The most Dangerous five years in the history conflict over the Nile River

repared by: Mohsen Ramadan Al-Koumi – PhD researcher in Islamic culture (specializing in management) Egypt

• Arab Democratic Center

Will Ethiopia be Israel’s guardian on the Nile?

A question that represents the slogan of this period of time and is considered a fundamental basis for the study

Summary :

The paper represents a historical presentation of the events of the conflict on the Nile over a period of five years, from 2011 to 2015. As it is the most accurate years of the conflict and the most dangerous of the other periods, although it does not carry with it military roughness, it is characterized by dynamism, speed and attempt to resolve with results on the ground (such as building the Renaissance Dam and starting mobilization) and also for the diversity of the conflict parties, some of which are characterized by the process and achievement and others by dependence or betrayal more precisely. Description, the period was described as a process on the part of Ethiopia, where it began with an attempt to collect the voices of the Nile Basin on agreements to redistribute the river’s water and ended with the declaration of principles in Khartoum (March 2015), so that the dispute is over the years of filling and not over the existence of the dam in the first place and the extent of its legality.

Abstract:

This study illustrates a historical presentation of the events of the conflict over the Nile River in a time period of five years, starting from 2011 to 2015. As It is the most significant and critical period of the conflict, despite the fact that it does not carry military roughness, but it is characterized by dynamism and speed and trying to force on-ground unilateral practices (such as building the Renaissance Dam and the commencement of filling stage); in addition, . This period has been described as practical from the Ethiopian side who tried to assemble the voices of the Nile Stream Countries on a new re – distribution agreement of river water and ended up with the Declaration of Principles in Khartoum ” in March 2015 ” which altered the course of dispute to be over the years of filling the Dam and not the existence of the dam at all and the legitimacy of its existence. This period caused a confusion for the watchers due to the dramatic shift in attitudes from strength in Egypt’s and Sudan’s side to a state of weakness, . What are the hidden issues that causes these extreme changes that provided Ethiopia with strength to exclusively control and the strong status? . On the other hand, did Israel hasten to support and administer this file with Ethiopia, and that the negotiating administration was an Israeli file with bure Zionist mentality in all its stages

an introduction :

The conflict over the waters of the Nile represents a long history as a conflict of existence, not a luxury, since it has existed since ancient times and is still history. The reason is due to scarcity, as well as poor distribution and consumption, in addition to that pollution, and it is not hidden in light of this water-ravaged environment. It is practiced by some countries, especially those that control the sources of rivers, over the riparian states with them, especially the downstream or downstream (Al-Anani, 2013) [1]   That is why the modern colonial period is considered one of the most important periods of this conflict, which he says about “Please benefit” the Norwegian academic and professor of scientific history at the University of Oslo, Norway, expressed in his book “The Nile in the British Age”, (European governments exploited during periods of colonial control over the African continent in general, and in The river basin in particular, in managing the division of specific areas of influence for ease of control over them, and then controlling the capabilities of the people of the Nile Basin, and the Nile waters were used as a pressure factor on the governments of those peoples, whether before the demarcation of borders by the colonialists, or after the peoples’ attempts to fight their political independence battles And the economic alike) (Stefat, 2019) [2]  .

If the period of political colonization of the brown continent is a basic stage in the history of the conflict as well, the independence period is considered an important period, but the most dangerous because the caretaker is the original and not the colonized, so that the decisions taken by the state itself should be in the public interest of the state as a people, land and political system.

Study aims:

The study objectives revolved around several main points, including:

• Defining the period from 2010 AD to 2015 AD being the most accurate and most dangerous period in the history of the conflict, due to the rapid change of attitudes, and it was concluded with the declaration of principles that contributed to undermining the opportunities for Egyptian change of reality
• Evidence of Israeli interference in the equation of the conflict
• It was found that the construction of the dam is basically in violation of international rules and laws.
• A demonstration of the multiple Ethiopian quarrels aimed at restricting Egypt and Sudan and controlling their water resources, and that the Entebbe Agreement is only an example of these quarrels .

the study Problem :

The problem of the study is concentrated in the lack of previous research and studies in the conflict in the Nile Basin, specifically in this period of time, as well as the diversity of events and the speed of their change in a short time, especially as it is considered a period marked by diplomatic peace while it is more dangerous than the movement of armies. Therefore, the monitoring of events was based on declarations and reports of technicians and experts.

The study hypotheses:

The research starts from several hypotheses, namely:

• The period of time from 2010 to 2015 is the most accurate and most dangerous period in the history of the conflict over the entire Nile Basin due to the fact that it gave Ethiopia the strength and immunity to complete its water project and enabled itself without the use of weapons or military effort, which it did not possess previously throughout the conflict, while the position Egypt is eroding and becoming fragile, the degree of acceptance of the status quo as the weakest period of the conflict.
• The Israeli hand and the Zionist mind manage to Ethiopia the dam file and draw its steps.
• The declaration of principles signed between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan in Khartoum in 2015 has wasted Egyptian and Sudanese rights and weakened the negotiating position for both of them.

Study Approach :

The study was characterized by two colors, including research methods

• The research relied extensively on the methodology of history as a study method for research, as the study observed during previous periods of time the infiltration of the Israeli hand and the attempt to gain positions within the Nile Basin through Ethiopian harmony as well as the course of events and dates of agreements
• The deduction approach was adopted whereby, through the rules of international law and previous agreements, we can infer the original Egyptian and Sudanese right to the waters of the Nile, and that international rules do not allow Ethiopia to build the dam, and that the signature of Egypt and Sudan on the declaration of principles is the most dangerous in this simple period of time and it came to destroy internationally recognized rights. Under which Egypt can change the equation of the conflict, even if it is a brutal change by force of arms.

