“The official reaction to the crisis is beyond my understanding. They did not even attempt to show a minimum degree of anger,” said Taha, a microbus driver in Cairo, in reaction to Addis Ababa's decision to divert the Blue Nile. Taha's statement is a reflection of the popular reaction in Egypt that has been surprised by the country's official reaction, which has appeared to be indifferent to the Ethiopian decision. The angry popular reaction was also reflected in the protests launched in front of the Ethiopian embassy last week, when dozens of Egyptian protesters carrying banners reflecting their rejection of the decision and underlining the Egyptian right to the Nile's water, gathered to protest against the decision. While people want to see a strong response, a well-calculated one based on keeping up good relations and taking useful diplomatic steps is preferred by some politicians and commentators. Commenting on the official reaction, Ahmed Abdel-Halim, an expert in military strategy, said it raised question marks. States cannot act intemperately, he said, adding that instead legal experts and ministers ordinarily formed working groups on an internal level and then negotiated with foreign parties. “Meanwhile, the military threats should not be mixed with political discourse. Journalists should stop talking about a military reaction,” Abdel-Halim told Al-Ahram Weekly. The initial reaction to the diversion of the Blue Nile was a weak one, with the president's office saying one day after the diversion had been announced that it would not affect Egypt's share of the Nile water. “Any project on the River Nile requires diverting the course of the water before starting construction. The present project will not affect Egypt's share of the Nile water,” said presidential spokesman Omar Amer at a news conference. The Ministry of Irrigation stated that it would not accept steps that had negative impacts on the flow of the River Nile, adding that the diversion of the Blue Nile was simply an “engineering procedure” related to the construction of the proposed dam. However, after issuing the report of the tripartite investigative committee this week, President Mohamed Morsi met with figures from the opposition on Monday to discuss the impact of Ethiopia's controversial Renaissance Dam and the findings of the eagerly-awaited report. Opposition figures agreed that the Renaissance Dam presented a potential crisis for Egypt, and the meeting was televised, without the knowledge of most of the attendees. During the meeting, the president called on Ethiopia to commit to a deadline for providing more substantial information on the impact of the dam and to sign an internationally accountable document that guaranteed that the dam would not harm the interests of Egypt and Sudan. Some party heads, like that of the Salafist Nour Party, Younis Makhioun, called on Ethiopia to “immediately halt” construction of the dam until a conclusive report had been produced, describing the dam as “strategically dangerous”. Other party heads, like Magdi Hussein of Egypt's Labour Party, pointed out that there was a battle “not only with Ethiopia, but also with the US and Israel as well”. A number of political figures, including members of the National Salvation Front (NSF), rejected the president's invitation, expressing concerns about the transparency and usefulness of the talks. The Constitution and Free Egyptians Party also declined the invitation. Prominent politicians like Amr Moussa, head of the Conference Party, and Hamdeen Sabahi, head of the Egyptian Popular Current and a founding member of the NSF, announced they would not join the meeting. Mustafa Al-Guindi, a member of the NSF, regarded the language used in the meeting to be escalatory and “catastrophic”. Holding a meeting with the president during which threats to use force are used would dash any hope of a peaceful solution, he told the Weekly. “Confrontational language and talk about a military option show that the current regime has no vision whatsoever for Egypt in general on the one hand and for its future relations with Ethiopia and Africa on the other,” Al-Guindi added. The timing of the meeting was also regarded as an attempt to distract Egyptians from domestic issues, especially the protests against the president planned for 30 June. In the search for a way out, voices have been raised calling for military confrontation with Ethiopia and international arbitration. Diplomacy is regarded as the right tool to resolve differences. According to Khaled Abu Bakr, an international lawyer, international arbitration would not be in Egypt's interest. Ethiopia is very active in the international community, he told the Weekly, whereas Egypt is not, with the result that Cairo would be unable to exert the same pressure as Addis Ababa. Arbitration in political issues depends on pressure and good relations with other countries and international parties, he said. “Ethiopia has prepared itself with a strong file in favour of its cause. Had it not done so, it would not have been able to convince the international institutions to fund the building of the Dam.” Arbitration is also a long process and one that involves Ethiopia's consent. Its outcome would be binding on both parties. Mahmoud Abu Zeid, a former minister of irrigation, said that international arbitration should be the last resort after trying diplomatic means. “I consider it to be the last resort and by no means the best. It takes a long time and its outcome is unknown,” he told the Weekly. As for the military track, Abu Zeid ruled it out