africa as Egyptian politicians, opinion makers, academics and media continue to insist on the sacrosanctity of the exclusive entitlement of their country to the Nile waters.

This, of course, was implanted under the shade of the Pax Britannica, long gone except in Egypt. Equally, it is an insistence that appears incompatible with the Pax Africana to which the upstream states subscribe and which promotes the equitable and fair, mutually beneficial usage and development of the Nile for all present and future generations. Implementation of the Pax Africana use of the Nile, however, is under pressure from the diplomatic and political armory of Egypt's version of the Pax Britannica, which in theory offered Egypt full utilization of the River Nile under colonial-era agreements of the last century.

Egyptian presumptions about its control of the Nile waters are currently filling the output of its media, academia and politics and in its international relations as the Nile Basin countries leap into forging on an agreement that benefits all. They have also been sparked off by the launch of Ethiopia's Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project (GERDP), a central element in Ethiopia's efforts to escape from the repeated and painful experiences of famine, poverty and instability. Ethiopia's successful efforts to encourage fair share and utilization of the Nile waters have reactivated the selfishly unilateral illusions of Egyptian politicians, intellectuals and journalists even in this age of multilateralism. The Renaissance Dam has become the spark to encourage the politicians to try to revitalize the inviolability of their supposed 'acquired' and 'historical' rights.

They appear, regrettably, once again to have started another hydro-diplomatic and political campaign with the objective of trying to persuade European countries and international financial institutions to refuse any technical and financial support to the GERDP. A source from the Egyptian Government told the Al Monitor paper on February 19 that "Egypt will continue its international escalation and all options are open to us to protect our share of the Nile waters." He added that "more negotiations with Ethiopia only waste time and directly threaten Egypt's water security." Egypt has also launched a strategy of trying to encourage Arab countries to denounce the construction of the dam. One example of this came when Mohammad Abdel Motalib, the then Egyptian Irrigation Minister, vilified the Turkish Foreign Minister's recent visit to Addis Ababa. He went on to compare Turkey's Ataturk Dam with the Renaissance Dam, adding that the Ataturk Dam had left the Syrians and Iraqis thirsty. Egypt is planning not only to internationalize its anti-Dam campaign but also Arabize it to alienate Ethiopia in its friendly diplomatic, political and economic relations with the Arab world.

Egypt's moves to block funds and technical support to the development of the Nile and its tributaries are nothing new. Over the last century, diplomatic intrigues supplemented by colonial attitudes and Cold War rivalries, helped Egypt disrupt and prevent the Lake Tana projects in the early 1930s, the Abbay master plan studies (1958-64), the Gilgel Abbay project in the 1960s, the Tana Beles development project of the mid-1980s and a number of other proposed water development projects in Ethiopia. These efforts to disrupt and destroy development projects continued even during the periods when the peoples of Ethiopia were suffering from the disastrous droughts and famines of the 1970s and 1980s when millions starved and died. The concerns of Egyptian politicians for people have never extended beyond their own borders. Attempting to block financial and technical support was not the only strategy employed by previous Egyptian governments. Haggai Erlich, Professor of Middle Eastern and African History, has noted that President Nassir consistently deployed a hydro-political and geopolitical strategy to weaken Ethiopia and destabilize the country.

It was Nassir who first came up with the idea of a mythical, Eritrean Arabism, to encourage support for turning the Red Sea into an Arab sphere of influence as well as gaining control of the sources of the Blue Nile, after his equally imaginative idea of creating and leading a State of the Union of the Nile Valley collapsed. The government of President Sadat followed the idea up, requesting Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Kuwait and others to accept the responsibility of supporting the Eritrean revolt. The effect was to force any attempts at a development agenda in Ethiopia into necessary issues of security and defense. Professor Daniel Kende, using global intelligence sources, has also given details of the way Egypt committed itself to supply light and medium arms and explosives, military intelligence and expertise to the Government of Eritrea during in Ethiopia-Eritrea war during Mubarak's time in power after Eritrea invaded Ethiopia in May 1998. Destabilizing Ethiopia, in fact, was a central element in Egypt's strategy to extend its 'acquired' and 'historic' rights and avoid sharing the use of the Nile upstream. Planting his belligerence stance to solely marshal all the affairs of the Horn of Africa, President Isayas Afework has been struggling to weaken Ethiopia's march towards peace, stability and prosperity, according to a 2008 Chatham House Report. Based on his intransigent strategic goal, he expressed his support for Egypt's claim to 'historical rights' to the Nile waters through his Foreign Minister, Osman Saleh, and Advisor, Yemane Gebreab, in April 2013.

The recent high level exchange of visits and meetings between Eritrea and Egypt entail the stratagem to outfox Ethiopia's fight against poverty and instability and outwit upstream countries' efforts to replace the 'historical rights' of Egypt with a more reasonable and equitable utilization of the Nile waters. Nassir's Pan-Arab revolution did not confine its anti-Ethiopian policies to Eritrea. In addition to trying to undermine Ethiopia's geo-political interests in the Red Sea, it was also directed towards the Indian Ocean, encouraging the concept of 'Greater Somalia' in order to annex Ethiopia's Somali-speaking region and to encourage Somali nationalists to claim Harar, already known of course as one of the holiest places of Islam and the political center for the activities of Ahmed Gragn in the 16thcentury. The continuing effect of the conflicts and incursions from Somalia in the 1960s and 1970s, and subsequently, had a major impact in weakening any attempts by Ethiopia to eradicate poverty, drought and famine in the later part of the last century. Egypt, it might be added, took no interest in the effect its policies have also had on the lives of millions of Somalis as well as Ethiopians. In the 1960s, Emperor Haile Selassie expressed his apprehension over President Nassir's behavior, noting that "the Somalis would have never dreamt of such an idea without being incited by Nassir." President Nassir's successors have continued in the same approach, supporting President Siad Barre, and more recently stirring up various Somali extremists to oppose and attempt to destabilize Ethiopia.

The effects of all this can be seen throughout the Horn of Africa, in civil-wars, inter-state conflicts, drought, famine and other catastrophes. The main goal of Egypt's strategy in destabilizing Ethiopia as well as subverting its efforts to get funds for development of the Nile or indeed other projects has been to sustain the colonial treaties of Pax Britannica and its 'water imperialism'. This meant that the strategy is also directed against any efforts by other upstream countries to develop and use the Nile waters as part of the decolonization process and their own development. The result is a major fault line between Egypt, acting as promoter of the unjust use of the Nile River originally implanted by the British Empire, and Ethiopia and other riparian countries, the promoters of the Pax Africana's view of equal and fair utilization of the Nile under which all the peoples of Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and all other upstream countries can find, discuss and find solutions to any disagreements over the use of the river.

It is particularly disheartening for upstream countries and for Ethiopia, of course, that Egypt persists in its outdated political and diplomatic efforts to try to internationalize water development projects. It stands in vivid contradiction to the concept of the Pax Africana that aims to promote and assist in the full engagement of Africans, all Africans, in the development of Africa's strategic efforts to maintain peace, stability, security and prosperity. As Ethiopia has persistently demonstrated, it believes in the pivotal role of 'genuine' dialogue and discussion to address the concerns of lower riparian countries over the GERDP. It immediately and unconditionally accepted implementation of all the recommendations of the International Panel of Experts' report, including the suggested studies for a hydropower model and on trans-boundary environment and socio-economic impact issues. At the same time, it is pushing ahead with the construction of the dam in a spirit of mutual development and mutual help based upon trust. The essence of Ethiopia's position is firmly established in a way that any disagreement over sharing of usage of the Nile River should be worked out and resolved by Africans themselves rather than by others from lands far beyond the Nile Basin. Ethiopia indeed is implementing the concept of 'African solutions to African problems.'