Study plan :

The study plan included:

• The first topic: The history of the Israeli presence in the Nile file
• The second topic: the Entebbe Convention and the path to objection to it
• The third topic: the Renaissance Dam and the impact of the Declaration of Principles on changing the conflict equation

The first topic :

1/1 The history of the Israeli presence in the Nile file 

Since ancient times, Israel sought to impose colonial hegemony on most Arab countries, especially African ones, especially those that enjoy a distinguished strategic position, such as the Nile Basin countries, to benefit in the realization of their ambitions in that region (Ebeid, 2013) [3]In pursuit of her dream “from the Nile to the Euphrates”, that recurring chant, which constitutes a firm belief among the Zionists, and on the other hand, the sins of this slogan among the jealous sons of the Arab nation constitute unending anxiety as they were brought up to view Greater Israel as representing an irritation and an endless wound in their chests. All of them and between the dream of others and their anxieties, each group seeks to prove its existence, but the steps of the Zionists were more accurate and comprehensive in influence, as they drew their steps and dreams from their first meeting in 1897 in their ill-fated conference “Basel”, whose most important outcome was the establishment of the World Zionist Organization led by Theodor Herzl, who succeeded in Promoting the idea of ​​returning to Palestine. Indeed, the organization succeeded in bringing the diaspora together from all the regions to the point that their sixth congress in 1903 reached 600 members, and the Zionist societies branched out and multiplied to reach 1,572 societies. (Palestinian, World Zionist Organization, 2015) [4] .

But what is the Israeli role in the Nile file ?? It is noticeable that from the first day of the World Zionist Conference, the Nile file was present on the discussion table, in which it included several files, including controlling the sources of the Nile by looking at Africa, especially that Uganda was among the countries proposed for the establishment of the state of Israel next to Palestine and Argentina, and that the Nile file is considered an entry To ensure the Zionist sustainability in Palestine, but the Ugandan file remained a strategic alternative in the event of failure of the plans in Palestine, which led to a sharp and dangerous division among the Jews when it was presented at the sixth conference and considered Uganda as a temporary center only to meet the immediate needs of the Jews and a stage for the ultimate goal (Palestine (Palestinian), settlement projects, Zionism outside Palestine, 2013) [5]With an emphasis on using Uganda as an entry point to control the African continent, to which Ethiopia was later added after US-Israeli preparation to play a prominent regional role, especially with the Nile file and its basin countries.

Israel monitored the appreciation of the African voice in international forums and its ability to represent 31% of the total votes in the General Assembly and therefore decided to move towards Africa, especially after:

He refused Israel’s membership in the “Bandung 1955” conference, which was held in Indonesia in the presence of African and Asian heads of state and lasted for six days, and as a result, the Non-Aligned Movement, which was called by the Indian leader Nehru within the conference, was rejected in it and in which it was rejected by which the latter became completely isolated, so I decided that It raises its international acceptance rate, so it turns to pervasive and infiltrating Africa

The Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba were opened to Israeli shipping after the three aggression against Egypt in 1956 within the framework of settling the problems of the occupation in Sinai, which helped facilitate communication with the continent due to the fact that part of Egypt fell under Jewish control, so Israel was able to establish diplomatic relations with the countries of the Anil Basin, including ( Kenya, Congo, Uganda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ronda) (Obeid, 2013) [6]   where in the years (1961, 1962 and 1963) maps were recorded in the administration of African affairs in Egypt, the most dangerous military agreements were with Ethiopia and thus easier for it to deal with Africa as a whole, but After the “67 setback” and the meeting of the African awakening and full solidarity with Egypt, Israel lost the diplomatic relations it gained again.

1/2 The Effects of the Peace Treaty on Afro-Israeli Relations

The 1979 Camp David peace treaty between Israel and Egypt had a strong impact on restoring and valuing Afro-Israeli relations, and this resulted in Yitzhak Shamir’s visit (Zaire) in 1982 and precisely in 1989, Israel was able to restore its relationship with eight African countries.

After this agreement, the Egyptian side started talking about the surplus of Egypt’s consumption from the Nile River, and it was published in official newspapers in the late 79 and early 80’s that Sadat said a text in the celebration of the “Agricultural Professions Syndicate on November 6, 1980” (We are thrown into the sea by 6 billion cubic meters From fresh water, Sadat announced his idea of ​​diverting the waters of the Nile to the Negev, and the heated interactions on the issue rose after Al-Ahram newspaper published, in August 1980, the correspondence between Sadat and Beijing, and between Sadat and Morocco’s King Hassan II about the “New Zamzam” project, in a letter published by Al-Ahram On August 13, 1980, from Sadat to Beijing, he said: “You may also remember that I offered to supply you with water that could reach Jerusalem, passing through the Negev, so that it would be easier for you to build new neighborhoods for the settlers on your land. But you misunderstood the idea behind my proposal and said that the national aspirations of your people are not Put up for sale ..Although removing the illegal settlements should not be commented on any condition, I am ready to go to this extent to solve this problem, as this is another contribution by Egypt for the sake of peace. ”Beijing’s response to Sadat:“ You proposed to transfer the waters of the Nile to the Negev, and in that The hadith did not mention transferring water to Jerusalem, but rather to the Negev, and that transporting the waters of the Nile to the Negev is a great idea, but we must differentiate between the material aspects and spiritual matters that we have rights in Jerusalem that cannot be violated ”(Zuhairi, 1989).[7]

