The Reporter (Addis Ababa)
December 8, 1999
by Abiye Tekelemariam
Addis Ababa - Waking up from deep slumber, Ethiopian scholars are now
starting to waffle and wobble about the right of this country regarding
the utilization of the Nile waters. With drought and famine repeatedly
hitting the country, Ethiopian intellectuals, with the exception of Dr.
Hailu Araya, are, at last, understanding the need for the utilization of
the world's longest river.
Most of them are calling for the utilization of the river in light of
the internationally accepted equitable apportionment doctrine. In a
courageous departure from these views, Getachew Aberra, an international
law scholar, a couple of weeks ago advocated the absolute non-existence
of the right of lower riparian states on the waters of the Nile in
Ethiopia. Whatever the arguments raised, the most important point here
is that the issue is now getting due attention.
Last week, the Egyptian Ambassador to Ethiopia, in probably a daring
attempt to muffle these voices, stated the essentiality of cooperation
between the North African country and Ethiopia in the utilization of the
Nile waters. The speech made by the honorable Ambassador was taken
seriously and parroted by some government media here. I think that for
two reasons it was far from a genuine speech to be given any value and
worth.
In 1959, Egypt and Sudan concluded an agreement on the apportionment
of the waters of the Nile to the exclusion of the other eight sovereign
states sharing the water. According to the treaty, Egypt, which had
repeatedly maintained the principle of absolute territorial integrity,
relinquished its firm position and accepted the right of Sudan to use
18.5 billion cubic meters of water. As a bilateral treaty, it is not, of
course, binding on the other basin states without their consent. But the
two parties are, without any shadow of doubt, obliged under
international law to strictly adhere to their agreement.
In fact, by virtue of this treaty, both parties are under a serious
obligation to ''study together'' and ''adopt a unified view'' when other
riparian states make a claim to share the waters of the Nile. Article 5
paragraph 2 of the treaty stipulates that "if such studies result in the
possibility of allotting an amount of the Nile waters to one or the
other of these territories, then the value of this amount as at Aswan
shall be conducted in equal shares from the share of each of the two
republics."
Pursuant to this sub-article, Egypt and Sudan cannot without
consultations with each other conclude any agreement regarding the use
of the Nile. This is a fact which I am sure is not hidden from the
honorable Ambassador of Egypt. Unless Egypt is ready to defy its treaty
commitments towards Sudan against international law, it cannot
unilaterally affirm the right of Ethiopia and call for cooperation.
Assuming that Egypt as a civilized state would not act contrary to
international law at least theoretically, the speech of the Ambassador
is a diplomatic effort intended to deceive Ethiopians who have started
to take the issue more seriously.
Secondly, high-ranking Egyptian officials have repeatedly tried to
evade the Nile issue at many press conferences. They have tried to
pretend as if there was no objection in their utilization of the river
from other riparian states. In practice, Egypt still continued to embark
upon major projects on the Nile without the consultation of riparians.
No Egyptian government official has so far recognized our interests. I
do not think the Ambassador representing that country in Ethiopia was
acting against the interest his country is pursuing but trying to fool
us.
In any case, one shouldn't infer from the Ambassador's statements
that Egypt is now willing to entertain claims of Ethiopia. That was just
one of its tricky diplomatic games.