Technicalities aside, the crisis surrounding Ethiopia's construction of the Renaissance Dam will go down in Egyptian history as a humiliating example of policy failure. What Ethiopia has done amounts to a declaration of war, for depriving a country of water is no less grave than assaulting its borders. Not that war is the only option, but we must call a spade a spade. In situations such as this, you'd expect the country to summon all its expertise, its legal arguments, its connections and its diplomatic clout to send a clear and unequivocal message that the Ethiopian move is unacceptable and that no reaction on Egypt's part can be ruled out. For its disregard for international law, Israel knows how to set boundaries and force others to respect them. In some situations, we too need to draw the line. But we haven't. Ethiopia sensed that Egypt, in its current situation, is no longer capable of dealing with a crisis of this magnitude. Watching how poorly we handled the recent abduction of soldiers must have given the Ethiopians ideas. Mind you, Ethiopia decided to divert the Blue Nile just days before the technical committee was to pass its verdict. In doing so, it has introduced a fait accompli. Why negotiate, when you can just have your way? Or when you have the backing of such powerful stakeholders, such as China, Italy, and Israel, all of who have a vested interest in this project. We have mismanaged the most important crisis regarding our national security. Therefore, we must never accept this fait accompli. Egypt must not sign the Entebbe Agreement, because it is replete with pitfalls that cannot be addressed without the sincere efforts of everyone concerned. The Entebbe Agreement, you may recall, was signed by Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. The government of South Sudan recently decided to join it. Only three of the Nile riparian countries have not signed yet: Egypt, Sudan and Democratic Republic of the Congo. The countries that signed the agreement are moving fast towards its ratification, and they intend to create a commission to supervise their joint cooperation. How should Egypt react? To answer this question, let's consider the following points: - The agreement is only binding on the signatories, and it represents only a section of the riparian nations. This situation is uncomfortable for all, and the discomfort has to be maintained until a proper solution is found. When differences persist about the use of the River Nile, any projects involving this river are liable to be faced with financial and technical problems, as they are likely to conflict with international norms and neighbourly actions. - The signatories are five countries belonging to the equatorial basin plus Ethiopia, which controls the eastern basin. Cooperation between the two basins is not particularly conducive to common benefits. In fact, there is an organisation for cooperation among the Nile equatorial nations that failed to achieve anything of substance for years. When Ethiopia joined the group of late, it was only a political gimmick aimed to reinforce its policies in matters connected with its planned dams on the Blue Nile. The aim was to portray the matter as a collective difference with Egypt, not a bilateral one. Egypt has been unfairly cast in the role of a villain, which is simply untrue. - There is no danger to Egypt from the equatorial basin for two reasons. One is that whatever water reaches Egypt from this direction is only 15 per cent of its historical rights and current use. The topographical nature of the river, with its multiple tributaries and shallow incline, makes it hard to create major projects in this area. The river doesn't take its final form until it starts emerging from South Sudan to become the White Nile. Even if any projects are created in the equatorial area, it will affect Egypt only marginally, as Egypt only gets about 10 per cent of its water supply from this area. Meanwhile, projects on the Ethiopian plateau influence 90 per cent of Egypt's supply of the river waters. - To sign the agreement in its current form, and without sorting out the controversial aspects, would amount to Egypt forfeiting its historical rights and negating previous agreement that gave it a measure of nominal protection. - The current wording of the agreement is replete with ambiguities, especially with regard to terms such as “fair usage” and “non-damaging measures”. Ethiopia keeps saying that the Renaissance Dam will not harm Egypt. But its view is based on the assumption that Egypt's “fair quota” is only 40 billion cubic metres per year, which is far less than what Egypt needs. To sum up, it is better for Egypt to maintain disagreement for the moment than to seek an untenable accord. We must wait until all the controversial points are settled in an orderly and acceptable fashion.
