In the midst of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) dispute, Egypt’s approach has been characterized by a series of confrontational rhetoric and a strong inclination to involve external actors, notably the League of Arab Nations.
Rather than prioritizing the African Union (AU)-led processes, Egypt is consistently turning to the Arab League, undermining the AU’s efforts to facilitate negotiations and seek an African solution to this pressing issue.
In so doing, Egypt is seemingly mobilizing Arab countries to undermine African interests. It is profoundly disregarding the unity and coherence of the AU in addressing the GERD conflict, sidestepping the African-led processes, and eroding the essential trust and cooperation required for a mutually beneficial resolution.
As a result, Egypt is stifling opportunities for meaningful dialogue and negotiation with Ethiopia and other riparian countries, risking prolonging the conflict
Saber rattling by Egypt and The Arab League
Throughout the GERD conflict, Egypt has been saber-rattling and threatening military action. As early as 2013, then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi stated that he would keep “all options open”.
Egyptian politicians echoed, and one might argue, clarified this provocation by proposing military action over the dam on live television. The country has since pursued a belligerent foreign policy, at some point in 2021 demanding the intervention of the UNSC in a 95-page document, despite the GERD not being a security issue.
The Arab League adopted the same attitude. In 2017, following an early breakdown of negotiations between Egypt and Ethiopia, Ahmed Abul-Gheit, secretary general of the league, told the Fourth Arabic Forum for Water in Cairo that the issue was “a matter of Arab national security”.
Nearing the second filing of the GERD in 2021, the Executive Council of the League of Arab States sitting in Doha, Qatar, further passed a resolution backing Egypt’s appeal for UNSC’s intervention.
Only recently, in the just concluded 32nd Arab Summit held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Arab Leaders again demanded that Ethiopia discontinue its filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). In a thinly veiled threat, they emphasized strong coordination with Sudan and Egypt “to take necessary actions in the future”.
Implications of Egypt’s belligerent foreign policy
One would have expected Egypt to be fostering an environment conducive to open dialogue and negotiation. Instead, it is escalating tensions, deepening mistrust, and hampering constructive engagement.
The country’s aggressive rhetoric and threats of military action are having significant implications for the resolution of the GERD conflict, hampering chances of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement with Ethiopia, and straining relations with other riparian countries.
By resorting to threats, Egypt is fostering an atmosphere of hostility and mistrust, making it difficult for constructive dialogue to take place with Ethiopia. Such rhetoric only serves to deepen the divide between the two countries and obstruct the prospects of finding common ground as it undermines the trust and cooperation necessary to reach a comprehensive agreement.
Its preference for involving the Arab League instead of fully embracing the African Union-led processes is hampering the effectiveness of negotiations. It is diverting attention from the African-led platforms and failing its full engagement with Ethiopia and other Nile Basin countries in a meaningful and inclusive manner.
Its insensitive attempt at downplaying the polarizing 1959 colonial agreement is also straining its relations with other Nile Basin countries, exacerbating the already complex dynamics of this conflict.
Many believe Egypt is undermining opportunities for regional cooperation and constructive diplomacy required to revise the 1959 colonial agreement, which they consider one of the enduring legacies of colonialism in Africa, having been brokered by Britain to assert proxy Nile resource control through Egypt in 1959.
Motives behind Egypt’s and Ethiopia’s approaches
No one who has followed Egypt and Ethiopia over the GERD since construction began in 2011, can fail to notice the contrasting attitudes of the two countries toward the African Union. Egypt has seemed intent on taking the GERD conflict outside the AU framework.
By so doing, it is downplaying the importance of African solutions to African problems, and ignoring the unique challenges and historical context that gave it exclusive rights to the Nile at the expense of other riparian countries.
Egypt has frequently invited non-Africans, including the United States and now the Arab League to meddle in the GERD issue. Conversely, Ethiopia has consistently called for negotiations under the AU framework.
This commitment to the AU-led processes signifies Ethiopia’s recognition of the significance of African unity and the importance of finding African solutions to the challenges faced by Nile Basin countries. Ethiopia looks more intent on engaging fellow African nations in the spirit of goodwill, understanding, and respect for all those involved.
On the other hand, Egypt’s preference for involving non-Africans instead of fully embracing the AU-led processes raises questions about its commitment to the unity and cohesion of the African continent. Its disregard for the collective efforts of the AU is undermining the prospects of reaching a fair and equitable resolution that considers the interests of all Nile Basin countries.