The case moved to the People’s Assembly, and according to Zuhairy, according to Al-Shaab newspaper, the mouthpiece of the opposition Labor Party, the parliament session witnessed on November 24, 1978 a violent battle between the government and the opposition, led by Eng. Ibrahim Shukry, the party’s leader. Delivering the Nile waters to Israel, to which Kamal Hassan replied to the Foreign Minister, that President Sadat raised this issue during his conversation with Beijing in El-Arish and after receiving 80% of the Sinai lands, and only the issue of Jerusalem and autonomy remained, and he proposed it in order to find a just settlement in order to Jerusalem, and explaining how he was ready to sacrifice for the sake of Jerusalem, and Beijing rejected the idea from the beginning and the matter ended, and it was not mentioned in the exchanged letters between them when the negotiations were suspended due to the Israeli Knesset measures regarding Jerusalem, and no implementation measures were taken on this issue. (8)  (Zuhairy, 1989)

Ethiopia’s quarrels with Egypt and Sudan continued, and a long tone did not end. The main issue of which is to consider agreements for water distribution and fair distribution until we got away from all previous agreements and started preparing new agreements, the first of which was the “Entebbe March 2010” agreement.

1/3 Israeli Advance Preparation and the Entebbe Agreement 5/14/2010

Intertwined interests between Ethiopia and Israel, as the latter relied on Ethiopia a lot to try to control the waters of the Nile. The Entebbe 2010 agreement was not the first attempt to influence the share of Egypt and Sudan’s water share, and it was not a spur of the moment, so calling some of the eleven riparian states to draw a new water distribution map The river is the product of a series of arrangements in the region and permanent Israeli shipping, which aims to re-divide the water again, especially after the African countries, especially Eritrea and Ethiopia, saw a remarkable development in the Israeli support for their economy, which began in 1974 and offered its time to the Israeli Knesset, so that the fruits of cooperation began to bloom and the Afro-Israeli relations would return. Once again, after the Camp David Accords, the isolation of Israel and Africa would end after it lasted for a long period, but what are the estimates of Israel’s demand for the Nile water by the Camp David agreement?

The beginning of the thread, with which Israel determines proportions of the waters of the Nile, was in an article under the title “The Waters of Peace” by the Jewish writer “Elisha Kelly” published in Maariv newspaper on September 27, 1978 AD. He stated in his article that if Israel wants to face its next days in settling the Jews, it must Purchasing water from Egypt through pipelines that pass under the Suez Canal from Rafah and El-Arish with a length of 250 km, bringing the average transportation to 30 cubic meters per second to accommodate the expected population increase of the displaced, and as a result of this Zionist project, which is underlined by the article “Whole”, Israel requests in the “Camp David” agreement a share representing 1 % Of Egypt’s share of the Nile River, but the request was explicitly rejected for fear of Egyptian popular pressure, especially that the “Camp David” agreement came in light of an atmosphere of Arab tension that isolated Egypt for a period of its Arab brothers, and then the alternative was ready, represented by President Anwar Sadat’s presentation of his idea. The alternative, which is the construction of the Peace Canal as a first step, and that he proposed a project to deliver water to Sinai and from there to Jerusalem under the name (ProjectNew Zamzam) to transport the waters of the Nile to the visitors of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as he announced this in his speech to October Magazine on 12/16/1979 AD (virtue)[9]   But this was met with strong rejection, and the scenes of this matter have already been mentioned in the first part of the article.

No wonder, therefore, in this Israeli demand for the agreement, especially that delivering water to Sinai and from there to the Negev was an old dream. The documents, especially the diary of the founder of the global Zionism, Theodore Herzl, which were published in 1960, stated that he dreamed of the Nile water reaching Sinai through the concession project, which It was presented to the Egyptian government in 1903 by “Lord Cromer” himself on behalf of Herzl. This project was not only the indication of the plans of the Jews in Sinai, but also the report of the technical mission which was sent by the British government in February and March 1903 to the Sinai by agreement between Herzl, Krumer and Boutros Pasha Ghali. It was made up of soldiers, engineers, and Zionist experts from London, Argentina, Vienna and South Africa, with the aim of settling European Jews in Sinai and ensuring that water reached them in preparation for the great leap “Palestine” (Zuhairy, 1989)  [10] .

Israel did not let up for a single moment, but continued to support African countries to revive its idea once again by controlling African countries and continuous technical and economic support. We saw how it restored its relationship with eight African countries in one year. Israel relied on forming committees from American experts on behalf of Israel to conduct studies. And the various projects within Africa, as it presented projects that reached a total of 23 water projects in 1992 alone, on top of those projects the transfer of water to the Sinai and then facilitate its transfer to Israel after which it sought to penetrate the “endogu” group, which arose from an Egyptian call and an international formation in it (Egypt Sudan, Zaire, Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda) with the aim of providing water resources to the Nile Basin countries to meet the successive population increase, and it is noticeable that Kenya and Ethiopia are absent from the community (Khalil, 1998) [11] Ethiopia represents the most important source of Nile water, as eleven rivers spring from it, all of which feed the Nile, and this absence may be the straw that Israel relied on to change the general African mood.

