Connect with us

Diplomacy

Ethiopia’s Renaissance Dam inauguration reignites Nile River tensions

Published

on

With Ethiopia’s inauguration of the Renaissance Dam last Tuesday, Addis Ababa has entered a new period of tension in its relations with the downstream countries of Egypt and Sudan.

Cairo and Khartoum have long expressed their complete opposition to any “unilateral steps” that would harm water resources in the Eastern Nile basin, emphasizing that their water security is inextricably linked.

The Nile River originates in the tropical region of East Africa and consists of two main tributaries: the White Nile, which rises from Lake Victoria, and the Blue Nile, which rises from Lake Tana in Ethiopia.

These two rivers merge in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, and flow northward, eventually emptying into the Mediterranean Sea.

While Ethiopia focuses on the potential benefits of the dam, the calculations in Khartoum and Cairo are becoming more complex.

Sudan’s Roseires Dam concern

For Sudan, the ecosystem of the Blue Nile will be negatively affected if approximately 300 cubic meters of water per second are not released. The size of the Renaissance Dam and its direct impact on the Roseires Dam, located about 100 kilometers away, are sources of serious concern.

The Roseires Dam, a hydroelectric power station, is situated on the Blue Nile in the Sudanese city of Ed-Damazin. Constructed between 1961 and 1966, the dam is used for irrigation and electricity generation, featuring a plant with a capacity of 280 megawatts.

Upgrades were made in 2013 to increase the dam’s storage and power generation capacity. This dam is considered the backbone of Sudan’s electricity grid, providing the country with clean and cheap electricity.

The safe filling and operation of both the Renaissance and Roseires dams depend on full compliance with the daily exchange of data between the two facilities.

Although this was stipulated in the 2015 Framework Agreement, the absence of a signed binding agreement means that commitments are not being fulfilled.

This situation jeopardizes the operation of the Roseires Dam due to a lack of information regarding discharge data, the safety status of the Renaissance Dam, emergency plans, and other technical operational matters.

Sudan argues that the necessary coordination must be based on a written agreement that guarantees the sharing of data on the filling and discharging of the dams.

Such an agreement should include a commitment to full cooperation to ensure the two dams operate in harmony, as the filling rules for the Roseires Dam depend on the amount of water released from the Renaissance Dam and the flood season.

Egypt’s search for alternatives

Egypt, meanwhile, continues to reject Addis Ababa’s policies regarding the dam, its future, and its negative impacts on the country’s water resources.

Egypt’s annual share of water from the Nile River is approximately 55 billion cubic meters, 80% of which is used in agriculture. Since Ethiopia began constructing and impounding water at the dam, the Egyptian government has resorted to various policies to reduce water consumption.

Chief among these measures are reducing the cultivation area for rice and focusing on crops that consume less water, such as corn, potatoes, and clover.

The government has also turned to projects like seawater desalination plants, wastewater treatment facilities, and the rehabilitation of thousands of kilometers of water canals to prevent water waste.

However, these measures and projects have not stopped Cairo from pursuing political and diplomatic efforts to compel Ethiopia to sign a binding legal agreement that secures the historical water shares of the downstream countries.

The historical roots of the dispute

The water dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia is not rooted solely in the Renaissance Dam but in the Nile waters themselves and whether Ethiopia recognizes Egypt’s 55.5 billion cubic meter share, established by the 1929 and 1959 agreements.

Ethiopia does not recognize these historical agreements, particularly the 1902 agreement signed between the then-Ethiopian Emperor Menelik II and Great Britain, which colonized Egypt and Sudan.

Addis Ababa argues that these agreements were signed during the colonial era and therefore cannot be inherited, while Egypt strictly adheres to the theory of state succession to international treaties.

This deep disagreement led to Egypt’s refusal to join the Nile Basin Countries Framework Agreement, signed in 2010 and known as the Entebbe Agreement. While Ethiopia and other countries ratified the agreement starting in 2013, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, and the Democratic Republic of Congo did not become parties to it.

Egypt’s reservations at the time centered on Article 14b concerning water security and Article 8 regarding prior notification for projects. Egypt demanded that it and Sudan be informed and their approval obtained before the implementation of any project.

At the Kinshasa meeting in May 2009, Egypt insisted that the legal framework of the agreement include text in Article 14b on water security, explicitly stating that Egypt’s historical water share would not be touched.

Furthermore, it demanded that Article 8, concerning the principle of prior notification for downstream countries (Egypt and Sudan) to object before any project begins, be included in the main body of the agreement rather than in the annexes; however, these demands were not met regarding the Renaissance Dam.

