WATANI International
13 June 2010
The failure of Egyptian diplomacy to reach an agreement with Nile Basin nations on the equitable distribution of Nile waters has generated an uncomfortable feeling of pessimism in Egypt about the nation’s water security. Egypt set three conditions in regard to the signing of the Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement. First, the agreement should clearly acknowledge Egypt’s share of Nile water as defined by the 1959 agreement between Egypt and Sudan; second, upstream nations should notify Egypt before founding any projects on the Nile; and third, amendments to the agreement should be approved unanimously, or by a majority that includes Egypt and Sudan—the two downstream nations. Since deliberations among riparian countries in Sharm al-Sheikh resort last April failed to produce a consensus, the upstream countries signed a unilateral framework agreement last month which conspicuously disregarded those conditions.
The move severely disappointed Egyptians, and the question of securing Egypt’s lifeblood has since then been discussed inside out by the media. The matter was frequently either understated by claims that nothing could practically reduce the Nile flow reaching Egypt during the annual inundation and that an agreement was bound to be reached in view of the good relations between Egypt and the riparian States, or overrated by claiming the exact opposite. Watani decided to hear the expert opinion of Ibrahim Nasreddin, former Dean of the Institute for African Studies and Research, on the issue.
Watani: It is frequently argued that Egyptians have Arabian not African roots, how true is this?
Dr Nasereddin: Egypt’s roots lie in Africa. The renowned Senegalese professor Anta Diop proved that the civilisation of ancient Egyptians has the same root as African civilisations. Some Egyptians [especially since the rise of the Arab nationalism movement and the Islamist movement in the last century] dismissed this argument claiming that Egyptians are Arab. But the truth is that we are African in terms of history and geography. To claim otherwise is hypocritical.
Did the inclination to adhere to the Arab World work to the detriment of Egypt’s water security?
The problem is that Egyptian national and water security is now facing mounting challenges. The Nubians and Copts feel threatened; Somalia is almost ruined; Iraq is suffering form deep sectarian and ethnic divisions; and Sudan is about to be divided into two states. There are Zionist ploys behind the threats facing Egyptian national security.
Do you wish to say that the Zionist State stands behind most of these conflicts?
The Zionist State spares no effort to drive a wedge between the Arabs and Africans. Afro-Arab relations experienced an unprecedented level of harmony and cooperation in 1977, with the convocation of the first—and actually the last—Afro-Arab summit. The cooperation agreements reached during the summit almost drove Israel crazy, and induced it to do its utmost to distort the image of the Arabs in the eye of the Africans.
Why did Egypt decline to employ its historical links with Africa to enhance relations with Nile Basin states?
The 1950s was the era of national liberation. The 1956 tripartite aggression against Egypt—famous as the Suez War—induced Egypt to search for allies other than western powers, and it consequently turned its attention towards the then colonised nations in the African continent. Egypt supported the liberation movements there and provided them with military as well as diplomatic support.
Since the late 1970s, however, the Egyptian role in Africa has declined. This had to do with the wider changes in Egypt’s political and economic orientation, the movement towards market economy, and political pluralism. At the same time, the large majority of African countries had already gained political independence.
The sharp retreat in Egyptian presence in Africa offered Israel the opportunity to enhance its influence in the continent and seize its mineral fortunes including oil and diamond, while at the same time defaming the Arabs.
How do you evaluate the current role of Egyptian diplomacy in Africa?
Although Egypt has 47 embassies in African States, most of these fall short of exerting the effort required to forge deep and long-lasting ties with African countries. It does not help that a number of so-called diplomats got involved in the trade of diamond, ivory and rare birds instead of focusing their attention on opening channels of cooperation. This is because employees in Egyptian embassies in Africa get notably lower salaries compared to those working in Western countries. I visited 35 African nations and heard many complaints in this respect.
How about the role of the Egyptian Church?
The Church enjoyed a great influence in Ethiopia in the past. The Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria used to ordain Ethiopia’s archbishop and crown the Ethiopian emperor, and had as well the power to lay off the emperor if he behaved improperly. The Church’s role today has retreated to a strictly spiritual one that offers religious, health and social services. In many countries it has opened centres to offer help and training for women. As such, it enjoys strong presence in several African nations including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Kenya and Ethiopia. But the decline of the Church’s political role in Africa should be seen within the context of the retreat of the Egyptian State’s role in general. In this context, we need a comprehensive vision that would recruit the effective roles of both the Church and al-Azhar in Africa.
There are two current approaches common in evaluating Egypt##s water security: some say everything is all right, while others express concern over Egypt losing its share of Nile water. What do you think?
Three facts should be made clear. First, upstream countries are not in dire need of Nile waters since most receive plentiful rainfall. I want to stress that, in the foreseeable future, it is next to impossible for any power on earth to reduce the quantity of Nile water reaching Egypt. There are in the pipeline some 50 projects expected to be carried out by European and American offices. These will be constructed on smaller tributaries and will take 50 years to be completed. Even then, the reduction in terms of the quantity of water flowing to Egypt would be no more than 5 billion cubic metres a year. The Nile’s total flow amounts to 1650 billion cubic metres. Egypt and Sudan consume 84 billion cubic metres, 10 per cent of which is wasted through evaporation. Meaning that Egypt and Sudan consume no more than 6 per cent of Nile water. Ethiopia depends on rains to irrigate 80 per cent of its agricultural land, against 90 per cent for Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda. Even if dams are built on the Nile, they will benefit the High dam since they should reduce the quantity of silt accumulating behind the dam.
Second, Nile basin countries cannot reduce the quantity of water flowing into Egypt. This is because any dam built on the Nile headwater cannot survive more than ten years because it will be covered with silt flowing from the Ethiopian plateau. Two dams actually collapsed this year on the Eritrean-Ethiopian borders.
Third, upstream countries have no legal right to render the agreements signed in the colonial era void, since this would imply that all agreements on border demarcations would be null and void, which would break loose the gates of hell on Africa’s modern States.
So why do upstream countries object to the pervious agreements concerning the distribution of Nile waters?
Although Egypt has signed 45 agreements with riparian countries, most of these have remained ink on paper. These countries are reluctant to activate the agreements, as this would affect other agreements including those concerning border demarcation. Therefore, riparian countries have no real interest in changing the previous agreements. The current crisis is in essence one of diplomacy.
We should have signed the framework agreement while citing our reservations. This would have implied that Egypt was not obliged to abide by the articles it expressed reservation over. But the Egyptian performance was coloured with arrogance.
What about the role of the media?
The media is totally dependent on the foreign press in this concern. Rather than quoting what is written there, our media should have contacted Egyptian experts to acquaint the public with the real situation.
In your view, what is to be done now?
I am against both confrontational and submissive approaches. Military conflict with Nile Basin countries can be nothing short of catastrophic. Contrariwise, falling prey to blackmail will do more harm than good. The best way to deal with the crisis is to boost cooperation with the countries that have not signed the framework agreement, as this is expected to apply pressure on the signatories. Egypt should also work to prevent the division of the Sudan and at the same time ameliorate ties with Eritrea to tilt the balance with Ethiopia in our favour.