A Thin Line between Water and War: The Egypt-Ethiopia Dam

Opinion Analysis by Annabelle Ghanem, Staff Writer

April 20th, 2020

The year 2011 marked the beginning of a jeopardizing face off escalating on the continent of Africa. One that has aroused hope for exponential advancements in the areas of electricity and production in several nations, but on the tragic expense of the 100 million people residing in the Arab powerhouse, Egypt. The Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has placed the nations of Ethiopia and Egypt in immense verbal conflict for years now, with tension rising alongside every passing second without an agreement being struck. The conflict is both historical and futuristic, involving past treaties and quotas established during the era of Colonialism, and the now achievable dream of obtaining stronger national sovereignty within countries so poorly looked upon by the international eye. Therefore, the prevailing question is; Where does respect for International agreements lie, when it is used to protect the interest of the few rather than service the many?

The Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is the nation’s triumph in the realm of development. It would provide a state where 70% of its inhabitants do not have access to electricity, with a fulltime generator of power. One that’s capable of keeping the entire country connected, while widening the nation’s opportunities for trade, using the surplus power generated. This would not only enhance Ethiopia’s economy and electricity shortages, but would also aid in the reduction of foreign exports, making the nation more self-reliant and less dependent. But the dream is much more creative. The benefits deriving from the construction of The Renaissance Dam would not be limited to the scope of Ethiopia. The massive continent of Africa has been suffering from electricity deficits for as long as time will tell. The dam would without a doubt be a neighboring solution to those deficits in nations such as Sudan, Kenya, Eritrea and Djibouti, allowing multiple African states to further develop as well. The dam would also put a stop to the yearly flood tragedies that inflict the nation of Sudan, by regulating the Nile’s water flow into the nation. However, with such a great solution comes an even greater price, one Egypt is surely not willing to pay.

Although the creation of the dam might be a step forward in achieving the dream of vast progress in a number of nations, it surely is a nightmare for the Arab state, which relies on the Nile river to supply 90% of its water intake. Although that 90% is merely used for the country’s generation of electricity, agriculture, as well as farmers who use the Nile river as a mode of trade, will face ultimate drawbacks. Furthermore, let us not overlook the fact that Egypt is predominantly a dessert, thus increasing its need for a stable water supply in order to prevent high rates of water shortages for over a 100 million people.

Egypt has strongly relied on its large share of the Nile river for over a century. In 1929, the British and Egyptians signed the Nile Waters Agreement, which granted Egypt its claim to 48 billion cubic meters of the Nile’s water supply, as well as veto power over any operation that threatens their share. That agreement was later modified in 1959, allowing Egypt to monopolize 55 billion cubic meters of the river, and providing Sudan a legal claim to 18.5 billion cubic meters. Disregarding that the Blue Nile’s source resides in Ethiopia, the nation, as well as all other states lying on the Nile’s grasps, were not given a percentage of the river. This longstanding act of unfairness has led to the present rejection of both treaties by Ethiopia, who claims they will not allow decisions made during times of colonialism to prohibit the advancement of their nation. 

With that being said, Ethiopia had proceeded with the construction of the dam during a time where the Arab state had been preoccupied with the Egyptian revolution of 2011. Thus, Ethiopia was able to slip right beneath the hands of the Arabs and proceeded on its road to development, breaking International agreements without consultation. The Egyptians were left blindsided and angered. Multiple attempts to formulate an agreement were made, but were rendered useless just as rapidly, and the dam is now constructed. 

Escalating tension between the two nations quickly followed, driving the Egyptians to call for the involvement of a mutual ally, the United States of America. The democratic state was appointed as a mediator during further negotiations regarding the fate of the dam, in hopes of resolving the matter peacefully. The Egyptians provided a said “compromise” during negotiations in Washington, urging the Ethiopians to prolong the time in which they hope to fill the dam to at least 12 to 21 years, which would ultimately reduce the dam’s repercussions on the Arab state. The idea was ridiculed by the Ethiopian Minister of Water, Seleshi Bekele, who asserted that “this is not acceptable on any measurement,” and thus leading the two nations to where they are now, complete and utter deadlock.

So who’s in the wrong you might ask? Who deserves to win in the Egyptian-Ethiopian face off? Will you shine blame on a nation for breaking an international treaty to serve its people? Or will you hold a nation accountable for depending so greatly on a treaty built on discrimination?

My answer is as grey as politics. There is no right and wrong player in this game. This is the residue of colonialism, an era which has taken so much from nations such as Egypt and Ethiopia, and allowed others to flourish more rapidly and more efficiently on their expense. Had the British not colonized lands in Africa amidst the 19th and 20th century, or given Egypt such vast claim over the river instead of intellectually dividing the waters based on population, we would not be having this political crisis, and the possibility of a war erupting beneath us would be nonexistent. But this is just one grain in the salt shaker. One that I believe is too historically bread to be resolved peacefully. Due to decisions made for these two nations in the past, both countries now find themselves in a severe predicament, each with immense loss on the line. A thin line, between water and war.