The Nile River Agreement

The first agreement was reached between Britain as a colonial power in East Africa and Egypt. Cairo has been preferred to other riparian states as an important agricultural product. Moreover, the Egyptian-operated Suez Canal was crucial to the ambitions of the British Empire. Washington will have to find a way out of this mystery. Its success in resolving the dispute will depend on its ability to find acceptable common ground for both Ethiopia and Egypt, complicated by the fact that it has already thrown its weight behind a draft agreement that Ethiopia opposes. Ethiopia`s accession is crucial to the success of a Nile treaty, especially given the difficulty of implementing such an agreement externally. It is particularly important to avoid the risk of future consequences of a poorly designed contract that is not strongly supported by the main signatories. Egypt has taken an aggressive approach to the Nile in the past. Cairo views the Nile as a matter of national security, and the declarations continue to contain threats of military action against Ethiopia if it disrupts the river, as outlined in the agreements signed in 1929 and signed in 1959. The Nile, the world`s longest river, spans 11 countries on its 4,000-mile journey from the equatorial rivers that feed Lake Victoria to its final destination in the Mediterranean. Of the countries that share the Nile, two are the most at stake. Egypt, a desert nation of 100 million people, is literally the creation of the Nile and depends on the river for 90% of its freshwater needs. Below are facts and agreements governing the use of Nile water: The Nile, a river with many lords, represents a unique coordination challenge for the countries that share it.

A successful agreement on the Nile must be based on mutual trust and consensus. Instead of quarreling and seeking external support for their respective national agendas, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan should join forces to build a lasting agreement that advances their common long-term interests. ALEXANDRIA, Egypt (Reuters) – Water resources ministers from Nile Basin countries will meet in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 27-28 to discuss cooperation and a coherent framework agreement on the Nile. Over the years, particularly as the population of other Nile basin countries has grown and these countries have developed the capacity to use Nile water more efficiently for national development, disagreements have arisen over Egypt`s insistence that the water rights it acquired through the 1929 and 1959 agreements (collectively referred to as the Nile Water Agreements) have been expressed. and that no construction project on the Nile or any of its tributaries will be carried out without the prior authorization of Cairo. In fact, various Egyptian leaders have threatened to go to war to protect these so-called «acquired rights.» Upstream riparian States such as Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Ethiopia have argued that they are not bound by these agreements because they have never been parties. In fact, the new ruler of Tanganyika (now Tanzania, after unification with Zanzibar in 1964), Julius Nyerere, argued shortly after his independence from Britain in 1961 that the Nile water agreements exposed his country and other upstream riparian states to Egypt`s mercy, forcing them to submit their national development plans to Cairo`s control and surveillance, and that such an approach to public policy did not coincide with the country`s status as sovereign. an independent State would be compatible.

Condition. All upstream riparian states have since come out in favour of a new, more inclusive legal framework for the management of the Nile basin. The Government of Egypt agrees that a settlement of these issues (irrigation issues) may not be postponed until it is possible for the two Governments (Great Britain and Egypt) to reach agreement on the status of the Sudan, but expressly reserves all freedom in negotiations that may precede such an agreement at the time of the conclusion of this Arrangement. While Egypt is heavily dependent on the Nile, there are factors that can lead to conflict over the distribution of the Nile`s water supply. For example, Egypt has an economy so dependent on agriculture. In addition, Egypt is already dependent on virtual water imports, a strategy that could push the country to attempt future water-related conflicts. [4] Ethiopia`s tributaries provide about 86% of the Nile`s water. Egypt has historically threatened Ethiopia and Tanzania with war on the Nile.

Egypt has armed Somali separatist rebels in Ethiopia during and since the Somali invasion of Ethiopia in the 1970s. [5] Over the years, the states concerned have concluded agreements and treaties to control conflicts. «To the Italian Government: the fact that you have reached an agreement and the fact that you have deemed it necessary to give us joint notification of this agreement clearly show that your intention is to exert pressure, and we believe that this immediately raises an earlier issue. This question, which requires prior examination, must therefore be submitted to the League of Nations. Negotiations gained momentum in November 2019 after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called on US President Donald Trump to help broker a deal. The foreign and water ministers of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan have held a series of meetings in Washington since December and met with Trump at the White House. What the US wants to achieve with its commitment, however, is unclear and appears to be more inspired by Trump`s desire to negotiate a deal than by a foreign policy imperative. Another challenge for the Nile is the fact that the river is shrinking due to increased intermittent rainfall in Ethiopia and other upstream countries. In addition, Lake Victoria, the source of 20 to 30 per cent of the Nile`s water, is shrinking at an alarming rate. These bilateral agreements have completely ignored the needs of other riparian states, including Ethiopia, which supplies 70% to 80% of the Nile`s water. Therefore, none of the other countries in the Nile basin have ever approved the agreements.

But the Balagh, the spokesman for the Wafd, as the party that is now in opposition is called, saw it quite differently and published a lengthy criticism of the deal on May 18. Parliament did not sit at the time the agreement was signed, so there is no authoritative way to say what the Fellahs think about the issue. However, an unbiased analysis seems to show that the agreement, whether perfect or imperfect, takes a significant step forward in creating healthy Anglo-Egyptian relations and records a net gain for Egypt. The essence of the agreement is therefore clearly the protection of what are called «Egypt`s natural and historical rights in the waters of the Nile.» This river has been the river of Egypt since the beginning of history. The recent agreement tends to maintain this relationship. It states that Sudan should be allowed to obtain such a large amount of water from the Nile that does not interfere with this traditional prerogative or violate Egypt`s «agricultural expansion requirements.» .