The Fate of the Nile Basin Initiative after May 14th.2010

By Professor Ali Abdalla Ali

May 14, 2010 — Between 10-12 April 2010, a ministerial meeting of the Nile Basin countries Ministers of Irrigation and Water Resources ministries convened in Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt to look into the possibility of preparing for the signature of the Common Framework Agreement (CFA) which will be the new legal frame or substitute for the historical Nile agreements of 1929 and 1959.In other words a new agreement which calls for the fair and just utilization of the Nile waters for the benefit and welfare of all the riparian countries rather than on the basis of water allocations given to countries of Egypt and Sudan in the two historical agreements. A meeting was held prior to that in Uganda whose deliberations were brought up to Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt. After two days of very intensive discussion it seemed that there was little agreement.

Few days after the meeting were over, considerable press news came out especially from Ethiopia that they have decided to sign on 14th. May as decided together with the other riparian countries excluding Egypt and the Sudan and that nothing will stop them from signing the CFA. On the other hand the Egyptian Minister of Irrigation and Water resources indicated that signing of the CFA shall constitute the end of the NBI. Such utterances although their contents were known from the desperate two day meetings in Sharm El Sheikh, yet their declaration especially from the Ethiopian side had stirred the pond and sent ripples through all the Nile basin especially after some news that Egypt had raised it readiness to meet the outcome. Sudan on its side had sent delegations on behalf of the newly elected Sudanese President to some riparian countries especially Ethiopia to convince them from not signing the CFA. The Sudan’s first VP Silva Kir also visited Ethiopia on such hope.

As far as Sudan is concerned a gradually growing awareness started about the issue of the Nile waters in all the Sudanese media. The whole of Sudan was engaged in the elections and there was very little attention given to this issue which for the Sudanese was assumed since Sudanese traditionally think it shameful to talk about food and drink!!. Numerous articles came out in the press as well a good number of TV discussions in which engineers, law people economists and social scientists and politicians participated. In addition to that considerable shuttling of high ranking personnel took place between Khartoum and Cairo sometimes secretively and sometimes publicly since Egypt always considered the issue of the Nile waters as its most important national security issue in spite of the fact that Egypt does not contribute a glass of water to the Nile!!

On Sunday 9th. a high level delegation from Egypt, including the Chief Egyptian Security man, shall be visiting both Khartoum and Juba in order to extend their congratulations to both the President of the Sudan and Silva Kir the newly elected President of the South Sudan. According to the Sudanese media the visit will also be intended to try convincing the South Sudan to remain within a unified Sudan. The Egyptians are worried that if the South Sudan opts for an independent state the issue of the White Nile waters will be complicated and that the opportunity of reconstructing of the Gonglei Canal might become also a difficult issue since many civil societies and environmental pressure groups call for abandoning the completion of the Canal on which both Northern Sudan and Egypt hope to benefit from the waters saved by the canal.

A close look at what had been called for and said about the signing of the CFA by the riparian countries of the Nile Basin to the exclusion of both Sudan and Egypt , all such utterances and analysis primarily concentrated on the legal side of the water issue as well as the technical aspects. There seems to be a certain degree of neglect of the very noble causes initiated by the Nile Basin Initiative (BNI) which during the decade of such initiative continued to hammer on the issue of equal, fair and just utilization of the available water for the benefit of the peoples of the Nile Basin. In other words what the NBI had succeeded into is dragging thoughts away from the strict allocations of the Nile Waters as per the agreements of 1929 and 1959 to the idea of using water as a factor of production, its proper management and its utilization where it is required by the elements of comparative advantage of any riparian state for the benefit of all (of course in a formula that would be acceptable to all). During the decade of the NBI which was celebrated in Dar Es Salam last December it was felt that such a decade was relatively rich in bringing the people of the Nile Basin closer together in spite of some hidden differences between up and down stream countries. A number of projects were entertained and financed by the donors who supported such developments.

Having such ideas initiated or supported by the World Bank should not be reason for doubting such motives in spite of the fact that there are reasons to doubt such international financial institutions.

What I am trying to spell out here as part of my interest in this vital issue are mainly four points.

1. How shall we look at the issue? Is it in terms of strict outdated agreements made by the imperial powers (mainly Britain) who were cunningly able to leave behind in the colonized countries a number of time bombs which many countries in Africa and Asia still suffer from? Or should we look at the Nile Water situation as it stands today?

2. How far is Ethiopia justified in its claims that it does not recognize the agreements of the 1929 and 1959 ?

3. Both the Sudan and Egypt often appear to be in the same trench. Is that really true?

4. If sanity and selflessness could prevail what should be done ?

1. HOW SHOULD WE LOOK AT THE ISSUE?
:
As mentioned above a lot of the discussion whether in the Sudanese or Egyptian media regarding the signature of the Common Framework Agreement (CFA) concentrated on the often talked about legal rights and technical considerations as well as some other considerations. This is so since the relation between Sudan and Egypt involve a number of complicated issues of which the Nile waters is one. These legal aspects although important in the context of the internationals relations between nations, yet for the ordinary man in the streets of the Nile Basin countries such agreements do not hold in all earnest!!. The 1929 agreement was designed and made by the imperial power of Britain which gave Egypt a sort of veto over any activity in the Nile Basin meaning to say that no country up stream was allowed to undertake any irrigation activity or project without the prior consent of Egypt. Is it not ridiculous for a country which does not produce a bucket of water to have such rights on waters which flow away from it? Even if we accept the coining of the Greek philosopher in the 5th Century Greece that Egypt is the Gift of the Nile, had anyone all through tried to stop the water from flowing to irrigate the great Egyptian civilization?! As for the 1959 agreement signed between Sudan and Egypt vide which the Aswan High Dam (AHD), everyone in the Nile Basin knows that it was most unfair deal in Sudan recent history. The Sudanese as well as the Ethiopians were not consulted. Even the Sudanese technicians at that time were completely ignored and late Abboud ordered his Minister to sign without referring to the technical views. The compensation given to the people of Wadi Halfa looked like charity money! A huge area of land which could have explained to us the magnificent heritage of the Nubians was submerged for ever by the waters of the AHD. The Egyptian side never even made a gesture as to provide these Northern parts of Sudan with electricity power that was to be produced by the AHD. Even more serious is the fact that the Nubians were resettled in Eastern Sudan in an environment which inflicted considerable psychological damage on the people who had never seen thunder during a rainy season. It is these two agreements that are challenged by the rest of the riparian countries excluding Sudan and Egypt.

It must be admitted that the world had changed so much since these two agreements were concluded. The Nile continued its flow providing prosperity to the people who lived on its banks from time immemorial. In spite of the fact that the 1959 agreement was signed without reference to Ethiopia whose highlands provide the main Nile with 86% of the total water resources, things went on with every riparian country assuming the question of water as something that is there all the time given by God Almighty and rather without questioning from any corner. With the ensuing globalization and the world coming nearer to each other especially with the help of information technology , riparian countries started to wake up to certain issues and rights. Whatever some others maintain that these riparian were pushed from behind by some external forces, the real fact remains that there is a new realization about rights. Everyone had awakened to find a place under the Sun even if that meant taking up to arms!! With the increased droughts and desertification in most less developing countries and especially more so in a number of riparian countries, a gradual awareness started to take place as to the changing environment and the question of gradually declining resources all round especially water resources out of which God had created every living thing .Such a situation had prompted many riparian countries to think anew about the better and optimal management of this important resource since that they needed it badly. The idea and how it emerged was thought to have come from the World Bank and other donors (even earlier on), but it must be admitted that if devoid of any ulterior motives is an idea based on rationality and the good management of a gradually declining strategic resource in addition to a fair and just utilization of such resources. It is a question of fairness which is behind the noble objectives of the NBI, which had celebrated a decade of its existence last December in Dar Es Salam, Tanzania. In the speech made by the VP of Tanzania, Dr.Ali Mohamed Shein said,

“Ten years ago there was an atmosphere of mistrust, suspicion and doubts. Today Nile Basin countries are open to each other ready and willing to interact and exchange information. This is an achievement to be cherished, nourished and nurtured by all.”!!!

Hardly six months had passed before this hopeful picture given by the VP of Tanzania last December is gradually giving way to a new unfortunate turning point in Sharm Al Sheikh this April 2010 where both Sudan and Egypt declared their refusal to sign the CFA which will be on May 14th.2010 by the other riparian countries including Ethiopia. In fact the environment had turned to look like a war scenario. Ethiopia –being a important partner-even stirred the bond by categorically declaring its keen and firm intention not to abide by the two historical agreement and accused Egypt of exercising delay tactics so that the CFA shall not be signed. Some thought that the signing of the CFA without Sudan and Egypt will mean the end of the NBI.

