To safeguard security and stability in the Nile Valley region, the three countries concerned by the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam crisis must agree on a mutually satisfactory settlement on filling the dam’s reservoir and water management strategy in the interest of their communities. Otherwise, there is no point in talking about stability and cooperation.
The best way to discuss points of disagreement and compromise solutions is through dialogue, both directly and with the support of international mediators. Going for individual solutions can lead to new obstacles that weaken the chances of a solution.
Politics is all about the art of the possible, not the art of having it all. The only way to bring the parties closer together is to reach mutual concessions and agreements on the basis of one rule: no winners and no losers. In political rationality, no one can win it all or lose it all.
However, for those concerned with Arab national security, the turn of events in the Renaissance Dam crisis does not bode well for the future. Positions diverge and negotiations are on hold. Talks involving the United States and the World Bank have not led to a settlement of the trio’s dispute.
The tone of the exchanges and the notes sent by the parties concerned to international organizations is taking a harder line. In its latest statements, the Ethiopian side signaled that the dam’s reservoir will be filled for the first time in July, in about a month’s time, a message conveyed by the Minister of Water, Irrigation and Energy, Seleshi Bekele. The dam, he assured, should not harm either Egypt or Sudan.
Political realism suggests otherwise. If that were the case, Egypt would simply not have been serious about something it considers an attack on its national security. The international parties, for their part, urge the threefold to cooperate and build mutual trust, which they consider essential for regional stability.
A declaration of principles has already been signed in 2015 on the dam construction project. Now is the time to invoke its provisions. The declaration affirms cooperation based on mutual understanding, mutual benefit, goodwill and the application of the principles of international law.
The affair should follow no other logic than that of cooperation. Forcing the status quo undermines the principles of this declaration. Either of the parties concerned may be forced to seek to secure their strategic interests by methods that upset the calculations of regional and international security and stability.
The Sudan, for its part, had recently rejected Ethiopia’s request to sign an agreement without Egypt to fill the Renaissance Dam. It has revealed that it will take steps to reopen negotiations between the other parties. This rational and objective position should prompt Ethiopia to reconsider its position and invoke the principles of the 2015 declaration.
Ethiopia should understand that the repeated failure of the rounds of negotiations does not mean there are no solutions, but that there is a need for better understanding and alignment with the political dynamic of shared interests.
The Egyptian side is not seeking to harm Ethiopian interests. Rather, it is seeking to secure some level of interest for its people, while respecting the other parties’ security, economic, strategic and historical sensitivities.
While Ethiopia’s Nobel Peace Prize winning Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is among the African personalities most capable of mediating and unblocking tensions, he would be well advised to use these political capabilities to achieve a compromising solution to the crisis with Egypt and Sudan.
The main factor in the current tension is, undoubtedly, the mutual misperception of each side’s sensitivities and interests. Relying on any legal basis to manage this crisis will not be enough to get out of it.
Striving to fill the dam’s reservoir without a triple consensus only pushes things into an overheated atmosphere where dialogue breaks down. Backtracking would be so hard to do, putting everyone on the brink of disaster. The issue of dam construction is not a sovereign thing for one state to determine on its own. It is an international law issue. There are international principles, norms, laws, experiences and precedents that accumulated over the years that govern the issue. So, to cling to fait accompli politics and speak of the sovereign legitimacy of one-sided decisions in this tripartite crisis does not make much sense.
The time has come for the UN Security Council to prove influential by helping to resolve this complex crisis, rather than simply following the positions of the parties and calling for solutions without sufficient international effort to enforce them to ward off escalation and prevent things from spiralling into chaos.
The world’s eyes are riveted on the coronavirus saga and its dramatic toll. But international bodies must not turn away from world affairs. Any party to this crisis must understand the context, differentiate between strategic and tactical matters, and appreciate other parties’ security priorities.
Clearly, major domestic issues do not overshadow the priorities, but rather reshuffle them, particularly with regard to water security, now at the centre of the concerns of many researchers and observers as one of the potential causes of the outbreak of wars in the years to come.
When a party talks about a “life or death” question for its own, then everyone is better off listening and avoiding taking uncalculated steps that could fast-track undesired options. It is wise not to put your opponent in a tight corner and then ask your opponent to look for a safe way out. In situations like this one, politics is the only lifeline for coexistence and the guarantee of a secure future for the millions living in the Nile Valley.