What has also proved disappointing to Ethiopia and other upper riparian countries is Egypt's continued conceptualization of the term 'security'. Egyptian politicians and intellectuals seem content to view 'security' as a matter of their own self-interest and 'right', for Egypt, and Egypt alone, to exploit the waters of the Nile solely and eternally. There is no room in this view for any upstream country to share in usage of the river. This characterization of the concept of 'security' hardly conforms to contemporary views of global interdependence. No nation today is sufficient to itself. Interdependence is the norm in the present world affairs. Mr. Jian Zemin, former Chinese President, identified the concept of 'security' with shared visions, interests and benefits of countries in his report to the CCPC. He emphasized that the new and emerging security concept of the 21st century was something cemented by 'mutual benefit, equality and coordination.' Such a new security vista rightly places collective benefits and joint developments higher in a century in which, to quote the late Dr. Kinfe Abraham "'mutual trust is the basis; mutual benefit is the objective; equality is the guarantee; and coordination is the means". Unhappily Egypt appears determined to reject this new approach, consistently returning to the old colonial agreements which claim to uphold the exclusive vision, interest and benefit of the Nile Waters for Egypt.

This underlines the fault line between the Pax Britannica and Pax Africana, a fault line with seriously detrimental social, environmental, economic and security repercussions for all the peoples of the Nile Basin. Egypt's strategy, indeed, can only encourage further inequality, exclusion, state fragility, socio-economic malaise, depletion of water resources and other problems for the region and the whole of the Nile Basin. Water security as defined by Egypt remains in opposition to Ethiopia's right to development, negating fundamental human rights and the sanctity and dignity of the lives of Ethiopians and of millions of East Africans residing along the banks of the Nile River. It infringes upon Ethiopia's sovereign rights to develop, utilize and use its resources within its own territories, resources that include the Blue Nile, Tekezze and Baro-Akobo rivers - as long as these do not have any adverse impact on lower riparian countries. Ethiopia's current aim is to terminate the current unjust, unequal and colonial status of water development along the Nile within the framework of mutual benefit and mutual trust and of fair share and usage.

It is a desire shared by all the other riparian states without exception. Even British imperialists eventually began to question the full ownership of the Nile that they had given to Egypt, raising questions in the 1950s about the future of British East Africa's future water supply and equal entitlement of Nile usage. One of the questions was: what would be the future of the British East Africa with the increasing water demand and equal entitlement of the Nile for their development? Egypt's historical rights have been thoroughly questioned with sound reason by Poet Laureate Tsegaye Gebre-Medhin, who poetically identified the Nile River as "the blood of Ethiopia, the mother of the Cush, the introducer of civilization to the world [born] from the rays of the ancient creature born of the womb of Cush." Ethiopia, the cradle of humanity, developed its first civilizations along the waters of the Nile and its tributaries. Other examples multiplied: the Nubians of Meroe in the Sudan, the Aksumites in Ethiopia, the Pharaonic empires of Egypt, the Makondes of Tanzania and many others erected their temples of African civilization along the river, recognizing the River's sustenance and fertility and its provision of mutual interdependence, human dignity and love for future peoples. What Egypt, above all, as one of the oldest civilizations in Africa and the World, should remember from its historic experience is the importance of genuine shared vision, of the interests and benefits of present and future generations. It should draw the lesson that its own water security must encompass the security and interests of upper riparian countries, not dwell on short-term political or supposed diplomatic gains. Now is the most critical time for the countries of the Nile Basin. According to recent security studies, African states are threatened by continuing high levels of poverty, increasing youth population, unemployment, over-rapid urbanization, inequality, exclusion, conflicts, climate disruption, environmental degradation and other dangers. There is almost universal agreement that greater integration and enhanced partnership are the imperative necessities to enable Africa to resolve these challenges in the years ahead.

The Nile Basin is no exception to this reality. It is home to 20 per cent of the people of Africa. There is no alternative. Egypt, like Sudan and all the other upstream countries, must realize genuine cooperation and continuous discussion, based on the priorities of African Renaissance, including development of comparative advantage, development of infrastructure, bridging the technological divide, human development and consolidation of the peace, security and stability of Africa, is the way to resolve disagreement. The result will provide for greater economic, social, political and cultural integration with a myriad of benefits as well as create a win-win atmosphere in the Nile Basin. Forging partnerships, encouraging mutual benefit, equality, coordination, and a shared vision is the way to heal and replace outdated water imperialism, replace the Pax Britannica with a Pax Africana, and finally erase the unnecessary though deep-rooted fear, suspicion and mistrust still existing in Egypt.

Ed.'s Note: The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of The Reporter.

The Hypocrisy of the West

By Messay Kebede

The West is deploring the referendum in Crimea and threatening to apply economic sanctions against Russia, believed to be the instigator of the unfolding Ukrainian crisis. Some Western politicians even go the extent of advocating direct military aid so that Ukraine can oppose military resistance to the Russian aggression. The referendum, which is supposed to lead to the reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation, is characterized by the West as illegal. From what I was able to gather, the reasons why the referendum is considered illegal include the followings. (1) Ukraine is an independent and sovereign country; (2) the referendum takes place with a strong presence of Russian military force in Crimea; (3) the referendum does not offer Crimea the choice of remaining within Ukraine.

What beats everything is that the West did not raise any concern about legality when Eritrea seceded from Ethiopia in 1993, even though all the reasons enumerated to contest the referendum in Crimea were also present in Ethiopia. Thus, ( 1) Ethiopia is an independent and sovereign nation; (2) the referendum was conducted in the presence of the victorious EPLF army; (3) The choice to remain part of Ethiopia under a new political arrangement was not offered to Eritreans, nor was Ethiopia given the opportunity defend its legitimate position and interests, except through the TPLF government. The latter had no legality other than the power of arms and was already dead set to expel Eritrea from Ethiopia as a dangerous rival to the TPLF hegemony in Ethiopia. Yet, though conducted under such faulty conditions and in direct violation of the sovereignty of Ethiopia, the referendum was declared “fair and free” by the UN Observer Mission.

One thing is sure: we Ethiopians should remember the Western condemnation of the Russian initiative. If, as says the West, the conduct of a referendum in a situation preventing free expression and in an independent and sovereign country is illegal, then undoubtedly the rejection of the referendum in Crimea equally questions the legality of the Eritrean secession. The flaws that make the secession of Crimea illegal are also those that disqualify the Eritrean referendum. This is not to say that Ethiopia should start a war to recover Eritrea, but that it is not compelled to accept its independence so long as it believes, now in accordance with the West, that the referendum was illegal.

Surprising as it may seem, the West is saying that the feeling of the concerned people does not matter as much as the legality of the process. Even if Crimeans in their majority want to be part of Russia, they cannot do it in violation of the national sovereignty of Ukraine. Of course, what explains the application of different criteria is that Russia is a rival superpower while Ethiopia is a poor and weak country. Everything must be done to stop the expansion of Russia. By contrast, nobody should lose sleep over the fragmentation, in direct violation of its national sovereignty, of a country as weak as Ethiopia.