That is not necessarily so since the issue is still living and the problems related to it are still and will remain burning in a very uncertain and unhealthy atmosphere. The shock of not signing by both Sudan and Egypt might be taken as an opportunity to force all to think in a new way if the accumulated confidence during the years of the NBI were to be saved. The alternative will be undesirable because every country will try to work out what could be good for itself and people. It seems that there is no other way to look at the problem except having a hard look at the present status of the River Nile and conditions of all regions through which the Nile flows. The changing environment had greatly reduced the strength and force of the Nile especially when rains get delayed. All the riparian countries has to leave behind past problems and try to look anew at the real issues on the ground rather than the historical claims and the narrow concept of water allocations. Sometimes it is very difficult to shed old acquired conceptions because of fear of not being sure that there are in the oven some new solutions. The riparian countries have to know that people are shareholders in three Fire, Water and Feed. Moreover both Sudan and Egypt has to remember that they cannot cling to their allocations while some riparian countries are because of environmental degradation unable to get their legitimate needs of the water since such waters are determined by international agreements. When these agreements were made they were made taking into consideration the conditions at that time. Now matters are different and tremendous changes had taken place which pushed some of the riparian countries into dire need for water for various purposes. Would it be logical for both Sudan and Egypt to hold firm to their water allocated to them vide these agreements and leave other riparian countries to die of thirst along with their cattle and plants because historical agreements have said so?! Laws and agreements are often made in such a way as to preserve the rights and obligations of those involved in any particular issue or project. What comes first is the issue at hand and then the laws come after. New realities and new human needs definitely require new and fresh legal frames. If water is taken as an important factor of production may be the riparian countries down stream might in a new legal frame get more water if they were to prove that they could produce enough food more efficiently for all the people of the Nile Basin?!!

2. THE POSITION OF ETHIOPIA

Anybody following the issue of the Nile Basin will readily realize that the position of Ethiopia and its claims that it does not recognize either of the two historical agreements concerning the Nile waters will feel that the Ethiopian position is extremely logical and make considerable common sense .The Ethiopians are able to defend their position , but what one is trying to focus on is the fact that both Egypt and Sudan has to really appreciate the fact that Ethiopia is providing 86% of the resources of the Great Nile while according to the 1929 agreement it is only allowed to use from 0.5 to 1 % of such flowing waters. That in essence means that the Ethiopian people are supposed to sacrifice the use of their water to both Sudan and Egypt and go experiencing drought and desertification. Not only this but vide the agreement Egypt was always dead against allowing the Ethiopian to build dams in order not to obstruct the smooth flow of the water to Egypt. While this was the wish of the Egyptians, yet they allowed themselves to pressurize the government of late General Abboud to accept the 1959 agreement vide which the AHD was constructed. It was such an unfair agreement which is fresh in the minds of the Sudanese until today. Some highly qualified Sudanese engineers believed that building of dams in the highlands of Ethiopia is beneficial to all, Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. However, Egypt’s fear of the unknown make it difficult for it to accept such notions and therefore goes on calling on the Ethiopians not to construct dams!!.

Moreover, and since the second elections will be held in May in Ethiopia, what should the Ethiopian government tell its people when the issue of the Blue Nile waters is raised. Should the government tell its farmers and the rest of the population in Ethiopia that they have to live through drought and desertification and deprive themselves and their plants and animals from the need of water so that people down stream will not die from thirst?!!!

Ethiopia’s crusade to get a fair and just share of the Blue Nile waters is an extremely sound and logical demand which has to be met. Since Ethiopia does not have enough lands to irrigate its intention was always to develop hydro electric generation through construction of dams in the highlands. This kind of exercise to them will provide them and the neighbouring countries enough energy. Moreover, by building such dams evaporation shall be greatly reduced and the silting will also be reduced. However, Ethiopia remains a very important partner in the issue of the Nile and that it should not shy away from any future proposal that will help reduce tensions and bring the problems under control. According to a highly informed source in Ethiopia mentioned last month to this writer, that,” Ethiopia is under no circumstances interested or keen to deprive neither Sudan or Egypt from the waters of the Blue Nile .However, Ethiopia should not be bullied and told what it thinks as rational actions on its part.”

