STUDIES &
African
Perspectives
ARTICLES
International and Regional Determinants
of Nile Water Issue
Dr. Joseph Ramez Amin
Director General of the African Media
There is no doubt that the issue of the Nile water is influenced by
the internal and the external environment as well, thus constituting the regional and international framework of the eleven involved states; ( Egypt - Sudan - South Sudan - Ethiopia - Kenya Tanzania - Uganda - Rwanda - Burundi - DRC , and Eritrea),
whose circumstances and surrounding conditions in recent years
have been changed. For example, the regional framework, in
part, has been affected by the droughts experienced by most of
the Nile Basin countries by the beginning of the eighties. This has
led those States to scramble on the Nile water and on the limited
water resources, which are less reliable as we move southwards
where rain water increases granting these countries other sources
of water.
Related to this matter is also the desire of the basin countries in development, especially in light of the objectives of the new millennium, and the direction of most of these countries " particularly the upstream ones" to try to
achieve sustainable development, which is explained by the successive reports of the Human Development issued by the International Bank in the
third millennium. These reports consider the Nile Basin countries as the
poorest developing countries as all of them except Egypt, lie in the category
of countries of the lowest-income. Furthermore, these countries lack the infrastructure that is necessary for the water transport and supply and the
supply of sanitary drainage, among others. This has led to the emergence of
the phenomenon of the international water conflict between the downstream
countries; Egypt and Sudan, which suffer from the limited amounts of water,
and the upstream countries, that suffer from poor economic resources. Egypt
is dependent on more than 95% of its needs from the River Nile, while Ethiopia needs 1%; Kenya needs almost 1%, Tanzania 35%, the Congo 1%, Burundi 5%, and the Sudan 15%.
Analysis of External Interference:
External forces play an active and influential role in the activities and in-
Volume 10 - Issue 36 – 2012
7
African
teractions of regional systems. This
is done through their influence on
the patterns of interactions of these
systems, either through acting as the
origin or the catalyst of the conflict.
The future of the geo-strategic
map of the Nile Basin relies on a
number of factors affecting the environment of conflict. The dynamics
of the international intervention in
the region have attracted other international powers alongside with
the United States and Europe, including China and India, under the
slogan of fighting terrorism.
Concerning Ethiopia, throughout
the stages of its development, the
political system was connected to the
international element by a degree
equivalent to or higher than its connection to the internal and regional
elements. This may be attributed to
the economic conditions of the State
as well as the political, social and
religious conditions, among others.
We present in the following the most
important international and regional roles and their impact on the
process of the Egyptian relations
with the Nile Basin countries:
The U.S. Role:
The U.S role takes an indirect
form. It plays two main roles: The
first is besieging the Egyptian and
the Sudanese policies in the regional
circumference, redrawing the map
of regional balance in the Nile Basin,
and working to redraw the geopolitical map of Sudan by following a for-
8
Perspectives
eign policy aiming at creating a new
Sudan that is pro- U.S.
The U.S. policy has gone through
many stages before, during and after the Cold War. Then the U.S. approach towards the countries of the
Nile Basin changed, and became
aiming at merging the continent in
the global economy system, and has
a variety of objectives: political,
military, and economic.
Associated with the American interests, are the support of the Israeli
presence and the obstruction of any
radical trend that influence its interests. Since the beginning of the nineties, the U.S. goals in view of the issue of water seemed to act as a kind
of pressure in the context of promoting the idea of " Water War " in the
African Continent. It can also be
used to rearrange the balance of
powers between Sudan and its
neighbors in a way that serves the
interests and goals of the U.S. policy
in the region. The EthiopianAmerican relations have exceeded a
period of a quarter-century, before
the gradual extension of the late Soviet influence along with the change
of regime in Ethiopia in 1974, which
totally dominated in 1977. Yet,
America was not absent during that
period, as Ethiopia continued to receive U.S. arms for defensive purposes, and the economic relations
with the United States and Europe
have also continued.
All the new international circum-
SIS
African
stances in light of the new international order has prompted the
United States to establish a military
base in Djibouti and to establish a
central command for Africa, as well
as the AFRICOM, which aims to
fight the growing Chinese influence
in the region and to secure access to
the oil resources, especially in light
of the collapse of the state in Somalia, the instability in Sudan, the possibility of renewing the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the
tensions in Ogaden, the Oromo Liberation Front in Ethiopia and the
"LRA" in Uganda.
There is also the process of forming regional alliances in the Horn of
Africa that reflect the nature of the
international competition; the axis
of Uganda - Ethiopia - Kenya - Djibouti has the support of the U.S. to
contain Sudan and its Islamic civilization project on the one hand and
to isolate Eritrea on the other.
Therefore, the United States considers the Nile Basin area of geostrategic importance for their interests and objectives. Thus, it played as previously mentioned- two indirect roles in that region, until the
announcement of the new State in
southern Sudan on July 9th, 2011.
This secession may represent very
dangerous effects on the Egyptian
and Sudanese water security, in addition to the national security of
both countries. Therefore, there is a
correlation between the increasing
Volume 10 - Issue 36 – 2012
Perspectives
in the U.S. role in the Nile Basin
from one side, and the international
water conflict in the basin on the
other.
The Israeli Interference in the Region:
There are two views in this regard, some experts say that Israel is
behind the flared conditions in the
Nile Basin because of its ambitions
to obtain a share of the Nile water,
thus benefiting from the cultivation
of the "Naqab Desert", to assure its
claims that it can participate in the
Nile Basin system, and to impose a
fait accompli after a period of time,
thus participating in the negotiations on the sharing of water among
the Nile Basin countries. The evidence on this point of view, is that it
trespassed the features of hidden
work and revealed on the surface,
and its pace accelerated by the upstream countries in the Nile Basin;
(Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania,
Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and
DRC), which led a coalition that
seeks to increase its share from that
of the downstream countries, (Egypt
and Sudan), which in turn led to an
imminent split among the basin
countries .
On the other hand, there is a different point of view which sees that
Egypt has official agreements signed
with Israel, and that the relationship
between the two countries is characterized by an appropriate degree of
quality and seriousness, in addition
9
African
to the good relations between Israel
and a number of Arab and Islamic
countries, whether in public or in
secret. Therefore, in that case, if Israel really wants to get a share of
the Nile water, there is no better
way to do so except by agreeing with
Egypt.
What is important in this context
is not to exaggerate or underestimate the Israeli role, but to go first
to the Nile Basin countries to negotiate and consult with them, without
ignoring the historical and legal
rights of Egypt and Sudan. Moreover, they should follow appropriate
water policies, do not waste water,
introduce the principle of accountability on the subject of water pollution or the non-rational use. The
Israeli actions should also be monitored, especially those aiming at influencing the attitude of some Nile
Basin Countries, or at helping to set
up projects on the headwaters of the
Nile that will affect Egypt's share of
water.
It's a fact that with the establishment of the State of Israel, it raised
the slogan of "The borders of Israel
are from the Nile to the Euphrates",
and became a motivating force to
the conflict of water to achieve its
national interests. The Israeli move
became part of the movement in the
African Continent that stems from
the critical state of water in the Israeli strategic thinking and the scarcity of the Israeli water. This pro-
10
Perspectives
moted Israel to besiege the Arab
national security in its African extension, and split the Egyptian policy, politically and strategically, to
weaken it geo-politically.
The Israeli writings are based on
the historic and natural Israeli
rights in waters of the region and its
imperative distribution in a manner
that meets the Israeli needs. In
Shimon Peres's book entitled: "The
New Middle East", he shows that
the best source of water is located
outside the borders of the countries
that need it, including the waters of
the Nile. In this regard, the IsraeliEthiopian cooperation remains a
major threat to Egypt's share of water, either now or in the future, especially if a party that is able and
willing to help Ethiopia to do some
projects that may affect the share of
Egypt and Sudan, if implemented,
by about 7.5 Billion cubic meters
per year is available.
Researcher "Mohammed
Suleiman Taye' "proved the verification of the hypothesis that "The
greater the Israeli economic, political and water penetration in the regional system of the basin becomes,
the more the conflict in the international water basin increases".
The tour of " Avigdor Lieberman
" in September 2009 of a number of
African countries, on top of which
were the upstream countries, had
opened the profile of the penetration of the Israeli influence in the
SIS
African
African Continent. There is no
doubt that the visit has raised the
concerns of the Egyptian national
security over Israeli ambitions in the
Nile Basin, especially that the visit
witnessed signing agreements with 5
African countries, including: Kenya,
Ethiopia and Uganda in the fields of
water cooperation and water technology, and the economic, military
and service fields. Furthermore,
means to boost cooperation with
Israel in the developmental, agricultural, and irrigational as well as water resources affairs were discussed.
Strategy and security experts see
that Israel has strategic interests in
Africa, and that these interests impose pressure on Egypt, especially
that the Israeli realizes the sensitivity of the water issue for Cairo and
that such a move has come at an exact time, i.e., during the controversy
about the Framework Agreement
for the Nile Basin Countries and
Egypt's attitude towards it, and the
controversy between the upstream
and the downstream countries as
well.
It seems that there are several
scenarios to deal with the profile of
the Israeli presence in the Nile Basin
countries, particularly Ethiopia, and
its impact on Egypt. It is most likely
that the Southern Sudan will join
the "Entebbe Agreement", especially after inaugurating its embassy
in Israel, in addition to Salva Kiir's
visit to Israel. In all cases, Egypt
Volume 10 - Issue 36 – 2012
Perspectives
must move quickly and urgently to
rescue its water security, especially
since South Sudan is considered the
upstream country.