The Ethiopian Ordeal in the Middle East: How can we end it?

By Fekade Shewakena

In Ethiopia we have a habit , I am not sure if I can call it a culture, of going through an agonizing massive problem and forgetting about it once we get the feeling that we are through it. We simply hope the problem will go away and not come back again. We don’t seem to have a “never again” collective mentality as many other people do after going through horrifying ordeals following natural or manmade disasters. We often leave it to God or government and refuse to investigate why something bad happened to us in the first place and find ways to stop it from happening again. Consider the famines we went though in the past. After having gone through a devastating famine and the arrival of aid or the next rains, life seems to turn to “normal”. We refuse to go back and examine how it could have been prevented, learn from the experience, and make adjustments for the future. The result is often another famine down the line that is even more devastating. I lost count of how many large scale regional famines we have had let alone the more localized ones that occur more frequently. At present it seems we have succeeded in distributing the regional famines into geographic ubiquity and in the process succeeded in hiding it. We keep eluding ourselves that we have controlled it but people continue to suffer. What is even more disturbing is, whenever we cared to solve the problem, we often prescribe the problem itself as the solution. International food aid and invitation of charitable NGOs are the major solutions we still seek. In the process we produced a culture of dependency on aid and charity at the cost of innovating our way out of the problem. As a result our food insecurity problem keeps persisting. Consider also another devastating experience we have in Ethiopia that we simply refuse to learn from and make changes. Throughout our history we go through destructive internal conflicts to solve political problems. Moments after one is solved, often militarily, the ground is set for another round of conflict. At the end of the conflicts we don’t do the needed deliberations and plans that will pull us together to build a conflict free society. When we do, as the TPLF/EPRDF tried to do at the end of the derg era in 1991, it was exclusionary and self serving. We all remember so much talk about ending wars. We were told we ended the Ethio-Eritrean war once and for all. But look what we have done only seven years later. There was talk about solving the problem of “nations and nationalities” in Ethiopia. What we see now is a compounded problem of ethnic hostility and conflicts of various levels perhaps more than any other time in the recent past history of the country. I am afraid we are going to do the same thing with the current problem of massive labor migration, better be called slave trade, of Ethiopians to the Middle East and the harrowing ordeal Ethiopians face in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.

There may be enough blame to go around for the current problems. Ultimately we Ethiopians own this problem and each one of us have some responsibility to share. If we fail to realize this fact, the problem is not going to be solved both in the short and long term. We Ethiopians should understand that the Saudis did not create the problem. It is foolish to expect them to solve it for us. They are solving their own problem the way they know how – through a barbaric way. We may even thank them for paying for the cost of returning many of our citizens and helping the incompetent rulers of Ethiopia cope with this massive problem.

It is also good that we stop lying to ourselves. The suffering we witnessed in Saudi Arabia is only the peak in an ongoing suffering that we Ethiopians including officials of the government were watching for years with willful blindness. The real culprits in this problem are we Ethiopians particularly the Ethiopian authorities who allowed this slave trade to go on for more than a decade. The officials were more concerned about the remittance these slaves send back than the humans themselves. Let’s stop pretending that we don’t know about the magnitude of the problem Ethiopians go through in the Middle East. We do know. Who hasn’t heard of an Ethiopian maid throwing herself from a high-rise building or the widespread rape of Ethiopian maid servants or the many on whose faces was thrown boiling water or oil by their masters, the mentally disturbed returnees, maids who were denied of their wages and those who committed suicide to end their ordeals. Painful reminders like the dragging of Alem Dechaasa in front of the Ethiopian Embassy in Beirut and her tragic suicide happened not in the distant past. There are books written about this problem and I remember seeing a movie about the problem of Ethiopian maid servants in the Middle East made about a decade ago. We know about the problem full well.

Yes, Ethiopians around the world are rightly outraged at the horrendous crime perpetrated by the Saudi Arabian government and its vigilantes against Ethiopians. The savage killings the gang rape of helpless Ethiopians by the Saudi Shabab, and the savage beating are hard to bear for a once proud people. I am only surprised that nobody hasn’t burnt down the Saudi embassy in Addis Ababa or harm any of their many economic interests elsewhere in the country. Perhaps it takes a decent and cultured people not to have done that; or is it that we have completely forgotten how to be angry? Saudi Arabia may have a 21st century wealth and economy thanks to their fossil oil, but this is a country where backward institutions of medieval culture still operate. There are many people there who operate on a 15th century mindset and with very little sense of human rights or human dignity. This is a country where people are still punished by stoning. We should not forget that this is also the country and a culture that supplied most of the beasts that flew airplanes carrying innocent travelers on to buildings packed by innocent people in New York. The Saudis, and to a large extent, most middle Easterners have a visceral hatred towards Ethiopians as anyone who has experienced living with them would tell you. A lot of it is racism. We know they have all kinds of derogatory pejoratives with which they refer Ethiopia and Ethiopians. We now know that they were doing anti Ethiopian propaganda on their media prior to the carnage in Riyadh. Some of it has to do with the fact that Ethiopia is a predominantly Christian country living at peace with its large Islamic population. That in part explains why the violence of the Saudi police and the youth vigilante was targeted against Ethiopians more than the immigrants from many other countries. I sincerely doubt that they do this because of commitment to their religion as some would claim. The Saudis did not discriminate between Muslim and Christian Ethiopians when harming them. If it had to do with their religion, I would think that they would have been reminded of the words of the Prophet Mohammad about the story of the First Hegira and the respect for Ethiopians in the Koran before they lay their hands on a single Ethiopian.

Can this Misery be turned into an Opportunity?
The tragedy that took place in Saudi Arabia can be turned into an opportunity to work through a solution and avoid a larger scale problem. Why not? Some of the greatest achieving countries around the world are those that have taken misfortunes as opportunity for rethinking and changing their reality. I challenge all Ethiopians, particularly the educated elite and the officials of the government to organize conferences to discuss this serious problem and come up with measurable recommendations over time and mechanisms to implement solutions. The regime, if it is not willing should be pressured to do so. Anger and feelings of shame are good in as long as they lead toward solving problems. I for one am sick and tired of listening to these painful and shameful stories over and over again.

There is no question that the Ethiopian authorities who have tolerated and, in many instances, oversaw and supervised this massive slave trade have the most to account for this crime. Their response to this massive tragedy is also disgraceful and disrespectful to a once proud people and country. Ethiopia is the only place where Ethiopians were unable to demonstrate and express their anger at the way their fellow Ethiopians were treated in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps that may be the reason why the Saudis were emboldened to do their crime on Ethiopians with a sense of impunity. If there was even a semblance of democracy in Ethiopia there could have been a lot of officials that could be fired from their jobs for incompetence and insensitivity. A parliament of a democratic Ethiopia would have grilled these officials before firing them and would have set up a fact finding commission to find out details. But this is Ethiopia where the government never makes mistakes, you know. But at the end of the day, this does not exonerate the rest of us, the Ethiopian elite in particular, and all of us born in this unfortunate country, from responsibility. Let’s not forget that we are also responsible for owning this kind of regime that has little respect for the survival, dignity and pride of its people. There is some truth to what some political scientists say – “people deserve the governments they have”. We own the Woyane as much as we own these terrible problems. We cannot end this and other problems only through blaming. It is possible that we may have a solution that the government may refuse to impermanent. I think it is better to have some idea of the solution even if it is not implemented.