The second topic: the Entebbe Agreement and the path of objections to it

1/1 Pre-Entebbe Idea:

The Nile Basin countries continued to hold various umbrella meetings, including “The Nile for the Year 2000”, which was sown in 1997 until it was officially launched on February 22, 1999, and the agreement included achieving sustainable economic and social development through equitable use of the benefits of the Nile’s resources. In developing these agreements, he established a secretariat for the conventions in Entebbe city in Uganda and an office for the Eastern Nile in Addis Ababa and an office for the Equatorial Lakes in Kigali, Rwanda.

In the midst of these African efforts to collect votes for the Nile Basin countries whose goal is to redistribute the Nile water once again under the concept of fair distribution, whose first and last goal is to contribute to undermining the Egyptian share, which was approved by all previous historical agreements. Water issues to a path far from the Nile Basin Initiative, signed in 1999. It also implies non-recognition of the historical and acquired rights of the downstream countries of Sudan and Egypt under the 1929 and 1995 agreements. On this, Egypt announced its official position that it will not sign any agreement unless it expressly provides for guaranteeing its share of the Nile water. (Fadl, A Brief Summary of the Entebbe Agreement, 2017) [12] What added to the disagreement between Ethiopia, the leader of the previous initiatives, and Egypt was the issuance of the Nile Basin Atlas, a product of its various initiatives, and Sinai was removed from the map of Egypt, given that Ethiopia had submitted a complaint in advance to the United Nations regarding the opening of the Peace Canal, which I suspect that this complaint would not have been submitted basically if Egypt at the time guaranteed delivery Water for Israel, which did not happen due to Egyptian opposition.

1/2: Entebbe Perceptions 2010:

The Entebbe Agreement was signed on 5/14/2010, in which Ethiopia and the assembled participants presented their desire for a new distribution map for river water between countries, claiming that what is now in force is unfair to the rest of the countries and that the only beneficiaries of the water are Egypt and Sudan. The perceptions of Entebbe were included in the papers and files of the two assemblies. However, the agreements reached previously, starting from 1891 until 1959, all express an era of old agreements that took place under the weight of colonialism, and this assumption is not in effect now due to the end of that period and that the states have become sovereign and independent from before.

The rules of international law and the theory of emergency conditions give the right to the signatory states of pre-existing agreements to withdraw from the agreements they signed as long as an emergency event prevents implementation.

Accordingly, the path of the Egyptian objections to Entebbe 2010 began from the first day of the signing of the agreement. According to BBC Arabic, in its meeting with the Egyptian Minister of Irrigation, Muhammad Nasr Allam said (Egypt will take all necessary measures to confirm to all international organizations that this agreement “is against International law and is not binding on Egypt and represents an infringement of its water rights) (Arabic, 2010) [13]  He indicated that Egypt will resort to international law to preserve its rights, adding that in practice there is no danger to “Egypt’s share or uses” of the Nile water Because that “is actually safeguarded and at the level of state agreements. Then followed by Egyptian efforts that included essential points in the response, the most important of which are:

• * The principle of respecting previous agreements that allocated fixed water quotas to Egypt and Sudan, and that there is no room for redistribution again, especially since there is a series of agreements signed before throughout the history of the conflict, and they are as follows:
• The 1891 Protocol between Britain and Italy, which obliges Italy not to construct any works or dams on the Atbara River, which impedes the flow of the Nile River in order to preserve the rights of the downstream countries.
• The 1902 agreement between Britain and the Great Empire of Ethiopia not to establish any works or dams on the Blue Nile to prevent the flow of the river
• The Owen River Agreement in Uganda in 1953 regarding the participation of Egypt in building the dam in Uganda to generate electricity and not damage Egypt’s share of the Nile
• The 1959 agreement for the full use of the water of the Nile between Egypt and Sudan in Cairo, in order to ensure maximum benefit from the Nile, control and increase its revenues, and exploit the water resulting from the construction of the High Dam in Aswan and the Rusayris reservoir in Sudan..Under this agreement, Egypt’s share is proven to be 55.5 km3 Sudan’s share is 18.5 km3.
• * Follow the rule of prior notification because all the rules of action followed in international law, in cases such as international rivers for riparian countries, that the interest-holder state must abide by prior dangers and the obligation not to harm the shares of other beaches, and that the dangers must precede the action and planning in the first place
• * General consensus, or what is similar to consensus, which the agreement did not obtain due to the disagreement of Sudan and Egypt, and Burundi delayed signing, and that agreements in this regard must be subject to general consensus and that there are countries that have not signed and thus this agreement falls.
• * The rules for equitable use of waterways establish Egypt’s right based on:
• – The Helsinki rule in 1966, which took into account basic criteria in the equitable utilization of the Nile water and based on the factors of relative weight in terms of distribution, the nature of the soil, geographic, geological, and social factors, climate, economy and population numbers
• – The United Nations Convention for the Distribution of International Rivers among the Riparian State in 1997, which remained available for signature by states for a period of 3 years at the United Nations and summarized its various articles on two basic principles
• Not to cause harm to the riparian countries
• Prior notification to other countries of the work to be done on international rivers within the region they pass through.

2/3 Legality of the Egyptian-Sudanese objection to the Entebbe Agreement:

The foundations of the call for Entebbe 2010, in which the assembled countries raised the idea of ​​re-division of the Nile water, were considered a legal answer to them through what they had originally based on the agreement:

International legacy rule:

The principle of international inheritance of treaties, as the Vienna Convention affirmed the succession of states in treaties 08/23/1978, which was approved by the principle of international inheritance of treaties, and this includes affirming the legitimacy of previous Nile water agreements, which upstream countries claim their lack of validity and take it as a lean to insist on changing them

What was approved by the Organization of African Unity, of which Ethiopia is a part in 1963AD and 1964AD, and it affirmed it despite its rejection of colonial divisions, but after consultation a consensus emerged confirming the survival of the borders inherited from colonialism so that countries do not enter into disputes, its time will be a challenge with the emergence of about 150 to 200 countries and this is lost The continent, its unity and cohesion, and then the Organization of African Unity recognized these divisions and borders between countries, so it is a priority to respect the agreements reached regarding rivers and the relations of riparian states.