Regional Situation: Developments in
situations of the Nile Basin Initiative
Countries (The comprehensive
Framework Agreement):
The situations of the countries of
the "Nile Basin Initiative" developed in the recent years where a
clear controversy between the upstream and the downstream countries started. This was clearly evident since the signing of the
"Entebbe Agreement" in May 2010.
The ministers reviewed the Strategic
Plan for the "Nile Basin Initiative"
for the period from 2012 -2015.
They also discussed new project proposals for funding after 2012. This
means that the "Nile Basin Initiative" will continue to be the organizer of the relationship between
Member States until 2015, when the
parliaments of the basin countries
ratify the "Framework Agreement
for Cooperation", rejected by both;
Egypt and Sudan.
During the meeting the two countries had asked to hold an extraordinary meeting of the Council to
review the "Comprehensive Framework Agreement" of the Nile Basin
countries, signed by six countries;
Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda ,
Tanzania and Uganda. Yet, the ministers refused to review the" Framework Agreement", although they
11
African
decided to review the legal and institutional impacts of the
"Comprehensive Agreement" in the
exceptional meeting in Kigali.
In general, the ministerial meeting discussed a number of issues,
most important of which are: the
issue of the "Framework Agreement
for Cooperation" of the Nile Basin,
then the emergence of the role of the
Southern Sudan as an independent
state on 9/7/2011, where about 20%
of the area of the basin lie in its borders. It is also considered the second
in area after Sudan. Therefore, it is
expected to play a major role in the
course of events in the River Nile.
The meeting came also in light of the
political, economic and strategic developments witnessed by the Nile
Basin countries; either for the division of Sudan ( North and South ),
the break-out of the revolution in
Egypt, or the emergence of Ethiopia
as a regional power. Population in
Ethiopia reached 88 millions, and its
economy recorded a significant increase. It ranked fifth in the world
in terms of growth last year, which
was reflected on the implementation
of programs of dams where it completed "Tekeze Dam" in 2010, on
the Atbara River. It is 200 meters
high, it stores 4 billion cubic meters
and generates 300 MW, as well as
the "Tana Beles" Dam which generates 500 MW. Then Ethiopia declared the "Millennium Dam",
12
Perspectives
which generates 5250 MW, to be the
largest dam in Africa and the tenth
globally.
Sudan had announced on
20/6/2011 its support for the construction of the "Millennium Dam",
so the first crack in the positions of
Egypt and Sudan has emerged.
Therefore, there are great political
and economic changes surrounding
the Nile Basin countries. It is clear
that resolving the diversities on the
Nile water would only be done in
full cooperation and good faith
among all the basin countries, especially in the light of the weak revenues of the River Nile, the growing
water needs, the climate changes
and the environmental degradation
in the Nile Basin countries.
The Limits of Compatibility between the Regional and International Powers:
The reality points out a consensus
on interests and visions among Israel, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti;
a reality imposed by the unity of the
enemy represented in Egypt, whose
presence is undesirable in the region, side by side with the presence
of a strong central Somali State. The
international interests may not
agree with the regional visions as a
result of the failure of the Egyptian Italian Initiative for Somalia, as well
as the failure of the UN peacekeeping operation in Somalia in 1990.
Therefore, the regional interests are
SIS
African
considered a source of tension and
conflict in the Horn of Africa and
the Nile Basin, and contradict with
the international roles as happened
in Somalia and Sudan.
On the other hand, the decline of
the Arab role in Africa became parallel to the increased opportunities
of the U.S. and the Zionist role in
this area. Furthermore, the change
of the international system from a
dual-polar to a mono-polar had
negatively affected the opportunities
of many countries in the world, especially the Arab countries that are
mostly pro the U.S.-Zionist option.
Future Vision:
Many experts believe that the current phase concerning the relationship between Egypt and the Nile Basin countries is characterized by
vagueness. This is for a number of
considerations: the first is the situation of the new state in southern Sudan and its orientations concerning
foreign affairs, then, the nature of
the internal transitions in northern
Volume 10 - Issue 36 – 2012
Perspectives
Sudan, finally, the changes and repercussions of the post-revolution
Egypt.
There is no doubt that the secession of Southern Sudan has a negative impact, whether in the context
of the cultural and religious differences, or the loss of Egypt to its
privileges in the Nile, (which were
obtained from the united Sudan), in
addition to the relationship of the
South with Western and Zionist circles. But the positive impact is that
the Egyptian revolution, sooner or
later, will turn Egypt more powerful
and it will occupy its prestigious position at the regional and international levels, which reminds us of
what happened after the "1952
Revolution", even in the water profile and the signing of the "1959
Convention". This is in spite of the
difference in the regional and international situation at this time and
the competitiveness among all the
forces and events in this extremely
important and sensitive region.
13