Cairo -
Addis Ababa renewed its call on countries that have not signed the Framework Agreement for the Nile Basin Countries (known as the Entebbe Agreement) to quickly sign or ratify it, an agreement that Cairo and Khartoum have rejected since its signing in May 2010.
The call came from the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed yesterday, Sunday, during his visit to Uganda, which witnessed the signing of some basin countries to the agreement 11 years ago, 4 days after a similar call by the Ethiopian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Radwan Hussein, who affirmed his country's commitment to the just and equitable use of the waters The Nile, in close consultation with the basin countries.
Egypt and Sudan object to the Entebbe Agreement as it constitutes an end to the two countries’ historical shares in the Nile waters, at a time when countries are exchanging accusations with Ethiopia of being responsible for the failure of the Renaissance Dam negotiations sponsored by the African Union for months, within a negotiating track that began 10 years ago.
The new Ethiopian proposal regarding the Entebbe agreement comes after Addis Ababa is close to completing the construction of the dam and has filled its lake for two consecutive years.
In addition to the Renaissance Dam, the Ethiopian Electricity Company recently announced its plan to build 71 energy projects in the next ten years at a cost of more than $40 billion, including 16 hydroelectric projects, 24 wind and 17 steam, in addition to 14 solar energy projects.
Al Jazeera Net monitors questions about the feasibility of the Entebbe Agreement, and whether it represents a possible alternative for Egypt to settle the Ethiopian dam crises, and the reasons for its being raised again by Ethiopia at a time when the Renaissance Dam file is witnessing a continuation of the failure of negotiations, while Ethiopia suffers from a civil war.
What is the Entebbe Agreement?
What are the Egyptian Sudanese reservations?
It is a framework agreement signed in May 2010 between 4 of the Nile upstream countries - in the absence of Egypt and Sudan (the two downstream countries) - in the Ugandan city of Entebbe, where representatives of Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania initialed the agreement, and months later Burundi followed by signing.
The agreement - which is the beginning of the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam crisis - was signed after talks that lasted nearly 10 years, to establish a legal and institutional framework for the Nile Basin Initiative, while Egypt and Sudan considered it "a violation of all international agreements", and stipulated for signing that it states:
Emphasis on the historical rights of the two countries in the waters of the Nile.
The necessity of prior notification of all projects being implemented on the river.
It is not permissible to change any of the clauses of the agreement except by unanimous opinion, provided that the two downstream countries are included.
What are the most prominent agreements that preceded the Entebbe Agreement for the Nile Basin countries?
1902 Agreement: It was concluded between Britain (in its capacity as representative of Egypt and Sudan) and Ethiopia, and stipulated not to establish projects on the Ethiopian sources that would affect the waters of the river.
1929 Agreement: It was concluded between Egypt and Britain (represented by Sudan, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania), and it also stipulated that no action on the Nile and its branches and tributaries would be taken without prior agreement with Cairo that would reduce Egypt's share.
1959 Agreement: An agreement supplementing the 1929 agreement between Egypt and Sudan, and included the complete control of the Nile waters between the two countries, of which 55.5 billion cubic meters were allocated to Egypt and 18.5 billion cubic meters to Sudan. The rest of the Nile Basin countries reject this agreement.
The Nile Basin Initiative: It was launched in 1999 with the aim of developing a strategy for cooperation between the basin countries. It included all of its countries and is based on two basic principles: achieving benefit for all and not harming, but it was a temporary mechanism because it was not based on a permanent treaty or agreement.
What are the Egyptian foundations for rejecting the agreement?
And what about the point of view of the upstream countries?
While Egypt and Sudan believe that the signing of the Entebbe Agreement cancels the two countries' historical shares of the Nile waters and prevents the right of veto on the establishment of dam projects. The agreement expresses the vision of the upstream countries to establish and create a legal and institutional framework for cooperation between the basin countries in order to achieve common ownership, equitable use and sustainable development.
Egyptian visions are based on the decision of the International Court of Justice in its ruling issued in 1989 that water agreements, like border agreements, may not be amended, unlike upstream countries that consider water agreements signed in the colonial period and are therefore not bound by them.
Why did Ethiopia raise it again?
According to the Egyptian academic and expert on African affairs, Bader Shafei, the Ethiopian invitation is not only targeting Egypt and Sudan, but also the rest of the basin countries that have not signed the agreement.
Shafei explained to Al Jazeera Net that in order for the agreement to enter into force, 6 of the basin countries must ratify it, and therefore the Ethiopian call also targets the countries of Burundi, Uganda and Kenya that have not yet ratified their approval, in an address to all the basin countries.
In turn, Abbas Sharaki, Professor of Water Resources at Cairo University, went on his Facebook page that the latest Ethiopian proposal is an attempt to occupy local public opinion to calm the civil war inside Ethiopia, given that there is an external danger represented in the issue of the Renaissance Dam, and portraying that Egypt does not want The development of the Ethiopian people, in addition to the attempt to lure the upstream countries to enter into the dam issue, to prolong the negotiations until the construction of the dam ends.
