Political negotiations must depend on scientific research that provides knowledge about the international environment in which the negotiations take place, the parties' power sources, and the various alternatives.

Without that scientific research, negotiations can turn into a meaningless game that ends in failure. Therefore, the country that wants to achieve its goals through negotiations must seek the assistance of in-depth, multidimensional and fields studies.

Negotiation planning

Scientific research forms the basis for planning negotiations.. Without a clear plan that begins with setting goals, the negotiating delegation enters unconsciously, and its behavior is weak because it acts as a reaction to what is happening during the negotiations.

The lack of knowledge based on scientific research in various fields was one of the most important reasons for the failure of these negotiations, which lasted for years, and Egypt and Sudan were unable to take decisions in the different stages of the negotiations.

The plan based on scientific research helps to increase the ability to take decisions during negotiations. The study of many international negotiations has shown that the delegation can take decisions that fit its plan, and achieve its goals whenever its plan is based on a deep understanding of the types of power in negotiations, and the delegation’s ability to employ resources the strength of his state.

Perhaps the most important results of this study are that the success of negotiations depends on knowledge and its use to obtain the results desired by the state.

Also, scientific research makes the state able to achieve transparency, as it continuously provides its people with sufficient information about the management of negotiations and their results.. Therefore, the knowledge on which negotiations are built is linked to the state’s ability to build public opinion in support of it because it can present it with facts.

A country that deliberately conceals information, imposes secrecy on negotiations, and continues in them for a long time without achieving results, has entered these negotiations without knowing and was surprised by situations in which it cannot make correct decisions.

The Ethiopian dam negotiations as a model

The Ethiopian dam negotiations between Egypt and Sudan on one side and Ethiopia on the other hand constitute a model that demonstrates the importance of scientific research as a basis for negotiations.

It is clear that the lack of knowledge based on scientific research in various fields was one of the most important reasons for the failure of these negotiations, which lasted for years, and Egypt and Sudan were unable to take decisions in the different stages of the negotiations.

From the beginning, scientific research could have provided decision makers in Egypt and Sudan with the ability to take the right decision to reject the Agreement of Principles.. Approval of that agreement means the loss of Egypt and Sudan’s power sources in the negotiations, and their transformation from political negotiations to technical negotiations about the duration of filling the tank.. In this case, Ethiopia, which got everything it wants, is now controlling the negotiations and imposing its agenda.

And because Ethiopia has in its hands the agreement of Egypt and Sudan to build the dam without conditions, it has started to act from a position of power, not giving any attention to the rights of the two countries or the catastrophic effects that Egypt and Sudan may be exposed to.

How was the decision to agree to the principles agreement that includes approval of the construction of the dam without conditions?!!

What is the scientific basis for the decision?

Why have Egypt and Sudan so far refused to reveal the facts?!!

From weakness to strength

The model shows how a party can turn from a position of weakness to a position of strength in negotiations when it gets what it wants. Ethiopia was in a position of weakness before signing the Principles Agreement because it needed the approval of Egypt and Sudan to obtain the necessary funding for building the dam from the World Bank and the countries of the world.

As soon as she obtained this approval, she became in a position of strength and achieved her goals, and all that concerned her was to negotiate endlessly until the dam becomes a fait accompli, and Egypt and Sudan must accept what it gives them.

The position of Egypt and Sudan has also shifted from a position of strength to a position of weakness and impotence.. Therefore, the Egyptian discourse revolves around the search for alternatives to the Nile, such as seawater desalination and the triple treatment of sewage water.. Does this mean acknowledgment of failure and inability to manage the conflict?!!

the only alternative

This model also shows that negotiations fail when one party declares that it is the only option, and all means are excluded from managing the conflict.

The seriousness of this was previously clear in Sadat's experience in negotiations with Israel when he declared that the October War was the last of the wars. Israel was able to win alone, while Egypt was the losing party, and Israel achieved through negotiations what it had failed to achieve through the war.

Sadat provided Begin - the Israeli prime minister at the time - the opportunity to impose his conditions, control the outcome of the negotiations, and extract what he wanted when he announced the exclusion of war as a means of managing the conflict, and contentment with negotiations to achieve peace even if it came according to Israeli conditions.