Contingency theory:

Ethiopia and the “Entebbe 2010” contractors adopted the theory of emergency conditions, according to which the signatory states of any agreement are entitled to withdraw from the agreement as a result of emergency conditions. In fact of the matter, international law actually recognizes that the fundamental change in the circumstances that prompted the contracting parties to do so and accept some conditions gives the right to both parties The contract is to retreat, provided that there is a radical change in the remaining obligations, the right to demand the termination of the treaty or the suspension of its implementation, and this is neither available in the Ethiopian case at all nor in the source countries, but on the contrary, Egypt is the owner of the right to benefit from this rule and international theory by virtue of a radical change in its population and growth Originally, since the share of Egypt, which was approved by the Tripartite International Committee of America, Britain and India in 1928, as the share of Egypt was set at 58 billion cubic meters, and this is not enough now in light of the population close to 110 million, and therefore there is a fundamental change that has occurred in these agreements that makes Egypt the inherent right to Change its quota and raiseThe value of that share according to the theory of emergency conditions and the radical change of the population composition, where the Nile represents about 97% of the water and development, apart from all the riparian countries. Nevertheless, we find that Entebbe’s community clings to a theory that is the right of Egypt that wants to stick to it.

The movement of the Nile Basin countries towards Egypt and Sudan lies behind it a Zionist move par excellence, where planning, polarization and stirring up unrest in the region, so perhaps the Nile file may serve it in liquidating the entire Palestinian issue by stirring up disagreements between the Nile Basin countries in a way that guarantees African penetration.

The third topic: the Renaissance Dam, its techniques, and the effect of declaring principles on changing the conflict equation

After the psychological mobilization and American-Israeli dependence, Ethiopia was able to be a cause for concern in the Nile Basin and a strong supporter to undermine the share of Egypt and Sudan of its water. The idea of ​​the dam was among a number of projects planned since 1964 to build 4 dams, and at that time the largest of them was called the “border” dam, whose name changed. After that, a dam for the renaissance and its planned capacity changed from 11.4 billion m 3 suddenly to 74 billion m3, and the construction of the last three stopped until the completion of the Renaissance Dam, which I assure that Ethiopia will not hesitate to complete it after the experience of the Renaissance Dam, which is going through quite smoothly and with a tight agreement.

3/1 Is the Renaissance Dam a Dirar mosque in Medina?

A question that combines history and politics. The Dirar mosque in Medina is a mosque founded by the hypocrites and its goal was to disperse the believers. When the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, was inspired by this action, he ordered its demolition. Citing this position and not sympathy for it, did Ethiopia need this dam in the first place?

Ethiopia’s arguments for fair distribution of water are given due to the fact that it owns 24 river basins with annual rainfall of 950 billion m3, of which 450 billion m3 are in the Nile basin alone within the Ethiopian lands, and the constant in the nature of the Ethiopian climate and plains confirms that Ethiopia does not need this dam in the first place, if you need Ethiopia to generate electricity, for example, would have been sufficient to generate it from solar energy cells as the nature of the climate there is always sunny as an alternative because the consumption of Ethiopia combined does not exceed 2000 megawatts, and Kenya consumes 400 megawatts from Ethiopia, and the transmission network of electricity from Ethiopia to Sudan has a carrying capacity of 100 megawatts at the latest. And if Ethiopia tried to sell the electricity generated from the dam, it would need a transmission network estimated at an additional billion dollars. Dr. Asfaw Benny, professor of mechanical engineering at San Diego University in the United States, revealed through the Qada website that the Renaissance Dam could not produce 6000 megawatts because it needs an average flow rate.It is 4,700 m3 / s, while the average flow of the Blue Nile is 2,350 m3 / s (7th, 2020)[14]   . As for the technical context, and after discovering a defect in the concrete base, which has eroded, and there are pictures confirming this, and Ethiopia worked to address it during the drought, the height of the dam was reduced from 175 meters to 155 meters from the concrete structure, and the number of working turbines was reduced from 16 turbines to 11 only to reduce the productivity of electric energy From 6450 to 4125 megawatts, this confirms that all technical studies of the dam began to change upon implementation, promising to the previous question: Was Ethiopia in need of the dam ?? Also, Ethiopia could have turned it into a seasonal dam that deals with floods as well as the Rasais dam

3/2 The Committee of Experts does justice to Egypt and Sudan:

After a series of political consultations and deliberations starting from 2010 until 2012 and the efforts that were made in that, an international expert committee was approved to start its work in May 2012 with a total of ten experts from (Germany, South Africa, France, England in addition to 6 from Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia, 2 per country) ) To produce 4 visits to the dam and 6 meetings for the technical study, before which four meetings for the preliminary studies of the file. The technical report was issued at the end of May 2013 in 48 pages and it included an evaluation of all studies submitted by Ethiopia and amounted to 153 studies, including “103 drawings” and “ 7 Maps and 43 Studies