Does Entebbe represent a possible Egyptian alternative to settling the Ethiopian dam crises?
Egyptian visions vary about the scenarios for Egypt to sign the agreement to settle the Ethiopian dam crises.
For his part, Mostafa El-Feki, head of the Library of Alexandria and a former official under former President Hosni Mubarak, said that Egypt had to participate in the Entebbe Agreement in any way, noting that the agreement was an important milestone that his country did not catch before the crisis of the Renaissance Dam.
In televised statements, El-Feki blamed the Egyptian irrigation ministers in the 1990s and early 2000s for not observing Ethiopia's plans towards Egypt's right to water, explaining that it was necessary to join the Entebbe Agreement based on English traditions of thinking saying, "If you are not able to hit them, join them." Instead of Egypt being an isolated country, it talks and searches alone for the waters of the Nile.
On the other hand, academic Badr Shafei warned of the repercussions and dangers of Egypt's signing of the agreement, explaining that Ethiopia wants to enter the agreement into force so that Egypt exits the Nile Basin system, to be the dominant one, in addition to redistributing water quotas based on "elastic" criteria such as distribution The just and equitable water, the size of the contribution, and the land area of each country in which the Nile flows, diluting the Egyptian rights and share.
Shafei indicated that Ethiopia always says that it will not sign a binding agreement on the Renaissance Dam unless a comprehensive agreement is signed, in reference to the Entebbe Agreement.
A study issued by the Faculty of African Studies at Cairo University has previously monitored the possible repercussions and scenarios for Egypt from the agreement, which are:
Entering into a conflict with the Nile Basin countries would lead to Arab-African hostility, which Cairo considers undesirable.
Signing the agreement with reservations on the terms that Egypt does not agree to (the conditional agreement), meaning that the signature of the downstream countries is accompanied by a reservation with regard to harming their interests.
This scenario is considered negative, as the approval after the entry into force of the agreement will be the beginning of concessions that may continue, so it is possible to use this scenario later, according to the study.
The third scenario, which is the most appropriate, is represented in cooperation with the rest of the Nile Basin countries and creating and establishing relations with them in all fields based on the principle of interest.
What are the similarities and differences between "Entebbe" and the Agreement of Principles?
The two agreements are framework agreements that have not yet entered into force, as the Egyptian parliament has not approved the Declaration of Principles (signed by the leaders of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia in Khartoum in March 2015), and there are calls for parliamentary rejection of it to withdraw from it, and the majority of signatories to the Entebbe Agreement have not ratified them.
The main difference between them - according to academic Badr Shafei - is that the Declaration of Principles is related to the Renaissance Dam file only and not to the Nile water issue in general, similar to the Entebbe Agreement.
He explained that the Declaration of Principles did not address Egypt's historical share in the Nile waters, but rather dealt with the fair and equitable use, pointing out that this part represents a big problem for Egypt in the Declaration of Principles because it did not specify a specific amount of Nile water for Egypt, nor did it stipulate its historical right to water. This is what Egypt has reservations about in the Entebbe Agreement.
According to observers, there is a clear contradiction in Egypt's position on the two agreements. While it adheres to its reservations to the Entebbe Agreement related to water security and the prior notification and amendment by a two-thirds majority, Ethiopia has become entrusted under the Declaration of Principles in any Egyptian move that preserves its historical rights from the Nile waters.
Has the theory of "historical rights" fallen and Egypt is facing a new reality imposed by the countries of the Entebbe Agreement, especially Ethiopia?
Badr Shafi’i says that he cannot say that the principle of Egypt’s historical rights to the Nile waters has fallen or not, because Egypt refuses to join the Entebbe Agreement, and adheres to its rights based on legal agreements confirming this matter, which Ethiopia rejects, and therefore the conflict will continue, and we cannot We say that the theory fell unless Egypt agreed to join the Entebbe Agreement with its current provisions.
On the other hand, Ibrahim Nawar, a researcher specializing in international disputes and economic relations, said that there is a need for Egypt and Sudan to join the International Rivers Treaty and the Entebbe Agreement.
Nawar explained that "with the fall of the historical rights acquired from the agenda of the Renaissance Dam negotiations and the tendency to focus the negotiations on establishing a legal and technical system for the operation of the dam, the justifications for Egypt's refusal to sign the International Treaty on the Law of the Sea have expired, and these are the same justifications that stood in the face of Egypt's signing of the initiative. The Nile Basin, and Egypt can record its reservations in the memorandum of signature, which is what some countries did for political or technical reasons.
In a post on his Facebook page, the Egyptian researcher pointed out that "Egyptian water diplomacy needs to be reconsidered, and it begins with the signing of international law and the regional agreement regulating the uses, development and preservation of the Nile Basin."
It is noteworthy that Sudan voted at the United Nations in favor of the convention on waterways, but Egypt did not sign it, while the International Court of Justice began implementing it and it became an international custom.