Abay River Showdown at the UN: Ethiopia Outshines Egypt in the Great Water Debate

By LJDemission
September 30, 2024

In a recent turn of events at the UN General Assembly 2024, the age-old debate over the Abay River waters, which contribute over 85% to the Nile River’s flow, has once again taken center stage. Egypt and Ethiopia have presented their cases, each with its own set of arguments and historical baggage. I dive into the latest round of this hydro-political saga.

Egypt’s Existential Anxiety

On September 28, 2024, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty took to the podium at the UN General Assembly (UNGA 79) with a message that could have been lifted straight out of a thriller novel. “Egypt will not turn a blind eye to a threat to its existence,” he declared, emphasizing that the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) disregards the lives of Egyptians and Sudanese alike. Abdelatty stressed that Egypt would continue to monitor the dam’s developments and take necessary measures to defend its interests.

Earlier in the month, on September 1, 2024, Abdelatty had already fired off a strongly-worded letter to the President of the UN Security Council. He described Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s statements about reserving Blue Nile water as “entirely unacceptable” and accused Ethiopia of threatening regional stability with its provocative approach.

However, the UN Security Council responded by encouraging Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan to resume negotiations under the auspices of the African Union to finalize a mutually acceptable agreement on filling and operating the dam. The Security Council emphasized that it would not intervene directly, as the issue should be resolved through regional cooperation and dialogue.

Ethiopia’s Equitable Rebuttal

Not to be outdone, Ethiopia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Yoseph Kassaye, delivered a measured yet firm response on September 30, 2024. Kassaye emphasized Ethiopia’s commitment to the principles of equitable and reasonable utilization of the Nile’s waters. He called on Egypt to ratify the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) on the Nile River, which aims to promote fair distribution among all Nile Basin countries.

Kassaye highlighted that Ethiopia, which contributes 85% of the Nile’s flow, seeks cooperation based on international law for transboundary waters. He urged Egypt: to abandon its colonial-based policy on the Nile, to stop its efforts to destabilize Africa, and to work towards integrated development on the basis of equity. Furthermore, Kassaye reaffirmed Ethiopia’s right to use its natural resources for the benefit of its people and stressed the importance of regional cooperation.

Objective Analysis

As an objective observer, I break down the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s arguments based on international waters laws for transboundary rivers.

Egypt’s Statement:

Existential Threat: Egypt’s emphasis on the existential threat posed by the GERD is an exaggeration. While Egypt’s reliance on the Nile for water is undeniable and its concerns are valid, the claim that the GERD poses an existential threat is not a strong point. Instead, the focus should be on ensuring that Ethiopia’s water needs do not unfairly impact Egypt’s water supply, aligning with the principle of “no significant harm” in international water law.

Rating: 1/3.33
Review: Egypt’s emphasis on the existential threat posed by the GERD is an exaggeration. While Egypt’s reliance on the Nile for                   water is undeniable and its concerns are valid, the claim that the GERD poses an existential threat is not a strong                           point.

Historical Treaties: From Ethiopia’s perspective, relying on historical treaties established without its participation is irrelevant from multiple perspectives (legal, moral, ethical, and economical) since the treaties established without Ethiopia’s participation. These treaties were declared null and void by Ethiopia at their inception and fail to reflect current geopolitical realities. Moreover, they do not align with modern international water law, which emphasizes equitable and reasonable utilization.

Rating: 0/3.33
Review: Egypt’s reliance on historical treaties, which were established without Ethiopia’s participation, is a weaker point. These                   treaties do not reflect current geopolitical realities and do not fully support the principles of modern international water                   law, such as equitable and reasonable utilization.

Call for Binding Agreement: Egypt’s call for a binding legal agreement is a strong point, as it seeks to ensure a structured and predictable framework for water management.

Rating: 3.33/3.33
Review: Egypt’s call for a binding legal agreement is a strong point, as it seeks to ensure a structured and predictable                                 framework for water management. This approach is constructive and aligns with the need for a clear and enforceable                       agreement to manage shared water resources.

Cumulative Score:

1 (Existential Threat) + 0 (Historical Treaties) + 3.33 (Call for Binding Agreement) = 4.33/10

Ethiopia’s Reply:

Equitable Utilization: Ethiopia’s emphasis on equitable and reasonable utilization is a strong point, as it aligns with modern principles of international water law. This principle is crucial for fair distribution among all Nile Basin countries.

Rating: 3.33/3.33
Review: The rating of 3.33/3.33 is justified. Ethiopia’s focus on equitable utilization aligns with international water law                               principles, ensuring fair distribution among all Nile Basin countries. This approach is essential for maintaining balance                   and fairness in the use of shared water resources.

Right to Development: Ethiopia’s assertion of its right to use its natural resources for development is a strong point, supported by international law. The GERD promises significant benefits for Ethiopia’s economic development.

Rating: 3.33/3.33
Review: The rating of 3.33/3.33 is appropriate. Ethiopia’s right to development is well-supported by international law, and the                     GERD is a key project for its economic growth. This argument is strong and highlights Ethiopia’s legitimate need to                         utilize its natural resources for development.

Call for Cooperation: Ethiopia’s call for regional cooperation and its willingness to engage in dialogue are strong points, as they promote a collaborative approach to managing shared water resources.

Rating: 1.33/3.33
Review: The rating of 1.33/3.33 reflects the importance of Ethiopia’s call for cooperation. While this is a positive and                                    constructive approach, the lower rating indicates that there is room for improvement in fostering stronger regional                          collaboration and dialogue.

Overall Rating for Ethiopia’s Reply: 7.99/10

Path to a Perfect Score for Ethiopia

To achieve a perfect score of 10/10, Ethiopia could have strengthened its argument by emphasizing the mutual benefits of the GERD for all Nile Basin countries. By highlighting specific examples of how the GERD can enhance regional stability, such as reducing flood risks, providing reliable irrigation for Sudan, and offering a strategic water storage solution to mitigate evaporation losses at Egypt’s Aswan High Dam, Ethiopia could have demonstrated a comprehensive vision for regional cooperation. Additionally, Ethiopia could have pointed out that Egypt’s current management of the Nile River leads to significant wastage of fresh water into the ever-expanding Mediterranean Sea, exacerbating climate change issues that the world is striving to address.

Ethiopia could have proposed a detailed framework for collaborative water management, including transparent data sharing, joint monitoring mechanisms, and regular trilateral meetings to address concerns and build trust among Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. This approach would underscore Ethiopia’s commitment to equitable and sustainable development, fostering a spirit of partnership and shared prosperity.