The report concluded

• All the studies submitted by Ethiopia are not relevant to the topic, and they are old and do not estimate the implications of the dam, especially the environment and social.
• The report emphasized Ethiopia’s violation of the rules of international law regulating the mechanism of dealing with international rivers such as the Blue River in terms of lack of prior notification and non-recognition of old agreements, especially the Egypt and Sudan Agreement signed in 1959.
• Most of the studies submitted by Ethiopia have remarkable technical shortcomings and failures, and they are not up to the technical level of the dam project. It carries these hopes and is relied upon in this way and that greatness in implementation.
• The report does not contain the negative effects resulting in the event, God forbid, the collapse of the dam, which must be included before starting the planning for the project in the first place, as its main draft under the name of the legal, social and technical effects of the dam.
• The filling period of the dam with a full strength of 74 billion m3 represents a negative impact on Egypt if it coincides with the drought period, which disrupts the work of the High Dam as a product of Egyptian electricity, in addition to the associated water deficit.
• The report included other details about the geological and environmental impacts and the many dangers. You can refer to Al Youm Al Sabea newspaper on 4/27/2014 AD under the title (We publish the full report of the expert committee on “The Renaissance Dam)” (The Seventh Day) [15] .

After this fair technical report for the interests of Egypt and Sudan, and based on it, the Egyptian diplomatic position has become, but the Egyptian military position in dealing with the dam has become strong, especially since all countries and institutions affiliated with the World Bank wishing to finance and lend the dam have completely stopped funding in appreciation of the report and in anticipation of a strong Egyptian position that may be A timely deterrent response. Where the President of Egypt at the time, “Mohamed Morsi” announced on 10/6/2013, that is, ten days after the report, the man declared explicitly in a massive public speech in which he said (If a drop of the Nile decreases, our blood is an alternative), but after these strong words based on a strong and supported position Technically and internationally, in recognition of the Egyptian right to its share through the law and the previous artistic opinion. What happened to the transformation of Egypt from the position of power to the begging of Ethiopian satisfaction?

Some attribute that the reason for this is due to Ethiopia’s exploitation of the period of disintegration of Egyptian cohesion from within, following the bloody events that occurred in Egypt in the early second half of 2013, and the replacement of the elected government with the last formality to beautify the form of the intervention of the military administration and the management of the scene by exploiting the anger of some and distinguishing between Egyptians, internally, opinions about these events diverged between supporters of what happened and between opponents, and what was published by the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram is considered an aspect of this. Blurry) and it is known that the Wasat Party is an Egyptian political party  Kimen is classified as a center with an Islamic reference and was never associated with the ruling party in Egypt. This was a description of the state of societal discord following the events in 2013. As for externally, the African Peace and Security Council considered that what happened in Egypt was a change of government in an unconstitutional way, and as a result of that he commented The Peace and Security Council of the African Union, on Friday (July 5, 2013), Egypt’s membership in the 54-nation union, due to “unconstitutional power grab”, meaning the union’s recognition that it is a military coup. (Arabic, African Peace and Security Council suspends membership Egypt, 2013) [16]  After Egypt went through this crisis, the Egyptian diplomatic positions began to choose the approach of “anxiety, parsing, denunciations and condemnation.” The “BBC Arabic website” published on 07/20/2013, Egypt expresses its “deep concern” about the water crisis The Nile with Ethiopia (Arab B., 2013) [17] .

On the contrary, the Ethiopian side hastened to take executive positions on the ground carrying seriousness and predicting a more dangerous direction. One of the first things that Ethiopia embarked on was popular mobilization. The Ethiopian Parliament considered that the “Entebbe” agreement is an alternative to the treaties of the colonial eras that gave Egypt and Sudan a predominant share in river waters. For the Ethiopians, the project would be a national project and not just investments by foreign companies, and this is what the Ethiopian Parliament has blessed

• According to what was published by “BBC Arabic on the position of the Ethiopian Parliament,” the new agreement, known as the “Framework Cooperation Agreement”, allows upstream countries to implement irrigation projects and hydroelectric power generation without first obtaining Egypt’s approval.
• Ethiopian government spokesman Chemlis Kamal said: “Parliament approved a law that makes the agreement a domestic law,” according to what was reported by “France Press” (Arab B., The Ethiopian Parliament approves a controversial agreement on the Nile River, 2013) [18]
• It is noticeable that the dates are close and the Ethiopian speed of achievement in dealing with the events in Egypt and the exploitation of the suspension of Egypt’s membership in the African Union and the Ethiopian Parliament’s approval of the legitimacy of framework cooperation, as if the steps previously agreed upon are drawn by a skilled political calligrapher.

3/3 What was proven by the expert opinion, a lost declaration of principles 

The ten international expert committee was formed, whose terms of reference for its work were agreed upon after the meeting of water ministers from the three countries, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan on November 29, 2011, and the opinion of the committee was considered an important aspect in the diplomatic, legal and technical struggle for the Renaissance Dam and the report was considered profitable for both Egypt and Sudan, and that the neutrality of the expert committee had come. Its fruits and I add strength to the position of Egypt and Sudan to their strength, as the report showed the technical weakness of the Ethiopian side, and the report may show the bad intentions of the Ethiopian side and its lack of readiness for the technical and diplomatic presentation, because of the report’s refutation of Ethiopian studies.

Through the agreement of principles, which was announced in Khartoum in 2015 in the presence of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia, with whom the rights of Egypt and Sudan were explicitly forfeited, as the terms of the agreement stipulated several risks

As it is considered a breach of all previous agreements and it came on a plate of gold to Ethiopia or rather to Israel, which the latter sought to control the Nile River and made many efforts over many years to reach complete control of the Blue Nile, so that it could then negotiate its waters through Ethiopia and its new dam. However you like. Let the agreement revive a new hope for Israel that I have dreamed about for many years, and with this agreement the Egyptian position has weakened and the water right for Egypt has been lost after it was strong according to the fair and aforementioned international committee report

But what are the reasons for the danger in this agreement?