3. SUDAN EGYPT POSITION:

The media both in Sudan and Egypt tries to portray the position of both Sudan and Egypt as identical. Such declarations are often made by Egyptian officials especially those in the field of irrigation. Some even think that Sudan’s strategy is usually considered within the Egypt’s strategy. In fact to the writer this is just not plausible. At times both Sudan and Egypt used to coordinate these steps especially after the 1959 and the formation of the Nile Affairs Commission which used to operate on a semi-daily basis. Even if their position used to be coordinated it is the writer’s view that there is no good reason to closely follow the Egyptian steps especially as far as the issue of the Nile water is concerned, because the relationship is not very clean because a number of sensitivities has to be removed if both have to stand on a clean slate and operate on a respectable and equal basis. The writer had referred to many of these sensitivities in his many articles in this web site ‘www.sudantribune.com’. Since one is keen to be positive and try to help in charting out a solution to this vital issue of Nile water sharing and cannot be deferred over and over again.. A lot had been said and talked about since Sharm El Sheikh but not enough suggestions are given as to what should be really done to solve the problem and avoid delay and confrontation since water is a vital and significant factor in human development. The writer is greatly convinced that the Sudanese side especially the technicians are in full control of what they believe is good for Sudan. I was informed of many instances where the hard thinking and ideas of the Sudanese have often guided the wisdom in the various conferences and negotiations on the Nile issue over the years. However, Sudanese are usually low profile people and do not try to show of!!!

4. WHAT COULD BE DONE IF SANITY AND SELFLESSNESS PREVAILS?!!

In this last part one would like to be positive and try to propose a possible course of action if not for both Sudan and Egypt, then for Sudan which is the riparian country that I am part of and always hoped that it will always take up to a strategy as regards the Nile waters away from Egypt’s since every country should always have a strategy of its own while respecting the desires of others in a decent and fair life:

a) If one really looks closely as to the differences in the CFA, one would readily observe that the difference between Sudan, Egypt on side and the other riparian countries is not that significant and does not raise itself to a crisis level as has been reflected in the media. This is the contention of Dr.Ahmed El Mufti, Sudan’s major legal Advisor. I tend to share with him this contention.

Article 14 of CFA which is concerned with the Water Security includes in its end the following words;

“All countries agreed to this proposal except Egypt and Sudan. To this effect Egypt proposed that Article 14 (b) (which says; not to significantly affect the water security of any other Nile Basin State) should be replaced by the following wording(;(b) not to adversely affect the water security and current uses and rights of any other Nile Basin States.)” Unquote (CFA)

It is very clear from the above that it was Egypt and not Sudan that was keen to put new rewording .Sudan seemed to be very much less skeptical than Egypt. Egypt is and was always very much haunted by its historical mistrust of others (even its neighbour Sudan) as regards the Nile waters.

In a seminar held by the International Centre for African Studies on 12th.May 2010, Professor Hassan Ali Al Saouri of El Nilein University was of the view that Sudan should sign the CFA because it had already exhausted all allocations given to it by the 1959 agreement and that given its unusual natural resources could get more of water under the CFA. Sudan will have to undertake many agricultural projects in future which will be for the benefit of the Nile Basin people. I fully agree with Professor Al Saouri that Sudan should sign the CFA but for two different reasons:

First that Egypt was never in its long relationship with Sudan keen in any way that Sudan becomes a strong agricultural country. This is so because if Sudan became agriculturally strong it will definitely become economically strong and, therefore, politically strong. The case of AAAID and its failure to convert Sudan into the granary of the Arab world under the chairmanship of Dr. Ibrahim Badran (Egyptian) and Egypt’s subtle resistance to the heightening of the Roseires Dam over four decades( see our various articles in www.sudantribune).

Second Sudan had entered into a good number of cooperation agreements with its neighbour Ethiopia last year which were tantamount to near integration between the two countries especially the Western part of Ethiopia and the Eastern states of Sudan as well other aspects. What will happen to such built relation if Sudan did not sign? It is the subtle objective of Egypt to distance Sudan from its long time neighbour. That is why Dr. Seif El Din Mohamed Saeed the Sudanese water expert in the Higher Security Academy in Khartoum was quoted by AL INTIBAHA daily (11.5.2010) as saying that,”400 Israeli water experts visited Ethiopia in recent days and also confirmed that Sudan shall not indefinitely continue to support Egypt to the end in the Nile Basin issue, because that will affect the coming generations since it will be at

To conclude, my sincere advise for my Sudanese people and based on my close observation , for decades, of the relationship between the Sudan and Egypt in almost all matters of concern and especially so the Nile issue, that we really need to stop and make a stock taking of this relationship in spite of the very difficult times that Sudan is going through at the moment. What have we gained before and after independence of this so called eternal relationship!!! If we have to ponder on so many instances where official Egypt tried to hamper Sudan’s economic and social development one will unfortunately find out so many instances where we have been whether by subtle design or overt methods hard hit and harmed as a nation. How can Sudan and its people cooperate with a country that always thought of our country as its Southern backyard, always weak, submissive and docile. The world its various institutions and media has to understand clearly that Sudan is not in any way part of Egypt nor it had ever been a threat to its security. It is as simple as that!! One vital thing we ask of those who are responsible for our destiny is to avoid being cursed by Sudanese future generations!!