Complex political conditions and a long negotiation process

In February 2011, the Ethiopian government announced the start of construction on the Renaissance Dam. Some observers viewed this move as taking advantage of the critical political situation in Egypt following the January 25th Revolution and the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak.

In Sudan, the government of President Omar al-Bashir was overthrown in April 2019, but the country quickly descended into political tension and has been the scene of a bloody conflict between the army and the Rapid Support Forces since April 2023. This situation has weakened Khartoum’s negotiating position on the water issue.

While Egypt was preoccupied with its internal affairs, then-Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi laid the foundation stone for the project in April 2011, initially named “Millennium” and later changed to the “Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.”

Zenawi later proposed the establishment of a tripartite technical committee composed of the water ministers of Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia to study the dam issue and reach a common vision and agreement that would satisfy all parties.

The committee was formed in September 2011 and began its meetings two months later. This marked the beginning of a long negotiation process that included dozens of technical and ministerial-level meetings but failed to produce any solution.

In December 2023, Egypt announced the end of the negotiation process related to the dam due to, according to a statement from the Egyptian Ministry of Irrigation at the time, “Ethiopia’s persistent refusal for years to accept any technical or legal middle-ground solution that would safeguard the interests of all three countries.”

Is there a solution to the conflict?

Last Tuesday, coinciding with the inauguration celebrations for the Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia, Cairo lodged a formal protest by sending a letter to the Security Council condemning a “unilateral act” contrary to international law.

In the letter from the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Cairo stated that the giant dam is a “unilateral act contrary to law and international customs.”

Egypt emphasized that it “will not allow Ethiopia’s attempts to unilaterally dominate the management of its water resources and reserves the right to take all measures guaranteed by international law and the UN Charter to defend the existential interests of its people.”

However, Egypt has not yet specified what these measures will be.

It is evident that the period after the dam’s commissioning will not be like the one before, especially since the dam has now become a fait accompli and given the political and economic challenges facing Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan.

Diplomacy

EU pursues closer ties with Israel on space and air defence

Published

on

The EU is turning to Israel to bolster its new initiatives in high-tech air defence and space capabilities.

Shimrit Maman, head of the Israel Space Agency, travelled to Brussels this week and met on Tuesday with European Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation Ekaterina Zaharieva to discuss key sectors, including artificial intelligence and robotics.

The visit took place ahead of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s first major speech on space, scheduled for Thursday at a summit in Paris.

In the speech, Von der Leyen is expected to warn against mounting hostilities and emphasise the necessity of strengthening Europe’s presence in space.

“It’s very hard to do everything by yourself,” Maman told Politico, adding that the militarization of space is “already happening, it’s just we are not aware of the extent,” and noting that allies are showing growing interest in “dual-use” technologies intended for both civilian and defence purposes:

“One thing we’re working on is early-warning systems. For example, during the last wave [of missile attacks] with Iran, we saw this very clearly. How we were getting the alerts to all the civilians in Israel, and that made the casualties so low. This is part of the system. We’re working on a very holistic view, where you can alert in advance, the system alerts the citizens.”

Following several years of effective disengagement caused by political tensions surrounding the invasion of Gaza, the EU has recently begun forging closer military and technological ties with Israel through a series of agreements.

Competition from Washington and strategic rivalry with Moscow and Beijing have nevertheless underlined the requirement for allies possessing sophisticated industrial capacity.

In 2024, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen backed calls by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to create an EU-funded air defence shield.

Three senior officials involved in the discussions said, however, that the plans stalled after officials in the Commission and several national capitals concluded that the project would require reliance on Israeli air defence technology, which was considered too sensitive one year into the Gaza conflict.

Yet Israel’s Rafael, which is expanding its European operations significantly, has now confirmed that it will open a factory to manufacture the Iron Dome air defence system at a former Volkswagen plant in Germany.

One week ago, Greece signed a 3 billion euro agreement with the Israel Ministry of Defense.

The deal provides for the establishment of a new multi-layered air defence network designed to shoot down drones, hostile jets, and rockets.

“We see everything integrating into this multi-layer defence approach,” Maman said, highlighting satellite imagery and artificial intelligence modelling as primary focal points for joint development efforts:

“I’m not only seeing defence as ballistic missiles from Iran… think about a fire, a flash flood or even a long drought… we have a proven track record, and we’re getting really good results.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

UK reassures US that new Israeli settlement sanctions are symbolic

Published

on

The UK has reportedly engaged in behind-the-scenes talks to avoid a backlash from the US over anti-Israel sanctions scheduled for announcement today.

According to a report by Bloomberg, Andy Burnham’s government is expected to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank today.

Burnham is seeking to pursue a firmer stance on an issue of high importance to the governing Labour Party, though one that risks angering US President Donald Trump.