Let’s begin by asking these tough questions:

Let’s use these national conferences to ask some serious questions and work hard to find answers. How did we come to this disgrace in less than a generation? Why are young people making life and death decisions looking for work elsewhere including in hostile societies even when they have the information that it is full of high risk gamble? What can we do to stop it? What is leading families to send their teenage daughters and sons to slave in the Middle East? Is it poverty? Hasn’t Ethiopia been always poor? What kind of poverty does lead people to shade their sense of dignity and pride? What has changed in Ethiopia that should not have changed? Why were Ethiopians studying abroad eager to return back to their country at the end of their studies until the 1980s? Why wasn’t better life a lure then? Why are our best and brightest people leaving the country in mass? How much is the country losing monetarily through losing its educated manpower? Can we stop outmigration? How can we use it to the benefit of Ethiopia and Ethiopians if we cannot stop it? How did some poor countries keep their best and brightest from going to the West? Why have we become number one in the world in terms of losing its educated people through labor migration to the West? Is Ethiopia incapable of carrying its growing population? Should we reexamine the land holding system in the country? Does the current landholding system have anything to do with the problem and the solution? What are we doing in the education area? Are we educating our youth for a better future for themselves and the country? What real and latent resources do we have to make full employment of the population? What about the ethnic federalism? Why is the problem of the returnees from the Middle East different from the unemployed still living in the country? What has this problem to do with the lack of democratic culture? Why are other countries with poor population and serious economic problems not opting to leave their countries in massive numbers and migrate to other countries? What should we open up? What should we close? What is the role of religious institutions in helping our society? What is the private sector employing a minuscule proportion of the population? What is unique in Ethiopia that disproportionately leads its young to become so hopeless in their own country? When did the word “sidetegna” stop being an insult to an Ethiopian? I am sure you can add more tougher questions to this list. I know these questions are easy asked than answered. But we have no alternative than face them.

The Ethiopian authorities should stop covering their rear end by coaching traumatized returnees at Bole airport to give testimony about their work and the “life saving work” of their despicable embassy in Saudi Arabia on television. It could have been laughable if it was not painful to watch these traumatized people being coached and used by the government media for this silly purpose. Currently the government is trying to do some quick fixes and some lip service to chase the problem from the public arena.

Those of us who spend energy demonstrating at Saudi Embassies around the world should spend some energy to pressurize the officials ruling Ethiopia to respond to our demands for both the short term and lasting solutions. I suggest that we demand the government set up an independent commission to examine what happened to Ethiopians in the Middle East, to find out the number of people that died, those that are hurt and the many that are missing and languishing in the prisons of countries in the Middle East. There should be a comprehensive and lasting solution to this problem. Keep protesting and demanding and don’t go back home without getting the end of this misery in sight. How much is the life of an Ethiopian worth? Shouldn’t it be better than that of dogs?

(The writer can be reached at Fekadeshewakena@yahoo.com)

What happened in Saudi Arabia “the truth”

By YohannesY
Last week the Saudi Arabian's government unleashed an attack on innocent Ethiopians. We were all surprised by the magnitude of the attack and also the mentality of the Saudi’s. There is no justification for this kind of act. Even the Ethiopian government caught by surprised because there is no war between these two nations. This shows the Saudi Arabian’s authorities incompetence and that they are extremely irresponsible; they do not have the basic values for human lives.

Most of these people were cleaning their trash, building their homes and taking care of their babies. They drive their school bus and yet those unarmed people were attacked for some vague reason. They were treated by the Saudi Arabian’s government very cruelly. They also said that it was against all the immigrants, but that was not true; it was targeted Ethiopian immigrants in particular. They were hunting Ethiopians like a rabid dogs.

First, we must know and understand that this act is not random. They were talking about a new Saudi law that they gave 7 month of registration and that amnesty period was expired on Nov 3, 2013 and all these craps are just cover up to attack Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia. Besides that the government of Saudi Arabia negotiated with the government of Ethiopia to take every month 40,000 people, read why suddenly change? You have to remember what Spike Milligan said I shook hands with a friendly Arab. I still have my right arm to prove it. You cannot trust them. The rumored said that the Eritreans and some unnamed Ethiopian opposition were involved in certain meetings in Saudi Arabia.
Unconfirmed Report
There was a discussion among the Saudi officials with Eritreans counter parts and unnamed Ethiopian oppositions. The discussions is about the Ethiopian renaissance dam. The Saudi Arabians security officer who is assigned for this job want to get some more feedback about the Ethiopian effort and he said one of Arab brotherly country will be in grave danger. Saudi diplomats and Egyptian counterparts are giving their best effort to stop the financier group and becoming successful. International banks denied Ethiopia to get a loan.

However, that did not stop Ethiopia’s construction of the dam. The Saudi's were baffled: where is the money coming from? Their effort to destabilize Ethiopia with all sorts of reason including supporting the armed group and their effort to involve religious matters failed. The Sudanese are taking sides and supporting Ethiopia and even though it is a member of Arab league, Somalia is more influenced by the IGAD countries than Arabs. The Arab countries have little influence in Somalia, so the Ethiopian government is much stronger than they are anticipated.

They consulted Eritrea and some unnamed Ethiopian oppositions and the Eritrean diplomats literally praising the diaspora for their effort to stop "woyanne" in their effort to stop financing Ethiopian Dam. He said they could not be able to stop Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia and other mid-east countries, the Ethiopian government raises unknown amount of money on this part of the world plus a lot of remittance. Even Saudi government agent said the number of Ethiopian lives in Saudi, does not know the exact number.
The unnamed Ethiopian opposition agent put gas onto the fire and said we had never agreed with this construction. He said Ethiopians did not agree with this construction and this is Woaynes effort to divert Ethiopian’s attention from the real issue. The Saudi agent shakes his head with surprise: how can this be? The unnamed Ethiopian oppositions literally said that the Ethiopians are forced to do that.

This poorly advised Saudi agent arranged an appointment with these two groups in order to consult to the government authorities in Saudi Arabia; then at the next meeting the Saudi agent told them that they are going to expel Ethiopians because there are too many people illegally in their country anyway. That became a defined moment for the Ethiopians who live in Saudi Arabia legally or illegally.

The Eritrean agent happily left the meeting, but the unnamed Ethiopians oppositions returned confused. After a few months of this discussion the Saudi acted as they said to expel Ethiopians and some Ethiopians were killed, raped, and also rubbed and deported back to Ethiopia inhumanly fashion.

Freedom is a most precious possession. Every creature desires and enjoys its freedom. Place a worm or an insect in a jar and it will work to get free. Put a dog on a leash and restrain him in one place and he will howl and bark to be set free. Put a bird in cage they will make noises till you put them free, we humans are no different. We do not want our liberties tampered with some ruthless dictators. That is what happen in Saudi Arabia. Ethiopians become outrageous in this ruthless act and our freedom was tampered and violated more than word can explain it.

You travel any part of the world, you will find at least one Ethiopian, a few years back someone told me that we are like a Jewish and we are scattered all over the world thanks for our dictators at home however wherever we are, we Ethiopians are peace loving people we do not really bothered others, but always people will tampered our freedom but as they said our main problem is poverty, it is our number one enemy. Our Ethiopian politicians are correct on that…..