According to Dr. Nader Nour El-Din, Professor of Water at the Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, to Al-Arabiya Net, “Signing the document means approval for Ethiopia to formally build the Renaissance Dam as of next Monday, March 30th, and the return of foreign funding, which had been stopped after the success of the Egyptian diplomacy in urging Participating countries to stop it, including China, Korea, the World Bank and Italy.
He said that the dam in this case would become official and legitimate, it was done by consensus and consent between the countries of Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia, and thus international financing of the dam would return, which is $ 5.5 billion from the National Bank of China and $ 1 billion from Italy and the same from South Korea, in addition to the World Bank’s approval to offer Ethiopian bonds to finance the dam guarantee. And then the pace will accelerate its construction and completion completely before the issuance of the final non-binding report of the consultant office and the international expert 15 months after signing the consensus, indicating that Egypt’s approval of the Renaissance Dam implies its approval of a series of five other dams in Ethiopia. (Arabic, 2015) [19]

He said that Ethiopia imposed the word “respectful” instead of the word “binding” on the report of the consultative office to build the dam, meaning that Egypt and Sudan had no right to object to the report, and Ethiopia had the right to continue building the dam without paying attention to any objections. A
frightening effect and
said that the impact of the dam will be frightening and catastrophic for Egypt, which will not be able to achieve any agricultural development and will lose between 3 to 5 million acres, while reclamation projects will stop in Sinai, Toshka and the northwestern coast, especially since Ethiopia, after establishing the other five dams, will seize more than 250 billion cubic meters behind its five dams.

The indications of the agreement being lost, the “declaration of principles” of the Egyptian and Sudanese rights to the waters of the Nile are:

• The commitment by the signatory states came with the weakest binding formula, which is the unilateral will, which enables Ethiopia to disavow any clause of the agreement that may represent an obstacle to it when implementing it.
• The word cooperation and good faith appeared in the agreement extensively, and this does not have practical evidence in the agreement, especially in the principle of exchanging information and data, which confirmed that Ethiopia was tampering with information and data and that it was misleading to all international committees and this is according to the testimony of international experts, so how is good faith assumed in an agreement affecting water security and there Clear indications of misinformation, according to the findings of the experts in their previous reports.
• The principle of causing harm, as the agreement came to be a significant harm, and the declaration did not differentiate between the types of damage, their estimation and the mechanism for their occurrence, even in dealing with the damage. The announcement tended to discuss the mitigation or removal of the damage and did not specify the necessary mechanisms for that. Because of its type and size, and because Ethiopia itself has a precedent with Lake Turkana in Kenya, the G3 dam, which was built in 2015, and as a result, the lake’s water level decreased to displace fishermen, and Human Rights Watch researcher Felix Horn said, “Ethiopia is urgent To develop its resources so that people along the water line are completely marginalized, excluded from the equation. How with this we do not appreciate the dam’s damages and assume good intentions (News, 2017) [20]
• The principle of regional integration and sustainability We note that energy is not expressed in a definition in addition to “electric energy”, and this opens a path for any energy business of all kinds. The principle of regional integration has become most of the participants in the investments from outside the region originally
• The principle of fair and appropriate use, and this principle completely nullifies the Egyptian rights previously approved by all agreements. This principle came with great deception, as it did not refer to any water entitlement for the two downstream countries.
• Egypt’s recognition of the eighth item by appreciating Ethiopia’s efforts in implementing and following the recommendations of the International Committee of Experts, meaning that Egypt and Sudan confirm that Ethiopia follows the recommendations of the International Committee, and that Ethiopia implements the instructions, and this is the most dangerous item in existence, while the Ethiopian Minister of Irrigation, Water and Electricity “Motuma Makasa” said a text in a newspaper. (Al-Mujhar Al-Political on February 19, 2016) “The studies that the consulting firms will conduct on the Renaissance Dam are not binding on his country.”
• The principle of the safety of the dam is one of the most dangerous items of the declaration for its endorsement of the principle of good faith in implementing the recommendations of the international technical committees and the word “good faith” with implementation in the recommendations has no place to express in the first place because it will be a pretext for Ethiopia’s violation of the recommendations. The announcement mentioned the safety factor for the project as a whole and did not refer to alternative plans in the event of collapse, God forbid, and what are the compensation for the affected countries.
• The principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes The declaration endorsed cooperation in settling the dispute through consensus, consultation and good faith. It did not refer to the mechanisms of a solution. In case of conflict, the matter is referred again to the heads of the three countries without reference to the international arbitration process.

Results :

• After this review of the study’s findings, several results are evident:
• The old Israeli intervention and its desire to control the Nile River and its continuous support for the Ethiopian file to cause the expected division in the Nile Basin countries.
• What the Entebbe agreement presented in terms of assumptions and attempts to disavow previous agreements.
• The good diplomatic administration of Egypt in the period of the objection to Atnebi and the extent of the presence of the Egyptian diplomacy
• Full fairness from the committee of international experts and the extent of impartiality in dealing with the file
• Egypt and Sudan possessed the power to respond after the Committee of Experts, which was announced on 5/31/2013 and the Egyptian President “Mohamed Morsi” hinted at using force at the time.
• The Egyptian position sagged after the events in July 2013
• Ethiopia’s exploitation of the problems at home, and taking strong stances and implementation steps on the ground
• Following the Declaration of Principles in Khartoum in 2015 and his loss of the Egyptian Sudanese rights, his administration
• The deception of the Egyptian and Sudanese peoples in the Declaration of Principles Agreement, and that it was the main set-up for Ethiopia to strengthen its position, striking all the rights and international agreements previously signed.