This model made it clear that the state cannot achieve its goals through negotiations if it does not have other alternatives that it can use in case of failure, and that the absence of other alternatives means that the state is the weak party that must accept the results that achieve the interests of the other party.

A country that excludes alternatives and relies on negotiations as the only option loses while the other side wins.

This is an important rule whose validity becomes clear from studying many negotiations, especially the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations, the Oslo negotiations... and in general all the negotiations conducted by the Arab countries with Israel.

The logic of "failure"

Another important result that we can discover from the study of negotiations is that the dictatorial countries despise science. Gamal Abdel Nasser used to see politics as a “salvation” and not a science, and he denounced its teaching in universities.

And “falahwa” is a colloquial Egyptian word that refers to the use of resourcefulness, cunning, cunning, and deception. It is close to the concept of bullying, which has been widely used as a means of resolving internal conflicts in society, rigging elections, supporting tyranny, and imposing submission to reality by force.

And “adultery” and “bullying” are the antithesis of science whose contempt has become the hallmark of politicians who reject the existence of any relationship between politics and morals.

The policy of "paling" and "bullying" is based on contempt for science, and considering it a hindrance that reduces the ability to achieve quick achievements.

Scientific research means wasting time.

Dealing with politics as a soothsayer during the era of Gamal Abdel Nasser - the owner of this concept and the pioneer of its use - resulted in the 1967 defeat.

It is clear that the Ethiopian dam negotiations relied from the beginning on the concept of “Falahwa”, even in the use of the name of the dam, and the adoption of the name of the Renaissance Dam, “plotting and defamation” of the Islamic movement, which uses the term to describe its project to reform society and manage all its material and human resources to build strength in all fields, and employ Wealth to achieve economic independence, and the struggle to break dependency.

This name is not the brainchild of the Ethiopians who called it the Millennium Dam, so why did they change the name to please the secular Egyptians who wanted to push the Egyptian people to hate this term?!!

Do not worry!!

Although the Arab and international discourse has become based during the past decades on expressing concern in many events, especially when Israel attacks the Palestinian people, the discourse on the issue of the Ethiopian dam - which cannot be a dam for the renaissance, but rather is a dam of ruin and destruction and starvation of Egyptians And their thirst - relied on that Egypt's share is untouchable, so there is no need to worry, and they were completely reassured, the leaders of the three countries sat, spoke and agreed, and there was no problem at all, and "everything was revealed and revealed" in the voice of Ahmed Ratib in the play Raya and Sakina.

Then the speech turned to asking the Egyptian people for confidence and reassurance, as the future is becoming more prosperous.

But the clear fact that the Egyptian people see is that the negotiations failed a long time ago, and that Ethiopia’s plan for the second filling of the dam has begun, and Egypt must look for alternatives to obtain water from the triple treatment of sewage!!

As for the only threat that Egypt used, it was opening the way for millions to emigrate to Europe to force it to support the Egyptian position and mediate to solve the problem.

This model shows that conflict management is a science in which many sciences participate in its development, and that scientific research forms the basis for states to achieve their goals through negotiations.

Certainly, the school of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs includes a lot of experiences and competencies, and they realize the importance of scientific research as a basis for negotiations, and they have previously used scientific research in the Taba negotiations, and scientists have succeeded in collecting documents and achieving success in difficult negotiations.. So why did they not demand the use of scientific research in these negotiations.

Democracy also increases the state's capabilities to conduct successful negotiations based on public opinion, parliaments, and a strong opposition.. Those are the real guarantees of the state's supreme interests.

As for the free press, it protects society from the dangers of taking decisions in external conflicts that could threaten the rights of the state and the lives of its people.. Where is Egypt's press from the catastrophe that threatens its existence, and why was it unable to reveal the facts to the Egyptian people in a timely manner, and why could it not perform its role in Fulfilling the right of the masses to know and protecting Egypt from danger?!!

The free press could have contributed to rationalizing the conflict management process from the beginning, and would have opened the way for scholars to present in-depth studies, the most important of which are the history of the conflict over the Nile, previous agreements and the dangers resulting from the Ethiopian dam.

These scientific studies can also clarify that danger can threaten the whole world, and that the Egyptians will not surrender to their inevitable fate, and will not die of hunger and thirst while they are silent, and that negotiations are not the only alternative.