ETHIOPIA AND SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE BLUE NILE Tecola W. Hagos

PART ONE: DEVELOPMENT AND SOVEREINTY

I. Introduction

In General: The events of the last four weeks may as well have determined the future course of Ethiopia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. On October 7, 2013 Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn made some remarks in a Press Conference that will resonate for years and make or break his political future, as well as the future of Ethiopian partisan politics. What I heard on video of the News Conference of October 7, 2013, is the most incredulous statement by Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn so far. He announced that he will welcome the participation of Egypt and Sudan in the construction of the Renaissance Dam and that his government and he consider the Dam to be “jointly owned” by Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt.

To make this type of statement at this early stage of the controversy by a Head of Government is unconscionable and the worst form of negotiation strategy I have ever witnessed or read about in our long history. Such fast retreat of leadership in front of a national controversy is unheard of in Ethiopia’s long political life. However, to be fair to all concerned, let us examine the situation surrounding this sudden reversal of historic position, carefully and dispassionately. Mind you that there is no serious threat by anybody against Ethiopia except some habitual bullying by Egypt, and a few months ago by an errant Prince from Saudi Arabia (who was promptly removed from office) that the Prime Minister of the Ethiopian Government should be trembling with fear and trepidation and recapitulate so easily. Even if there is real military threat against the sovereignty and integrity of Ethiopia, is the statement by the Prime Minister within acceptable discretionary power of his office? I think not. The Prime Minister has far exceeded his duty and power circumscribed by the provisions of the 1995 Ethiopia’s Constitution: Article 55 (2) (a); 55 (17); Article 74 (6); Article 86, when he spoke of creating some kind of joint ownership of an Ethiopian asset that borders of surrendering sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ethiopian State..

As a simple strategy of negotiation one does not show the hand that one holds at the initial stage of confrontation with a historically ever belligerent foreign national government. Egypt and the Arabs in general have been the relentless enemies of Ethiopia for centuries to this day. They have sought the destruction of Ethiopia despite admonishment of the Prophet Mohammad since the eighth century. They never heeded the words of their own Prophet. At this very moment they are busy mobilizing to halt the development effort of Ethiopia by throwing obstructionist threats. A type of prescription I have for my fellow Ethiopians is that when we seek peace and development we need get ready for war.

The construction of the Great Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile within Ethiopian territory is indisputably an act of Ethiopia’s Sovereign power. Whether such construction was premature, too ambitious, problematic due to lack of technical expertise et cetera are issues that should not be confused with competence or sovereignty. Ethiopian successive Governments for almost a hundred years have openly stated their desire to take into account the national interests of both Egypt and Sudan in the effort to create an equitable use of the waters of the Nile and its Basin for all riparian states. Egypt has refused to recognize the fundamental sovereign rights of riparian states to use the waters of the Nile some of such states being originating/source countries. Currently, the Ethiopian Government seems to be committed in its effort to bring about fairness and equitable use of the Nile waters among riparian states to the extent of offering the Great Renaissance Dam in joint ownership to Egypt and Sudan. As I stated earlier, I am not convinced such generosity on the part of Ethiopia will help solve the greed of Egypt.

Issues to consider: Even though such unbelievably generous offer by the Government of Ethiopia may be applauded by some, I am much concerned not only with the future of the Dam itself but also with the continued existence of Ethiopia. Some of the most pressing issues are as follows: What is the meaning of “joint ownership”? What are the risks for Ethiopia sharing ownership of its natural resource with foreign sovereign countries and their governments? Are there legal regimes and/or political modalities to insure the Sovereign right of Ethiopia on the Dam and the Water resource of the Blue Nile and its basin at all times? What effect would such “joint ownership” have on other riparian States of the Nile River? What is the need for secrecy (lack of transparency) of the Ethiopian Government?

II. A. The Development Imperative and Sovereignty

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, in Article 47 states that “nothing in the present Convention shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.” Ethiopia ratified the Covenant on 11 June 1993, and Egypt signed twenty five years earlier on August 4, 1967 and ratified the document on 14 January 1982; Sudan ratified the Covenant 18 March 1986. As of May 2013, the Covenant had 74 signatories and 167 parties.

This section of the Covenant is what is claimed to be the basis of the concept of “permanent Sovereignty” on natural resources by members States of the United Nations. To me that concept has become part of the customary international norm and principle as customary international law. Thus, when we are discussing sovereignty over the resources of a country, we are not simply dealing with historical reality but also recognizing concepts in international law and relationships of States. Of course, the concept “permanent Sovereignty” over resources has undergone modifications and its own exceptional development, such as the idea of equitable use of shared resources, the new Sovereign Wealth Funds and State- Owned Enterprises et cetera.

World population prediction for 2050, i.e., in a mere thirty five years from the present time, draws a grim and alarming reality for Ethiopia. The estimate listed here under seems to be on the conservative side, for a fact we know the 2015 prediction for Ethiopia is too low since Ethiopia’s population for 2013 exceeds by almost ten million people the United Nations estimate for 2015. I believe the estimate for 2050 would be about 200 million for Ethiopia. We have now in our hands an ongoing population explosion—a disaster in the making unless we implement some creative and daring developmental programs. The harnessing of the power of the Blue Nile is one out of very many concerted steps to be taken by all states in the region. The increase in population means dramatic increase in the demands for services, food supplies, housing, schools, universities, infrastructure, et cetera. Putting to good use our natural resources is a matter of duty/right of acute necessity and not a luxury. One must take into account the enormity of population growth in all the nations of the world in order to understand our precarious existence in the next fifty years.

1950 2000 2015 2025 2050
Ethiopia 18,434 62,908 89,765 113,418 186,452
Egypt 21,834 67,884 84,425 94,777 113,840
Sudan 9,190 31,095 42,433 49,556 63,530

[Source: United Nations Population Division]

How is Ethiopia going to feed that many people (almost two hundred million people) with its existing economic system and limited programs of farming and industrial involvements? Ethiopia has no choice in the matter but to develop its hydropower as a cheap source of energy in order to develop its agriculture, industry, education, democratic governance, and good relationship with its neighbors and the world at-large. A poor and devastated Ethiopia is a real danger and threat to the region. By contrast, a prosperous and engaged Ethiopia is the dynamo for the region’s much needed development and stability.

There seems to be a degree of confusion between source of power/right and the scope of that power/right in regard to Ethiopia’s position on the waters of the Nile River and the Blue Nile and its Basin. There is also a tendency to lump all riparian states of the Nile River in the same cast of characteristics. Very many distinguished Ethiopians, such as Zewde Gebre-selassie, Daniel Kendie, Gebretsadik Degefu, Tesfay Tafesse, et cetera have devoted time and energy tackling several questions dealing with Ethiopia’s natural resources and on the development of such resources and the modality of the proprietary rights thereof.