because it would not resolve the problem but rather would complicate it. Abdel-Halim agreed with Abu Zeid that the military option was not possible and was not even required. However, he did not rule out international arbitration, which had proved useful in the earlier case of Taba. Improving Egypt's diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, the Nile basin countries and African countries in general is still considered to be the best means to resolve the Nile water conflict and other conflicts in the future. The Egyptian ambassador to Ethiopia, Mohamed Idriss, said that the coming days would witness high-level communications between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan on ways to take action to serve their common interests. However, he did not elaborate on any specific steps that might be taken. Al-Guindi said the way out of the present problem should start by establishing a development project between Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan and Egypt, in which the first two countries would contribute by supplying electric power. Sudan would contribute land, and Egypt would contribute manpower and expertise. He pointed to the active role that popular diplomacy could play in improving relations between Egypt and other Nile Basin and African states in the future. It had been the popular visit to Uganda in 2011 that had succeeded in convincing Ugandan officials to postpone signing the Nile Basin (Entebbe) Treaty for two years, he said. Another visit to Addis Ababa a month later had succeeded in convincing Ethiopian officials to postpone ratifying the treaty for a year. “It is popular diplomacy that convinced Ethiopia to establish the tripartite committee two years ago. Initially, Addis Ababa refused to form the committee until Egypt signed the Entebbe Treaty,” he added. Thus, he concluded, the only tool that Egypt needs is to return the Egyptian presence to Africa as it was during the rule of former president Gamal Abdel-Nasser. Al-Guindi was an active member of the popular diplomacy delegations that visited Uganda and Ethiopia after the 25 January Revolution in 2011. Abu Zeid also put forward steps for resolving the current crisis, starting with returning to the negotiating table at the highest level and conducting transparent negotiations to reach an agreement on the effects of the dam and how to deal with them. This should be followed by a strategy to be pursued during the period when the reservoir behind the dam was filling with water, he said, which would deal with the recommendations in the tripartite report. Official talks should be supported by popular diplomacy, which had proved useful in the past and had put pressure on donors who would stop the building process until the full effects of the dam had been revealed. Abdel-Halim suggested a multi-dimensional approach that would start by the exclusion of the military option followed by making the issue known to the international community by forming groups of international lawyers to present it to the African Union, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. Egypt should try to establish common interests with Ethiopia and the other Nile Basin states, he said. “Israel managed to create a network of interests with these countries. I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same,” he added. The move to divert the Blue Nile, described in Ethiopia as “historic”, was taken last week, one day after Morsi had concluded a visit to Ethiopia. The Blue Nile provides Egypt with 85 per cent of its annual allotment of 55 billion cubic metres of water. The Renaissance Dam is one of four dams planned to be built on the Blue Nile. The reservoir behind the proposed dam will contain 74 billion cubic metres of water. Ethiopia plans to fill the reservoir in five years, which could cause Egypt a reduction in water of over 20 per cent, contributing to the country's existing water shortages. According to Egypt's National Planning Institute, the country will likely need an additional 21 billion cubic metres of water per year by 2050, on top of its current 55 billion cubic metres quota, to meet the water needs of a projected population of 150 million. Since 1902, there have been over ten agreements regulating the distribution of Nile water, including a 1959 agreement that specified Egypt and Sudan's share at 55 and 18 billion cubic metres, respectively. Addis Ababa has repeatedly shrugged off these agreements, asserting that they deny other Nile Basin states, apart from Egypt and Sudan, any serious share of the River's water. They also say that the agreements were signed when the African states were under foreign occupation and that they should be revisited by present African rulers. In 1999, Egypt agreed to join the other Nile Basin countries in a negotiation process specifically aimed at addressing the demands of the upstream countries. In 2010, both Egypt and Sudan, before the latter country was split in two, suspended their participation in the talks due to a failure to define the terms of an agreement governing the construction of irrigation projects on the Nile. The final report issued by the tripartite committee earlier this week pointed to existing errors in the present design of the proposed Renaissance Dam and recommended changes to it. It also asked for a schedule showing the amount of Nile water reaching Egypt over the coming 60 years. Both countries are now in need of improved political and diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, in order that these recommendations will be implemented.
