Lately, I have been following some developments related to the Egyptian position in Ethiopia’s Renaissance Dam crisis. In the wake of the direct military intervention in Libya, aimed at strategically exerting pressure on and destabilizing Egypt through terrorist elements supported, armed and financed by Turkey and other parties such as the Qatari regime, the security of the Egyptian state on its 1 200 km western borders came under serious threat.
Since then, observers and analysts have rushed to argue for or against our Egyptian brothers’ ability to enter into a military conflict over something that affects the lives of fewer than 100 million Egyptians. The debate over Egypt’s power to resolve this existential crisis, which overlaps with a coronavirus outbreak that has exhausted the world’s economies, is not just the focus of political and media attention. Social media outlets too have been the scene of a whole host of provocations, exaggerations and attacks on national and moral values.
In my article, I examine the scope of Egyptian power in managing crises from my perspective of political expert. It is my belief that the Egyptian state is managing the issue of the Renaissance Dam crisis with great competence and accuracy.
Egypt has accumulated a wealth of expertise throughout history. Its historical achievements endow it with a good strategic knowledge that keeps it from being swept away by adventurism or emotion. The difference between making war and peace is well known to Egypt.
So the Egyptians are not groping around in this crisis as some think. Rather, they are guided by a political and strategic vision that is aware of all the crisis dimensions and what is going on behind the scenes. They are acting in full awareness and confidence, in accordance with the principles of international law and the UN Charter. They assess the different scenarios and possibilities based on the strategic context and the dynamics of the conflict.
What interests me in this respect is not the next step for Egyptians. They know what they are doing. We trust that Egypt’s wise leadership can take decisions that are in line with the inalienable interests and resources of the people. But I am especially interested in the criteria that underpin expert and analyst discussions.
I note here in particular that the strategic and military balance of power involving the Egyptian army is not the only determining factor in the decision to wage war. The quantitative and qualitative gaps are clearly visible. However, power is not a reason enough to justify making war.
As H.E. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said, Egypt’s power is rational. Egypt cannot be dragged at an inconvenient time into a war that does not serve its interests. Egypt has long been aware that it cannot be drawn into a war that will not result in anything more than negotiation and pacification efforts.
Having military superiority does not, by extension, mean that one has to go to war. Wars, military leaders and professional politicians know, are far from being a walk in the park.
If superiority were the clincher, US President Donald Trump would have bombed the Iranian mullahs when they shot down the MQ-4C Triton drone over the Strait of Hormuz last year, since the highly-equipped US military recognized that the drone was unduly downed, what President Trump called a “big mistake.”
Moreover, President Putin reportedly ordered a military response to Turkey when it deliberately shot down Russia’s Sukhoi Su-24 fighter plane on the Syrian border, since he said that this was a “stab in the back” and that the incident would have serious consequences for Russian-Turkish relations. Putin is already known for being sensitive to all matters affecting the statut of the Russian state and committed to restoring its international influence and status.
Often, rights are not taken by force, but rather secured through negotiated political means, with each party’s power indicators and calculations taken into account. War is the continuation of politics by other means, as Carl von Clausewitz said in “On War.” As well, wars, 1st to 4th generation alike, are not been confined to sheer military confrontation.
This is how the circumstances of this complex crisis should be understood. Above all, Egypt is not a sectarian, vengeful or demagogic state, but a major regional power charged with maintaining security and stability, and a UN founding state. This status entails many international responsibilities and obligations. That is why it is keen to establish its cause and to walk the path of international legitimacy throughout. Its recourse to the UNSC in this context was a judicious move to legitimize its decisions and policies to manage this delicate crisis.
“Egypt is a gift of the Nile,” said the Greek historian Herodotus two and a half millennia ago. Its existence depends on this magnificent river, which accounts for 95% of its people’s freshwater resources. As a result, the crisis is creating enormous strategic pressure on Egypt’s leaders. These are pressures that we hope all international actors will be aware of in order to work and scale up efforts to find a just outcome that accommodates the interests of all parties to this crisis.
We also hope that the Ethiopian side will understand these realities and appreciate Egypt’s concern to favor the path of dialogue and negotiation, either directly or through international mediation, and to avoid the nightmare of escalation as much as possible.
In short, the language of reason and wisdom must absolutely prevail and the crisis must not be instrumentalized in internal political conflicts. The future of three peoples cannot afford miscalculations.