A recent addition to such distinguished Ethiopians tackling the historic problem of sharing the waters of the Nile/Blue Nile and the Basin thereof is Fasil Amdetsion. Fasil Amdetsion is a rising star in international (law) jurisprudence and a highly capable lawyer. His long academic journal article on the Nile/Blue Nile controversy is an excellent read. [Fasil Amdetsion, Scrutinizing “The Scorpion Problematique”…, 44 Tex Int’L J (2008)] One reservation I have on that article is that Fasil seems to overlap Ethiopia’s source of power on the waters of the Blue Nile and its Basin with the scope of that power. For example, he asserts that Ethiopia’s position of absolute “Sovereignty” on the Blue Nile River is untenable under international law. My criticism of such position is a rhetorical one by arguing that in the same way Egypt has based the source of its claim on treaties and cite provisions from those same treaties to assert the scope of its proprietary/use rights on the waters of the Nile, Ethiopia uses “Sovereignty” as a source for its proprietary rights but not as an absolute, for Ethiopia has always promoted the idea of “equitable” use of the waters of the Nile/Blue Nile among all riparian States. There are situations in the past, under extreme provocation and in the face of belligerency of Egypt and Sudan, whereby Ethiopia as a matter of rhetorical argument might have stated that it has the ultimate sovereign power over its natural resources and territorial integrity and threatened to dam the Blue Nile. Such statements must not be taken as Ethiopia’s foreign policy position, but for what they are—just rhetorical statements.

The provisions of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) that was established in 1999 reflect far more accurately Ethiopia’s position as an active member of NBI. The NBI clearly shows that the derive is to replace the 1929 (later amended in 1959) colonial treaty that divided the entire Nile water between Egypt (75%) and Sudan (25%), completely ignoring the riparian rights of ten States including Ethiopia from whose highlands 86 % of the Nile water flows from. Not all riparian States of the Nile River are “Scorpions,” as Fasil would label them in his academic article, but most are victims of the greed of Egypt, the only “scorpion” in that group of riparian states of the Nile. The irony of it all is that Egypt does not contribute even a single drop of water to the Nile River, but is monopolizing its use to the tune of over 80% in absolute terms.

II. B. Claims by Egypt and the Polarizing United States Military Assistance

The Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1902 is an important Treaty that shows clearly how a colonial power forced its hand on a sovereign independent nation’s natural resource. The 1902 Treaty is seldom mentioned by Ethiopian scholars and by Ethiopians in general. Even though there are serious conflicting provisions between the Amharic and the English versions of the Treaty, the Treaty overall shows the coercive colonial power of Great Britain in getting unconscionable concessions from a relatively weak Emperor of Ethiopia. The Treaty arguably either forbid the construction of any work without agreement with Britain that “arrest the flow” (English version) or “completely block” (Amharic version) the waters of the Blue Nile, Sobat, or Lake Tana. There is also problem of interpretation as to the identity of a “third party” or Ethiopia acting for her own self-interest.

Nevertheless, Egypt has been consistent in its claims as a “historic user” not as a “sovereign” on the waters of the Nile. Egypt has never claimed any form of direct ownership or sovereign right on the waters of the Blue Nile or on any of the head waters of the tributaries of the Nile River. What Egypt has claimed in the past and what it is claiming now was the “historic use” of the waters of the Nile based on treaties as well as history. Ethiopia and other riparian countries claim that the standard must be the “equitable use” of water and not “historic use” of water that lopsidedly favors Egypt completely over other riparian countries including those countries that are headwater (source) countries.

If Egypt has its way, it wants to maintain its share of the yearly quota allocation of over 55 billion cubic meter water under the 1959 agreement it entered with Sudan. This has nothing to do with Ethiopia for Ethiopia is not signatory to such agreement. In fact, Ethiopia has repeatedly officially through diplomatic channels let it be known that it is not bound by agreement of third parties and would maintain is sovereign right on its natural resources including rivers, lakes, and territorial waters. Moreover, one must examine to what use is the water of the Nile is being used in Egypt.

The Ethiopian Government officials have failed to organize and disseminate factual/statistical data on Egyptian use of the water of the Nile detailing the types of abusive use of precious water. We still do not have a detailed water use profile and statistical data on Egypt’s use of the water of the Nile. For example, we have no idea how much water is being used in Egypt on frivolous schemes, such as watering golf courses in resort areas, feeding swimming pools, et cetera while in Ethiopia millions of Ethiopians are experiencing famine, poverty, lacking clean drinking water et cetera.

After the press Conference of October 7, 2013 Egypt has issued its new expectations and how far it is interested in safeguarding its national security and economic interest, through an official, who chose to remain anonymous, on October 16,

“The government has prepared a new paper to negotiate with Ethiopia regarding the Renaissance Dam. Technical and legal teams have been tasked with studying the Egyptian [negotiating] items, which are expected to be presented to the Ethiopian side at the next meeting. … The Egyptian offer includes full participation in the construction, management and operation of the dam, by dispatching Egyptian engineers who specialize in the field of dam construction; the signing of an agreement with the Ethiopian side on sending [to Ethiopia] a permanent Egyptian water mission [that will be stationed] at the dam; and [Egypt’s] participation in the funding and working as an intermediary to obtain aid and international loans and grants to finance dam construction.” [Ayah Aman, Al-Monitor, October 23, 2013]

One serious problem facing Ethiopia, which is in the background of most conflicts that threaten the survival of Ethiopia, is the military assistance of the United States to Egypt to the tune of a couple of billion dollars every year for the last two decades. Such polarizing assistance to Egypt seems to add to the arrogance and inflexibility of the Egyptian Government. The United States Government either must stop such outrage or provide Ethiopia also with as much military assistance as it does to Egypt. Egypt did not help the United States in its global effort to squash Al-Qaida terrorist members. Some of the leaders of such anti American groups are Egyptian citizens. By contrast, the Ethiopian Government is fully engaged in the fight against terrorism with the United States as a partner for peace and security. Why is the United States always undermining Ethiopia’s interest at crucial moments in our history for the last one hundred years of relationship with the United States?

PART TWO : JOINT OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURCES

III. Joint Ownership

The current concept of “joint ownership” has its root in Roman Law as “dominium” and “condominium.” However, the literature shows that form of ownership/possession was not popular nor an accepted form of ownership and even of possession between states. “Sovereignty” is a very jealous mistress and would not allow any other Sovereign power to share in its domain. From hundreds of dams constructions around the world only a handful are jointly owned by two or three Sates. Even those very limited jointly owned dams are not free from great conflicts and most often on the verge of complete breakdown and possible war. For Ethiopia, as well as, for Egypt and Sudan, this idea of “joint ownership” of an Ethiopian natural resource is extremely dangerous in creating another flash point between the three countries and their supporters.

“Co-ownership refers to legal relationships that entitle two or more entities to equal rights to the use and enjoyment of property. Although it most often arises in the context of real property, co-ownership may apply to any type of property. Co-ownership also takes numerous legal forms…. In each case, the central economic and legal problem is how conflicting preferences and actions of the co-owners can be coordinated. In the absence of such coordination, owners may overindulge in activities that impose costs on their co-owners and under invest in projects or activities whose benefits are shared with co-owners. The legal mechanisms used to cope with these externality problems range from doctrines that impose liability on co-owners for engaging in inefficient activities (such as the law of waste), to legally mandated common decision-making (as in compulsory unitization statutes), to forced termination of the co-ownership relationship (partition). In addition, successful coordination and decision-making in co-ownership situations often depend on social sanctions and norms outside the domain of law.” [Marshall E. Tracht, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW: co-ownership and condominium.]

III. A. Joint Ownership of Ethiopian Asset

What is the meaning of “joint ownership”? What is the legal and political significance of “joint ownership” of Ethiopian national asset and natural resource by Egypt and Sudan? In international law the idea of Joint ownership is not something new, in fact, it goes by an old name from Roman legal concept of “condominium,” which in our days is often used to identify individual apartments run by jointly owned system. However, the legal literature that is of record that includes the United Nations’ International Court of Justice as well as the decisions of arbitration tribunals is very limited almost to a point of non-extant. The ICJ had decided only on one case in controversy in the last sixty years. In other words, joint ownership by Sovereign entities is not a popular process at all.

The pronouncement of the Prime Minister on October 7, 2013 Press Conference is like a lightning strike in broad daylight—something that has no legal or historic precedence. The Ethiopian Government can minimize the premature statement by the Prime Minister in the following two steps:

1) by censoring or rebuking the Prime Minister that he had exceeded his authority in making such sweeping statement that affects the Sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation and instructing him to withdraw his statement of October 7, 2013 [1995 Constitution: Article 55 (2) (a); 55 (17); Article 74 (6); Article 86];

2) by creating a structure that will prevent either Egypt or Sudan any direct ownership in rem the Dam and/or the Blue Nile and its Basin. One way of doing that is to create a public utility corporation that will be owned jointly by Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan. This joint ownership of the public corporation may be extended to all Riparian States of the Nile.

The “Public Corporation” thus instituted leases the Dam from the Ethiopian Government that is the sole and only owner and the only Sovereign power over the Dam and the Blue Nile and its Basin. The public corporation will not have any ownership right of the Dam; It has a lease contract renewable every twenty five years for a maximum lease period not exceeding one hundred years. The public corporation will run the Dam as a business enterprise; it will control the flow of water, the distribution and sale of electric power, manage all administrative work, undertake all ongoing upkeep and maintenance of the Dam, and provide annual report to the “Share Holders” of the corporation. The Ethiopian Government will receive royalty for leasing the Dam to the corporation and for the use of the Blue Nile water resource. Since the Ethiopian Government is the majority share holder in that corporation, it will also be entitled to the percentage share of the profit of the corporation. Here is where Egypt and Sudan exert their control/influence in the day to day administration of the corporation thus created.

III. B. Slippery Slop: military engagement with Egypt and Sudan

For the time being Egypt may not sound as aggressive as it was at the start of the controversy in 2011 and even more so a few months ago in 2013. However, Egypt will increase its demand as time goes by with the increased pressure to complete the Dam in reasonable time. In fact, Egypt will demand that a contingent of its military force be stationed near the Dam in Ethiopia or across the border in Sudan in order to ensure the safety and security of the Renaissance Dam that it now owns jointly with Ethiopia and Sudan. Such deployment of security forces will pause a permanent threat to the security and sovereignty of Ethiopia. If there is any form of civil strive, the Egyptian forces would have clear excuses to occupy the Dam area within Ethiopia in order to protect Egypt’s joint ownership of the Renaissance Dam.

We must also ask about the ramification of such joint ownership on the other Riparian States such as Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and South Sudan. The recent activity and pronouncement in press conferences by the Leaders of the Ethiopian Government have already casted Ethiopia as an unreliable partner in any form of controversial relationship with Egypt and the Arab world in general. I do not believe the Ethiopian Government has consulted with the other Riparian States (NBI members) on the idea of “joint ownership” of the Renaissance Dam. This form of sporadic, crises-based reactionary actions, secrecy, et cetera by the Leaders of the current Ethiopian Government will undermine the legitimacy and authority of the Government itself.

III. C. Joint Ownership of Aswan Dam and the Suez Canal by Ethiopia

The Ethiopian position as stated by the Prime Minister on October 7, 2013 seems to upgrade the claims of Egypt of unlimited use the water of the Nile to a level of ownership of the Blue Nile and all the waters of the basin itself. This is a windfall for Egypt and the Sudan. Now Egypt and Sudan are going to have a proprietary right that will eventually be casted in the form of sovereigns’ rights of foreign nations with all international implications and consequences. We had experienced one horrible incident when Italy sneaked into our Sovereign power by buying from a private owner Rubattino Shipping Company some land bought earlier [1869] from a local tribal chief as trading post (real estate) on the Red Sea coast. Even though there is a distinct difference at law between “sovereignty’ and “property” that distinction is just academic when the owner of that property is a “Sovereign” entity. The dispute in such conflicts between two sovereigns claiming sovereign power over a single property becomes quite murky and vague allowing for all kinds of legal maneuvering.

If we go down that route, which I do not favor at all, may be we could borrow from principle of Comity and also from the concept of parity to counter the full impact of the slippery slop of losing Ethiopian sovereignty due to the joint ownership of the Renaissance Dam. It is far more justifiable for Ethiopia to claim joint ownership of Merowe Dam in Sudan, and Aswan Dam in Egypt than the suggested Sudan and Egypt’s joint ownership of the Renaissance Dam and by extension the Waters of the Blue Nile. After all, the fertile highland soil of Ethiopia carried down by the Blue Nile for thousands of years gave life to Egypt itself. If we go that far, it will only be fair that Ethiopia jointly with Egypt own the Suez Canal too. If we allow the current Ethiopian Government logic, then we should also have joint ownership of Egypt itself. If we go that far, why not form one whole country made up of Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. Well, while we are at it, we can add Somalia, Kenya, Uganda may be all the way to South Africa in this form of new fraternity of African States. We might as well create the “United States of Africa.”

IV. Unchartered legal minefield

The literature on joint ownership of dams is quite limited. From about three thousand treaties and agreements dealing with the navigation and non-navigation use of waterways and international rivers, only a handful deal with dams. Even then, the record of the legal and political problems surrounding such jointly owned dams ought to raise a red flag for Ethiopia. Even within African nations involved in joint ownership of dams there are some serious conflicts of equitable sharing of both water and generated hydropower. In South America all of the jointly owned Dams are the sources of serious conflicts. The same types of conflicting interests of joint owners of dams in Africa are also similar causes of conflicts as is the case with their counterparts in South America.

One must study carefully the cases of joint ownerships of dams indicated here in below, before jumping into a minefield of legal controversies by creating a joint ownership of the Great Renaissance Dam and the Blue Nile and its Basin.
1. Senegal/Gambia Dams – contentious relationship a far cry from a harmonious state cooperation.

2. Cahora Bassa Dam, Mozambique/South Africa –
3. The Kariba Dam, Zambia/Zembabwe
4. Salto Grande – Argentina and Uruguay
5. Yacireta Dam – Argentina and Paraguay
6. Itaipu – Brazil shared with Paraguay
7. Narva Reservoir (Russia shared with Estonia)

Ethiopia is very new in the construction of mega dam buildings. Joint ownership of dams and other sovereign assets is a very complex and risky processes. One must learn from the experiences of other states that have traveled down that risky road. Thus, Ethiopia must develop its own expertise and avoid the continued dependence on foreign advisers and experts. This is a task that takes up time, but can be accelerated by mobilizing capable and well qualified Ethiopians in the Diaspora. Even more lacking is old fashioned Ethiopian patriotism and nationalism. I am quite certain about the extent of my own commitment to Ethiopia, I am not sure that I see the type of patriotic commitment in most of the political leaders both in the Diaspora or back home in Ethiopia. What I witnessed so far is divisive and ethnic based fractured leadership that is eating the very core of our continued survival.

V. On Ethiopian Patriotism and National Security

I do not know to what extent the current Ethiopian Government officials are patriotic or nationalist in the context of the current crisis surrounding the construction of the Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. However, I can point out that their recent dance with wolves does not show much of patriotic zeal. I cannot discount also the fact that they have very well learned advisors surrounding them. However, despite my goodwill and favorable disposition to the new Ethiopian Government, I do not feel comfortable in entrusting such monumental task dealing with Ethiopian Sovereignty and territorial integrity to any of them. The shadow of Meles Zenawi still seems to eclipse the new Ethiopian Leaders impeding their independence and the full commitment to Ethiopia’s Sovereignty and territorial integrity. In short, I need more reassurance with clear policy that enshrines the Sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. This is one time, despite my previous sever criticism of Emperor Tewodros, that I longed for a Tewodros to come to our rescue.

Nevertheless, it will be a mistake to equate intelligence with patriotism or nationalism. Meles Zenawi left us with a legacy that truly had undermined Ethiopian patriotism and Ethiopian nationalism. The “pragmatism” he expounded had always bordered treason when it relates to boundary disputes, national security et cetera. We saw it happen early in his leadership signing away Eritrea and the Ethiopian coastal territories, and signing up an arbitration agreement under defunct colonial treaties resurrected to give life to an independent “Eritrea.” It was during his watch that Ethiopia became landlocked without a coast or coastal waters. To this day, we do not know what arrangements and territorial concessions he had made with the Sudan to get their cooperation on the construction of the Renaissance Dam. Whatever it is, we must have paid too steep a price. Soon enough we will find out the extent and scope of our loss in our Sovereignty and territorial integrity.

One other legacy of Meles Zenawi is the fanatical steps he took to hide what he had done in his bid for international recognition that affected Ethiopian sovereignty and territorial integrity. No one knows much about the agreements Ethiopian officials signed that are the basis of our relationships with foreign states such as China, Egypt, Kenya, Sudan et cetera. There are no timely press releases about negotiations or draft agreements before the signing of such agreements by the Ethiopian Government officials. There is no set mechanism for public debate on issues of international agreements or relations with foreign governments. The people of Ethiopia have no access to read treaties entered by the Government of Ethiopia. There is no official publication devoted to inform the people of Ethiopia the types of international duties and obligations the Ethiopian State is entering into.

This essay was not meant to be this long. It was meant just to raise some critical issues and open a forum for discourse and sharing of views. The issues and historical background are very complex and extensive. I hope that readers would see this article as prompt rather than a definitive and exhaustive treatment of the subject matter. Thank you all. Long Live Ethiopia.

Tecola W. Hagos
Washington DC
November 1, 2013

The deal with Egypt should not be an extension of the colonial “agreements”, of the 1929 and 1955.

October, 24/201
By W.Yilma

There are rumors coming from Cairo that Egypt is willing to negotiate with Ethiopia regarding the Grand Renaissance Dam (GRD). Even some media outlets, including Ethiopian are disseminating the news that Egyptians are ready to cooperate in the construction process of the dam. This idea is not new. Since the beginning of the GRD construction, Egypt and the Sudan were invited to participate by investing to this huge dam. However, it was Egypt which is not only rejects the idea but also venomously opposed the starting of this project in the first place. Openly and secretly Egyptians started spreading psychological warfare aginst Ethiopia. With unknown reasons, Egyptians turn 360 Degree and show willingness to participate. We have to be optimistic about their new shift from their “historical stance”. This is the first time the Egyptian show an interest to discuss specifically the Nile water issue in which they sabotaging and rejecting for century. However time will tell us whether or not this move is a real or a preposterous diplomatic showdown. We have to know diplomacy is a high and dangerous art! In any case, Ethiopia should take this step as a good gesture to start credible negotiation with Egypt. Diplomatic negotiation should get priority and should be exhausted to avoid un necessary conflicts.

The Nile water is a geo-political issue. Therefore many countries are involved with the absence of credible agreements. Because of this we do not know what is going on behind the door on the side of Egypt politicians. What need to be clear here is that, there are groups who are praying day and night to see confrontation, and war between Ethiopia and Egypt. As we know our country does not have reliable friends, and not all are happy to see our economic developments. There are special interest international organizations in the name of environmental protection, human right, indigenous people right group, international rivers, etc.. disguising themselves with different names and venomously opposing the construction of dam both on Nile and Omo rivers. The same as they are concerned for Turkana people, they too will show sympathy to Egyptian than ours developments endeavors. Some even are considering Ethiopian development as a threat to their national security and geo- political interest. Therefore in dealing with both the Egyptian and the Sudan, the Ethiopian government should be ready in all fronts, because of the following reasons:

1. We have to be very cautious about the Egyptian drastic shift at eleven hours to sit down for negotiations. Although the move should be appreciated, its repercussion should be scrutinized carefully. It is clear Egypt is not in a good political, economic, and diplomatic position at this time. This is because the GRD completed almost 30% and Ethiopian stance is un flinched in this case. Beside this, Egypt does not have a ground to justify a military threat or diplomatic pressure without engaging in dialogue with Ethiopia. Therefore her drastic shift could be a preparation for one of these moves.



2. The other strategy Egypt might want to put pressure on Ethiopia is by asking an involvement of third party, to settle or facilitate a new agreement between the two countries that could favor Egypt’s demand. Ethiopia should categorically oppose any involvement of the third party. Because this kind of proposals could handicap Ethiopia and put her in difficult diplomatic positions. Obviously, the third party could be an Egyptian geo-political strategic partner from the big powers.



3. The Egyptian decision could be a strategy to slow dawn the ongoing dam construction, so that to get time to prepare and effectively to execute her hidden agendas. We should know in politics, especially when it comes to geo-political interest like this, there are no constant and credible friends. Leave alone Egypt a small country with no human, economic, and natural resources Eritrea in the name of border issue, launch a war against us. Already we are at war with Eritrea, and they are ready to exploit this situation. What should be clear here is that even Sudan and Kenya could turn their back if the rule of the game inclined to the other side. The enemy within also could be a challenge if there is no consensus to ease down the political tensions prevailing in the country. The threat of others secessionist, together with the radical Islam movement (Al-itahad, Al-shibab) in our region also should be taken into considerations.

Beside what has been said above, the Egyptians are in the process of intensive diplomatic maneuvers, especially in Eastern African countries. They are trying to influence the South Sudan both in diplomatic, military, and financial aid. No one knows the outcomes all these new move by the Egyptian.



4. The Egyptian decision could be to control the construction of the dam, and by doing so to reduce its capacity. As many media outlets are posted the Egyptian stand, they are willing to negotiate if only they have a direct involvement and say in GRD construction process. This means theirs so called “experts” will start from the scratch to study the technicality of the dam as well as the environmental impacts of the dam to downstream countries. They also want to assign their “experts” permanently in the site. All these new proposals by Egyptians and especially the former two terms (technicality as well as environmental impacts studies) are very vague and complex issues to deal with the party which have neither interest nor good will. Especially, with Egyptian “water experts “it will be extremely difficult and challenging process to conduct intellectual discussions .They lack intellectual honesty and intentionally committed fallacies with regard Nile River issues. To me if these proposals rose by Egyptian as a precondition, they are not better than a colonial agreement of the 1929 and 1955.

Last, such a huge and expensive dam construction which cost considerable amount of investment, and man powers, should technically reliable, stable, and environmentally friendly both to up and down streams countries. The Ethiopian government should strive to entertain the Egyptian concerns (mainly on those recommendations proposed by the international experts panels), if they are sincere and have a good gesture to work together for the benefits of the two countries. Other than this caution should be taken not to open loopholes that could drag the speedy of the project.

Long Live Ethiopia