The Price of Progress: Ethiopia’s Dam and the Question of Multilateralism
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Image Credit: Prime Minister Office Ethiopia, Wikimedia Commons
In 1957, Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia stated that making the waters of the Nile serve the life and needs of present and future Ethiopian people was of “paramount importance” and “a problem of the first order”. He continued: “However generously Ethiopia may be prepared to share this tremendous God-given wealth of hers with friendly neighbouring countries for the lives and welfare of their people, it is Ethiopia’s primary and sacred duty to develop her water resources in the interest of her own rapidly expanding population and economy.”
This 68 year old sentiment has persevered into present-day Ethiopia, despite changes in regime, systems of government, and the nation’s borders. Sentiment and ambition turned into real action in 2011, when the erstwhile Prime Minister Meles Zenawi announced plans “to build what he simply called ‘Project X’”. Fourteen years later, Project X is “Africa’s largest hydroelectric dam” and known to the world as the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), inaugurated in September of this year.
Controversy and Colonialism Along the Nile
This momentous milestone shines in the shadow of a longtime controversy between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia, three of the eleven countries that share the Nile Basin. Sudan is not as vehemently opposed to the GERD as Egypt is, as the dam could “help with flood management and irrigation and improve its electricity supply.” Nonetheless, Sudan has had to prioritise a more urgent domestic interest, namely their ongoing civil war, and has thus tended to side with Egypt with regards to the GERD, as Egypt is a “major backer” of Sudan’s national army.
Egypt, on the other hand, has been quite vocal in expressing its concerns, arguing that the “dam could sharply reduce the flow of water to the country, causing water shortages.” Their precarious water situation is exacerbated by “old and leaky” irrigation systems and that much of its water is used for agriculture. Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi stated that “no one can touch Egypt’s share of the water” and that this was “a matter of life and death”, to which Ethiopia responded that the GERD is a matter of life and death for them too. This share that Egypt has been adamantly protecting is “around 80% of the Nile’s waters”, a guarantee made in 1929 by Britain, then a colonial power to “placate Egypt” and “secure its own interests because Egypt is a strategic state that controls the Suez Canal”, according to analyst Rashid Abdi.
And there lies the irony. Egypt has vociferously attempted to hold onto its “privileged status over the Nile” and do what it perceives to be in its best interest. The GERD is Ethiopia’s answer to this unjust and colonial-era treaty, to which they were not a party, and is arguably not nearly as unreasonable or radical as Egypt has portrayed it to be. Despite Egypt’s claims, independent research has shown that “no major disruptions have so far been recorded to downstream flow”, Ethiopian officials “have repeatedly insisted that the dam will not harm the interests of downstream countries,” and experts “point out the new dam will end the seasonal fluctuations of the river and allow Sudan to expand its agriculture.”
All this has been considered by Ethiopia for two countries which have repeatedly excluded it from past Nile treaties. In 1959, Egypt and Sudan agreed to the volume of water they will each receive per year, establishing “their exclusive control over Nile water usage while excluding other riparian states from decision-making.” Egypt has relied upon both the 1929 and the 1959 agreements to claim its “right” to an overwhelming preponderance of water. Yet, Ethiopia is accused of unilateralism.
Diplomatic Tensions and Allegations of Unilateralism
The GERD has been a diplomatic landmine for years, with tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia once becoming so high “that some observers feared the two countries might go to war over it.” Professor Abbas Sharaky, a geologist at Cairo University has “ruled out the possibility of Egypt going to war with Ethiopia,” while Egypt’s government “vowed to take all necessary measures ‘to defend the existential interests of its people’.” However, Fekahmed Negash, former negotiator for Ethiopia noted that bombing the GERD would be “suicidal” for Egypt and Sudan, as “all the dam’s water would gush out and ‘devastate’ the two countries.”
War over a dam? While this may sound dramatic or far-fetched, there is clearly much at stake here for all the parties involved. For Egypt, the GERD means that they may no longer be entitled to the “lion’s share” of the water they are accustomed to and seemingly feel entitled to. For Ethiopia, “considered ‘Africa’s water tower’ because of the generous precipitation it enjoys and its many rivers,” the GERD represents a now tangible opportunity for development in hydropower and irrigation.
According to Ethiopia’s Water and Energy Minister, “nearly half” of Ethiopia’s population do not have access to electricity. The GERD should generate 5,100MW of power at full capacity, which is “more than double what the country produces without the dam and enough to supply tens of millions more homes in the country.” Evidently, Ethiopia is also putting its people and interests first, and optimising their use of a river that they already rely on.
