Ethiopia’s Diplomatic Journey and Egypt’s Anxiety
This Amharic program on ESAT outlines important points on the Nile/GERD issues and I have tried to translate it to English.
The GERD talks have once again failed to reach agreement, this time in Kinshasa. As it appears both countries were prepared to blame Ethiopia for failure of the negotiations, Egypt and Sudan have issued statements condemning Ethiopia for the failed talks. Ethiopia has rejected Sudan’s Egypt-backed proposal to involve the United States, the European Union and United Nations as “mediators” in the negotiations. Sudan and Egypt came up with the new proposal believing that the African Union cannot deal with the issue.
The Ethiopian government has issued a dilated press release on why it does not accept the new proposal. Ethiopia states it strongly believes the GERD issue is a matter of the three countries and that the African Union can deal with the issue. Ethiopia tried to accommodate the demands of Egypt and Sudan. It agreed on the three observers’ continuation in the process with the enhanced role of the three observers (South Africa, United States, and EU) to share information and proposal when jointly requested by the three countries.
However, Ethiopia rejected Sudan’s proposal to grant the observers the same role as the African Union. Ethiopia has also announced the second filling of GERD will be completed in the upcoming rainy season, July 2021. Ethiopia also stated GERD’s filling is to be completed as per the already signed Declaration of Principles. Ethiopia also reiterated it will continue to share information on filling of the dam with Sudan and Egypt. Still, Sudan’s and Egypt’s position that Ethiopia cannot fill its dam without a binding agreement is not supported by any international law and violates Ethiopia’s right to utilize its natural resources. Ethiopia also stated delaying GERD’s filling will cost the country an estimated 1 Billion Dollars per year.
Following the failure of the talks, Sudan and Egypt issued threats and warnings. The Sudanese government stated it is ready to take all the necessary measures to protect its national interest. Sudan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs requested the withdrawal of Ethiopian UN peacekeeping troops out of Abeyi, the disputed oil rich state, saying:
“It is not conceivable to accept Ethiopian forces deployed in the strategic depth of Sudan while the Ethiopian troops are massing on the eastern borders of Sudan”
On the other hand, Egypt’s foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry went to Sudan immediately after the Kinshasa talks failed to reach an agreement. The foreign Minister stated Egypt will try to resolve the issue with negotiation first. The Minister also said Egypt and Sudan will take the matter back to the UN Security Council. The Foreign Minister’s position seems to contradict Al Sisi’s statement few days before the Kinshasa talks resumed. Al Sisi recently stated:
“No one can take a drop of water from Egypt. If it happens, there will be inconceivable instability in the region that no one could imagine.”
Previously, the former US president tried to mediate the talks, under the US department of treasury. Still, Ethiopia withdrew from the negotiations accusing the Trump administration of siding with Egypt. Ethiopia was forced to abandon the Washington talks as the United States government clearly favored Egypt in the process. Sudan stood by Ethiopia’s side even when Arab countries supported Egypt’s and the United States government’s positions.
Egypt then requested the UN Security Council to take the issue. However. Egypt’s request failed, and the African Union agreed to take up the case. As a result, the talks were held under the African Union’s auspices, with the leadership of the then AU chair, and South Africa’s president Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa. As South Africa’s AU chairmanship ended, the talks are now being held under the leadership of the current AU chair Félix Antoine Tshisekedi Tshilombo. The first rounds of talks under the supervision of Tshisekedi were held in Kinshasa on April 5 and 6.
The reason why Sudan keeps changing its position on the talks is not apparent even to the Sudanese themselves. Sudan’s Minister of irrigation professor Yassir Abas outlined the benefit of the GERD for Sudan and many Sudanese are surprised why Sudan now has a new position which contradicts the previous stands. Sudan has also been demanding an enhanced role of the African Union as an arbitrator to give a verdict and ruling on the issue. Some say Sudan’s current position that says the African Union cannot deal with the issue contradicts Sudan’s earlier request to grant the AU an arbitrator role. It shows a lack of credibility on Sudan’s side.
As a facilitator of the talks, the African Union’s Role is to arrange the venues for negotiations and suggest ideas to narrow differences. The negotiation is between the three parties concerned. The three countries are not forced to accept the African Union’s recommended ideas. In other words, the three countries are to reach an agreement among themselves, not forced by the African Union. This arrangement will facilitate the three countries to solve their differences on their own.
Sudan’s current proposal to include the United States and European Union as mediators cannot be seen without considering Sudan’s new relationship with the United States and the influence of Egypt on Sudan.
Following the overthrow of Al Bashir’s government, Sudan made major policy decisions in its foreign policy. Sudan decided to normalize its relations with Israel, overturning its previous policy on Israel, and recognizing Israel. Sudan used to play a leading role demanding Arab Countries to not recognize Israel.
Sudan fought Israel in 1948 and 1976. In the 1967’s Khartoum Arab league meetings, Sudan led the resolution of no peace, negotiation, or recognition of Israel. Sudan also supported Palestinian fighters, and Israel even conducted airstrikes on Sudan. Osama Bin Laden sought refuge in Sudan. Following the US embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the United States also put Sudan on the list of States that Sponsor of Terrorism.
Following Al Basher’s removal and the establishment of the Civilian-Military transitional government, the transitional government showed interest in lifting the sanctions and removing Sudan from the SST list. For these to happen, Sudan had to recognize Israel and normalize its relationship with Israel. Sudan also agreed to pay compensation to those who lost their lives in Kenya and Tanzania US embassy terrorist attacks. Sudan’s change of foreign policy on Israel has led to a new relationship with the United States. This new relationship led up to the point where Sudan requested the United States to be involved as a mediator in the AU-led GERD talks. PM Abiy Ahmed played a leading role in the new relationship between the United States, Israel, and Sudan, and for establishing the Transitional government in Sudan, but he was betrayed by the Sudanese.
The New Biden Administration’s position on GERD is not clear. However, given the long-standing relationship between the United States and Egypt, it is not expected Biden’s administration will follow a new policy that is different from the Trump administration’s policy on Egypt. The European Union is also supporting Sudan’s position as Sudan has requested its role be changed from an observer to a mediator status. Al Sisi’s government is also urging Sudan to maintain its position on changing the role of observes in the GERD talks.
Sudan’s changing position on the GERD talks has led the Ethiopian government to lose faith in Sudan’s credibility in the negotiations. Above all, Sudan’s decision to invade Ethiopia when the TPLF attacked Ethiopian National Defense Forces and Ethiopia was busy trying to preserve the nation is seen as a huge betrayal.
Despite the invasion, and Egypt’s role in pushing Sudan to escalate the border tensions to drag Ethiopia into war, has further complicated the GERD issues. Some commentators say Sudan has no intention to engage in a full-scale war against Ethiopia, given its internal problems. Indeed if Sudan participates in a full-scale war against Ethiopia, it will further complicate Sudan’s fragile transition and internal conflicts. However, some also say if the Arab countries and Egypt involve in the war, and if the instability in Ethiopia continues, Sudan could easily win the war and ensure its national interest on GERD.
Ethiopia takes huge precautions not to make any mistake in its foreign policy on GERD despite its internal conflicts and instabilities. Ethiopia’s consistent position on the GERD, despite the ongoing instabilities and internal conflicts in the country, has surprised many political observers and commentators. Egypt and Sudan seem to be losing hope that Ethiopia will soften its position on the GERD due to their threats, and the ongoing internal conflicts and instabilities in Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian government has repeatedly stated that Ethiopians have a long history of standing together, in unity, despite their internal differences and disputes, every time they faced threats from the outside. Ethiopians also have a long tradition of leaving their differences aside and standing together every time they face threats from outside. This Ethiopian history and tradition of standing together, despite internal differences, to overcome outside threats, might have also contributed for Sudan and Egypt to think twice before they engaged in any joint effort to attack Ethiopia.
Several politicians in Egypt and Sudan believe the best strategy to ensure their national interest on GERD is to instigate internal conflicts and support those who are willing to destabilize Ethiopia from within. Egypt’s age-old policy on Ethiopia is based on this fundamental principle of undermining Ethiopia’s internal stability by instigating conflicts from within. Egypt has continued this option on Ethiopia to this day. Behind almost all the conflicts in most of Ethiopia, there are Egypt’s long or short arms.
However, Egypt’s and Sudan’s strategy of undermining Ethiopia’s stability to force Ethiopia into agreement on GERD does not seem to be given due attention by Ethiopians themselves. Ethiopians have continued to engage in conflicts among themselves, focusing on minor differences rather than focusing on their major, outside enemies. Leaders of the various regions do not seem to understand this problem and solve their issues as well. On the contrary, they are busy fighting each other along ethnic lines for petty benefits and political positions. Several people are advising the government to solve these issues immediately, especially at this particular time when Sudan’s and Egypt’s threats against Ethiopia have reached a dangerous phase.
Ethiopians are now faced with two crucial choices and decisions to make in the coming four months. The first option is to stop the internal conflicts, stand together and ensure Ethiopia’s national interest. The other choice is to continue fighting each other on minor differences and be used as tools to benefit Egypt’s and Sudan’s national interests. Many people believe Ethiopians will choose the first option, come together and ensure Ethiopia’s national interest.