Recommendations:

• The necessity to immediately withdraw from the agreement declaring principles by virtue of an emergency situation, especially that there are indications of the Ethiopian escape from the agreements and a violation of even the declaration of principles and change of the work plan of the dam, which causes a disaster for the two downstream countries
• Monitoring the infrastructure of the dam through the captured images and making a comprehensive file that is presented in a technical way to the Security Council, and that the discussions to the committees are technical, not just diplomatic.
• Work to stop the filling so that a catastrophic disaster does not occur and the threat to demolish the dam before the completion of the filling due to its seriousness and Ethiopia’s violation of agreements and recommendations of the committees
• The official address to the companies investing in the project of the danger of the dam on the Egyptian and Sudanese side
• The necessity of using the technical studies of the international committees to stop filling, especially since the safety factor is very weak.
• Demanding an urgent meeting of the Arab League and providing evidence of the violations and the seriousness of the dam to take a comprehensive collective position.
• Participating in the power generation project through other companies away from the dam turbines and waving to sell at lower prices than the dam’s electricity.
• Contributing to setting up development projects in the Nile Basin countries and hastening to do so, perhaps as a reason for stopping filling
• The decisive response to the Ethiopian bravado in the responses and statements is the statement of the Ethiopian Foreign Minister (There was a river and it became a lake).
• The necessity to draw a precautionary plan in the event of drought and breakdown of the High Dam turbines.
• Adopting an emergency evacuation plan in case God forbid the dam collapses after full filling.

Conclusion:

Perhaps history will stand incapable of expressing its observations about these semi-decisive years in the history of the conflict, since this date the situation has changed, so that Ethiopia’s claims have become not an illusion but a reality and have taken the lead in negotiation, strength and pressure, while Egypt has become in the position of defense and to collect the papers that were scattered by the Declaration of Principles March 2015 “Therefore, a strong conclusion emerges that the Israeli hand provided the Ethiopian negotiator with all the cards of the game, that there was deception of the Egyptian and Sudanese peoples, and that the Jewish agenda was present in the dam file from the first paper in it to its conclusion, and this agreement will be a witness to the era of Ethiopia’s possession of the rudder of water in My downstream state and that God Almighty will not in the event of the dam collapse, it will be a resounding collapse, especially since it was originally established as a concrete dam, not a rubble dam like the high dam and its material solidity is doubtful, and that the safety factor in it represents 1.5 out of 9, which is the weakest safety factor for a project of this size.

Reference

1- (Ibrahim Mohamed Al-Anani, Settlement of disputes for the use of international rivers, the Nile River as a model, Article 11, No. 39, P.33, State Information Service, Cairo, 2013

2- (Trigi Taft, The Nile in the British Era, page 7, National Center for Translation, Cairo, 2019)

3- (Mona Hussein Obaid, The Israeli Policy Toward the Nile Basin Countries, Egypt and Sudan as a Model, Academic Academic Journals, Iraq, p. 49)

4- (The World Zionist Organization, The Palestinian Encyclopedia, 10/28/2015)

5- (Zionist settlement projects outside Palestine, The Palestinian Encyclopedia, 8/13/2013)

6- (Mona Hussein Ebeid, The Israeli Policy Toward the Nile Basin Countries, Egypt and Sudan as a Model, Academic Academic Journals, Iraq, pg. 51)

7- (Kamal Zuhair, The Nile in Danger, Al-Ahali Newspaper Library, Cairo, 1989, p. 15)

8) Kamal Zuhair, The Nile is in Danger, Al-Ahali Newspaper Library, Cairo, 1989, p. 17)

9) Omar Fadlallah, the water war on the banks of the Nile, an Israeli dream come true, p. 23, Dar Nahdet al-Misr, Cairo, 2013

10) Kamal Zuhair, The Nile in Danger, Al-Ahali Newspaper Library, Cairo, 1989, p. 31)

11) Mahmoud Khalil, The Water Crisis in the Middle East, pg. 32, The Academic Library, Cairo, 1998

12) Fadl, A Brief History of the Entebbe Agreement, 2017)

13) BBC Editor, Entebbe Convention is against international law and is not binding on Egypt, BBC Arabic website, 2010

14) (Al-Youm Al-Sabea website, a Sudanese researcher reveals: supplying Khartoum with cheap electricity from the Ethiopian dam “A lie 06/23/2020)

15) The Seventh Day website, we publish the full report of the expert committee on the “Renaissance Dam” 4/27/2014)

(1) (BBC Arabic website, African Peace and Security Council suspends Egypt, 7/13/2013) 16)

17) BBC Arabic, Egypt expresses its “deep concern” about the Nile water crisis with Ethiopia, 7/20/2013

18) BBC Arabic website, The Ethiopian Parliament approves a controversial agreement on the Nile River, 7/13/2013)

19) Al-Arabiya Net, detailing the principles of the Khartoum Document and the Renaissance Dam Plan, Al-Arabiya Net, 3/23/2015

20) (Sky News Arabia website, Ethiopian dam that “partially dries up” a lake … and raises criticism, 2/14/2017)