And this is what Egypt fears: the GERD represents the beginning of an achievement that is yet to be fully realised. The Ethiopian government intends to give at least 90% of the nation access to electricity by 2030, although they have acknowledged that this ambitious goal will require expansion of the national power grid’s infrastructure and laying down “tens of thousands of kilometres of cable…to ensure that small towns and remote villages can be connected.”
Ethiopia’s actions have been described by Egypt and Sudan as “unilateral”, despite the fact that Ethiopia has attempted to be multilateral in its approach for well over a decade. Negotiations have failed for years, without having led to a pactexcept for a declaration of principles in 2015 “recognising Ethiopia’s right to build the dam and committing the three countries to equitable use”, with the last round of negotiations breaking down in 2023. The leaders of Egypt and Ethiopia have used the dam to benefit their respective domestic political agendas, with The Economist describing Egypt’s presidentas at times seeming to “relish the feud.” It is abundantly clear what Egypt and their president stand to gain from opposing the dam. They are after all, acting in their best interest and are unsettled by Ethiopia doing the same.
When multilateralism failed, Ethiopia acted unilaterally, which is a level of audacity Egypt simply cannot accept. Yet, Egypt is blind or wilfully ignorant to its own audacity because it seems to believe it is entitled to a wildly disproportionate volume of water that is shared by eleven countries. This is a point worth repeating. There are eleven countries reliant on the Nile Basin and one has dared to stand up to Egypt’s near-monopoly of the water by building a dam its own people need and will benefit from, and this choice is apparently a violation of international law and unforgivable unilateralism. The international law in question being a nearly century old treaty between a European colonial power and a former colony that excluded the other African nations that share the Nile and a 1959 treaty that did much of the same.
Violations of colonial-era treaties must be assessed with a grain of salt, as it is certainly worth questioning the validity of such so-called “international law”, especially in the present day. When the only African party that truly benefits from this colonial treaty was coincidentally the only African party involved in the initial treaty and is now the same party insisting that this treaty is “still valid and should be adhered to by all Nile riparian countries,” cries for multilateralism begin to sound hypocritical.
And while slightly absurd, it makes sense. Why would Egypt want to give up such privileged status over the Nile? And why behave multilaterally on an issue they have made such unilateralist decisions on in the past? Domestically, it looks better for Egypt to dig their heels in and maintain a mythologised entitlement and supremacy over the river than accept that their share is unfair to the other riparian countries. And for Ethiopia, an entirely Ethiopian funded dam is a source of national pride and unity, as well as a demonstration of convergent governance and quite literally, a brighter future.
The New World
It is clear that Ethiopia attempted to be multilateral in its construction of the GERD. Nevertheless, its inauguration demonstrates that where multilateralism falls short, unilateral actions take hold, at times to the chagrin of other parties. Alas, this is the price of progress. While there is still much work to be done to fully execute Ethiopia’s electric ambitions, the largest hurdle seems to have been overcome. If Egypt wishes to actively engage in what should be a new day for the riparian countries, it must lay its dreams of a colonial-era Nile to rest and try something new: the wonderful world of multilateralism. This multilateral re-engagement could effectively be facilitated by the African Union, the Nile Basin Initiative, and other regional players.
Regional infighting and inequitable use of the Nile only benefits countries who wish to see a strong North and East Africa fail. It looks petty, confirms demeaning stereotypes about African governments, and leaves the continent more fragmented and weak. The Nile Basin is shared by 280 million Africans, and the GERD could allow millions more in Ethiopia to benefit from it. Egypt, Sudan, and other riparian States can and should take advantage of this dam by determining together with Ethiopia how their countries can make best use of it. If Ethiopia was “unilaterally” able create something so remarkable, there is no telling what a united region could achieve through productive multilateralism.
Ethiopia is fulfilling the dream of its former emperor by developing its water resources in the interest of its own population, and moreover, seems willing to share its wealth. In July, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed told parliament that the dam is a “shared opportunity”, of which the energy and development “it will generate stand to uplift not just Ethiopia.” The dam has now been inaugurated, its existence a “fait accompli”. What remains to be seen is its potential for development, domestically and regionally. Real multilateralism may have once been a pipe dream but it does not have to be: Egypt can enter this new world, but it must leave the colonial one behind for good.