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband will unveil a new sanctions regime targeting Israel but limited to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Burnham and Trump spoke by telephone on Monday, the Prime Minister’s Office said. A statement noted that the two leaders discussed a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The discussion suggests that Burnham used the call to notify Trump that sanctions against Israel were imminent.

The proposals under review included a new sanctions regime with measures to block the exchange of goods and services with Israeli settlements.

Miliband also evaluated expanding existing human rights sanctions to encompass the blocking of aid, which has drawn criticism for exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The Foreign Secretary further considered explicitly endorsing the International Court of Justice’s non-binding 2024 opinion that declared Israel’s occupation of territory currently recognised by the UK as the State of Palestine to be unlawful.

Even so, UK officials fear the announcement could cause an early setback in Burnham’s relationship with Trump.

To defuse a backlash from the Trump administration, British diplomats privately informed the US that the sanctions are largely symbolic and will have no tangible impact on the UK’s broader trade or security ties with Israel, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The proposals were drawn up after Israel decided to issue tenders for the construction of 1,200 settlement housing units in an area of the West Bank.

Disputes between Israeli settlers and Palestinians have intensified in recent months as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a difficult battle to retain his seat in a general election scheduled for 27 October.

Burnham joined the leaders of Canada and five European governments, including France, Germany, and Italy, in signing a statement that condemned the housing plan as “unacceptable” and urged Netanyahu to withdraw the tender.

In a separate statement, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz condemned a call by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir for “nightly assassinations” in Gaza.

Burnham is eager to demonstrate early to the Labour Party that he is adopting a more critical approach toward Israel than his predecessor, Keir Starmer.

Although Starmer hardened his stance against Israel during his two years in office, including by formally recognising the State of Palestine, his initial refusal to demand that Netanyahu halt military operations in Gaza divided the party.

This division led to a decline in Labour’s poll ratings and boosted electoral gains for the Green Party across the country.

Burnham’s return to Parliament last month led to Starmer’s resignation. Burnham apologised for Labour’s handling of Israel’s military operation in Gaza under his predecessor, stating that the party “did not adopt the right stance”.

Last month, Burnham’s new Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, who faced intense competition from a Muslim independent candidate in his northeast London constituency at the last general election, stated that Israel had fallen “short” of international standards.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told the BBC’s “Newsday” programme that there would “undoubtedly” be a US response.

Accusing the Labour Party of “discriminating against the Israeli government”, Huckabee said: “It is like throwing a rock and not knowing where it lands. The UK is a sovereign country and can do as it pleases, but so is the US.”

Republican Florida Congressman Randy Fine also warned that British firms would be barred from doing business with local governments in the state if sanctions were imposed.

In a post on X, Fine said: “Florida has made its stance clear. Any company—or country—that boycotts Israel will be boycotted by Florida.”

Labour MPs and Jewish groups have warned the government that any sanctions against the settlements could amount to a “de facto boycott” of Israeli goods and compromise the safety of British Jews.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

US drafts post-war Middle East strategy focused on Iran

Published

on

The US administration is working on a post-war strategy focused on containing Iran and expanding the normalisation of relations between Israel and its neighbours.

According to Axios, although the plan remains in the draft stage, it is intended to guide the US approach to the Middle East once the war with Iran concludes and across the final two years of President Donald Trump’s term in office.

Two major events cast a shadow over the planning process: the Israeli elections scheduled for 27 October and the US midterm elections in November.

US officials state that initial work on the strategy is being conducted both at senior political levels within the Trump administration and at an interagency working level.

According to sources, Trump has held two meetings with senior advisers in recent weeks where the plan was discussed and concepts were floated.

In private conversations, Trump reportedly said he is working on “something much bigger” in the Middle East following the war with Iran.

According to sources, three primary elements have been put forward as prospective components of the strategy:

Establishing a regional alliance among US allies, guaranteed by the US, in order to contain Iran.

Pursuing a joint effort to bring the regional fallout of the 7 October 2023 Al-Aqsa Flood operation toward a conclusion by securing the next phase of Trump’s Gaza plan, signing a security agreement between Israel and Syria, and implementing the Israel-Lebanon agreement.

Expanding the Abraham Accords and reaching a normalisation agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The Trump administration hopes that the new Israeli government formed after the 27 October elections will be willing and able to cooperate on the post-war strategy.

However, some US officials emphasise that Trump will push for the implementation of this strategy regardless of the Israeli election results, even if the vote leads to political deadlock.

A source familiar with the process stated that drafting the strategy would take several more weeks. “They are working on it, but it is not finished yet,” the source said, adding:

“The aim here is to connect many moving parts in the region; how to build a regional alliance after the war. It is not yet clear whether all US allies in the region will participate in this process.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey