Last Update 11:17
Monday, 24 September 2018

Egypt maintains legal and political position on Nile water crisis

Military sources indicate that Egypt is not in a position to address the issue of Nile water distribution for now

Ahmed Eleiba , Friday 11 Mar 2011
Share/Bookmark
Views: 4280
Share/Bookmark
Views: 4280

Yesterday's cabinet meeting headed by Prime Minister Essam Sharaf was unable to discuss the water issue between Egypt and Nile Basin states as previously announced.

Unraveling conditions in the country cut short the meeting and took it from cabinet headquarters to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. 

Earlier in 2010, several riparian states signed an agreement between them calling for a redistribution of Nile waters, threatening Egypt's disproportionate share based on prior treaties. Signatory states argued the need for a greater share of Nile waters to drive domestic development. 

The Egyptian Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Hussein El-Atfi had said at the time that there must be consensus among all Nile states to amend any standing arrangement. Neither Egypt nor Sudan signed the new agreement. El-Atfi added that the agreement did not abrogate the commitments of signatory states towards Egypt, and that he was surprised by the signing.

Al-Atfi said he needed the help of all related ministries and civic groups. Despite previous calls by the Egyptian Council on Foreign Affairs for the creation of an Egyptian national agency responsible for the issue, to include technical water specialists at the ministries of agriculture and irrigation, representatives from the National Security Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, no action was taken.

Meanwhile, Egypt's legal adviser on the matter, Mohamed Sameh Amr, identified seven problems obstructing the implementation of the framework agreement by source countries without the participation of Egypt and Sudan. 

First, it is an incomplete agreement among Nile Basin countries because the draft did not fully meet all legal requirements. There are still some outstanding issues, most prominently the text of Article 14b remains under discussion, which pertains to Egypt's rights to river water based on previous international agreements.

Also, there are diverging opinions. Legal committees had agreed to follow a consensual not a majority decision-making model, as is the rule for adopting resolutions. 

At the same time, the signing of the agreement was a clear violation of standing rules, since it was opened for signatures before reaching consensus. The fact that some source countries have already signed unilaterally is a breach of procedure.

Amr revealed that the future of the agreement is being studied, noting that the new Sudanese reality of partition into two states poses a new legal situation. Mustafa El-Feki, former Egyptian assistant foreign minister, agreed, saying that talks between Egyptian and South Sudan officials were reassuring before the partition, but this does not mean that after separation problems won't arise.

Amr noted that international donors play a critical role in the issue, and Cairo has presented many of them with detailed legal briefs proving the prerequisite of Egypt's approval for any water project in the Nile Basin area. At the same time, Egypt is looking into ways of cooperating with Nile Basin countries, as indicated by Ambassador Reda Bebars, the official responsible for the issue at the Egyptian Foreign Ministry. 

However, Amr argued: “How can we reach out to these countries at a time when they are drafting agreements against Egypt's interests? This cooperation will not be fruitful because of them.”

Amr asserted that international instruments underscore Egypt's right to reject any changes to its current quota of Nile water, such as the principles of the Helsinki Conference (Article 66, Paragraph 3) regulating the principles of fair use and prior notification. Also, the Berlin Principles and the UN agreement of 1997 stipulate the fair use of water and without harm, as well as negotiations and prior notification. 

Regarding the legal repercussions of source countries unilaterally signing the agreement without upriver states, Amr explained that according to international law the agreement is not binding except for on its signatories, and that they alone are responsible for its stipulations. This means that legal action is confined to the signatories and anyone else is considered a third party, even if they had participated in the negotiation process.

At the same time, source countries cannot discard the international rule of prior notification of any development project they intend to construct; Egypt must be informed and consulted beforehand.

Ibrahim Nasruddin, the director of the Centre for African Studies and Research, points to the fractured relationship between source countries and upriver states, especially Egypt. Nasruddin noted that Ethiopia has played an antagonistic role, and that irrespective of Cairo's policies it will be difficult to change this role. The Ethiopians routinely claim Egyptian imperialism, he said.

Khaled Ouda, a geologist at Assiut University, blames the previous regime for mismanaging the issue. Hani Raslan, the head of the Nile Basin Unit at Al-Ahram Centre, concurred and said previous policies were muddled and blurred.

Ouda believes that the next crisis that will result in conflict and catch everyone unawares is the demarcation of the border between North Sudan and South Sudan. He described it as the worst possible border demarcation in the history of the region, because it was a political delineation that will negatively influence Egypt-South Sudan ties.

Military experts doubt Egypt can resort to military threat or action. Sameh Seifelyazel and Brigadier General Safwat Al-Zayyat assert that Egypt needs at least four to five years to prepare itself for any such action, and that it should not make any moves in the interim. Instead, it needs to stand fast and recover its diplomatic position.

Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's
Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
6



Warrior Spear
12-06-2011 12:47pm
0-
0+
Egypt reality check
Egypt must come to terms to new world reality. Old british era agreements are no longer valid and no longer acceptable to African nations on whose land the Nile river is born. Egypt and the nile is a gift of the africans and no threat from these semi arab savages will be accepted. Their foolish "fools hurriya" revolution is a JOKE. Like passengers of a plane throwing out the Pilot and then asking.... ok , now who knows to fly a plane ????" Now Egyptians should know what it feels like to starve and be thirsty like the countries who OWN THE NILE.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
5



magoo
14-04-2011 05:13pm
0-
0+
egypt
EGYPT IS THE GREATEST ONE IN THE WORLD
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
4



Liliy
30-03-2011 08:21pm
0-
0+
Egypt is bulimic.
Egypt is bulimic. Unfortunately it has a well-known ego-centrism, selfishness and arrogance. Look Pharaoh. It did not let go children of Israel until it was crushed. Egypt needs an African lesson that will remains forever in its political and popular memory. In fact Egypt is mixed-up between being African- its natural identity lost after Arabs invasions and also Babylonian, Ottoman and British- and Arab by cultural and religious association. Egypt did not mind trading African water to Arabs and Israel and Gaza via the North Sinai Project. But it refuses to share with Africans so that they can use their water to protect their children from hunger and thirst. Egypt is a plague to Africa.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
3



F gq
16-03-2011 04:09pm
0-
0+
Let us see
Egypt!!! What a hell do you want? If you don't agree, let us see if any plan you have works for you. The issue is simple ,,, if you want to agree in equitable usage you are well come. If not, it is undeniable that either you will die from hunger or fight. We are human and trying to do what is human towards your people. If you don't have the same feeling, you will feel it in near future. Your todays NO will be a future mock at you!!! Wise decision in your side! In our side we don't care!!! We did our decision, and it is up to you to take it or leave it!!! Understood???
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
2



Werner2010
11-03-2011 09:04pm
0-
0+
You still don't get it
Egypt should come to terms that it can no more supress the source nations natural right to use their resources, including the Nile water. Egypt's attempt to create division between these nations, it's devilish efforts to distabilze their governments, or to sabotage their development projects are also destined to fail, because these nations have genuine desire for an agreement and clear time-tabels and goals. On the other hand, Egypt threatens those countries with diplomatic, legal and military confrontation. Don't try to stop the unstoppable!
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
1



Kasim
11-03-2011 04:00pm
0-
0+
Imperialist Position
Egypt imperialist's view towards Nile riparian countries is insane. Nile isfor all and not for Egypt alone. Kasim - Khartoum
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Latest

© 2010 Ahram Online.