This contrast highlights the divergent priorities between the two countries concerning the GERD dispute. However, beyond that, Egypt’s persistent rhetoric and aggressive stance, coupled with its tendency to dismiss African-led processes in favor of the Arab League, raises concern about its underlying motives. I propose two theses to explain why.
The first thesis
Egyptian politicians are resorting to force and the risk of war with Ethiopia to rouse domestic political support by generating a “rally round the flag” effect.
Egyptian politicians, faced with problematic domestic circumstances, are employing the age-old strategy of rallying public support through nationalist sentiments. They are deliberately framing the GERD as a matter of national security, aiming to divert attention from domestic issues such as unemployment and poor governance and consolidating their political standing.
While this tactic may conveniently deflect criticism from the public, it also risks fueling misguided nationalistic sentiments, creating an environment where calls for military action are more likely to gain traction.
Egyptian politicians should retrace their steps. What we need as riparian countries is more economic integration. A zero-sum game or sabotage of the GERD will only result in the misery of our people and all Africans. Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia are three civilizations with a lot more in common than against.
They each benefit more from being linked by water, road, and railway in addition to the Air link than divided through avoidable animosity. Regional stability and the well-being of both nations should take precedence over short-term political gains.
The second thesis
Egypt is reframing the GERD conflict as an Arab Issue to sideline the concerns of other Nile Basin countries and frustrate their demands for equitable sharing of the Nile.
Egypt, by emphasizing an Arab-centric approach is frustrating the demands of other Nile Basin countries for equitable sharing of the Nile waters. By mobilizing Arab countries, it is creating a scenario where Arab interests take precedence over the concerns of other riparian states.
This approach undermines the principle of equitable sharing and the need for collaborative agreements that address the water needs and developmental aspirations of all countries in the Nile Basin.
The Arab-centric reframing stifles the potential for open dialogue and negotiation with Ethiopia and other riparian countries. It also sidelines the AU and Arabizes the issue, in the process fanning a polarized environment that hampers meaningful discussions with another stakeholder in the Nile Basin.
Unfortunately for Egypt, sustainable and mutually beneficial solutions can only be achieved through inclusive dialogue and negotiation that encompasses all stakeholders.
So far, Egypt’s hostility and reliance on the Arab League is detrimentally impacting trust-building, and cooperation with Ethiopia and other riparian countries.
Trust is an essential component of successful negotiations, and Egypt’s aggressive approach erodes the trust necessary to reach a mutually beneficial resolution. It is reinforcing existing suspicions about its presumed reluctance to share the Nile, and entrenching an environment of animosity within the region.
Moreover, Egypt’s preference for involving external actors rather than fully embracing the African Union-led processes sends a message of exclusion and undermines the potential for collaboration. It signals a lack of willingness on Egypt’s part to work together with Ethiopia within a framework that fosters unity and African-led solutions. This, in turn, is making it increasingly challenging for the two countries to establish the necessary foundation for cooperation and find common ground.
Forward Steps
No one has anything against the people of Egypt. We all know of Egypt’s dependence on the Nile and empathize with its concerns regarding any additional usage. However, other riparian countries also have a right to the Nile, and expect equal sensitivity and consideration for their well-being from Egypt.
It is difficult to see the benefits of continued saber-rattling by the Egyptians and their Arab League and US allies. What does it achieve for Egypt? How does frustrating the GERD project benefit Cairo? Any physical harm inflicted upon the dam would only result in delays, not a complete halt to its construction.
Ethiopia, despite the setback, would persevere. But can we even begin to comprehend the catastrophe that a flood unleashed by physical damage on Egypt and downstream nations would cause? Have we considered the costs of a war that could potentially erupt with Ethiopians who have sacrificed everything for this dam?
It is as clear as day to any right-thinking person, that a more constructive and cooperative approach would yield greater advantages for all parties involved. It is time Egypt desists from aggressive rhetoric, and from recourse to non-African forums, and instead prioritizes open dialogue with fellow Africans under the framework of the AU.
Otherwise, Egypt’s actions thus far, characterized by aggressive rhetoric, reliance on external alliances, and a disregard for African-led processes, raise suspicion regarding its genuine intentions. One can’t help, but ask: what does Egypt really want?
