The Inauguration of the Gilgel Gibe Dam: Kudos for Ethiopia and an Admonition to the Wise

By

Dr. Yosef Yacob

The western disposition to promote small scale project driven alternatives such as rain water harnessing, earthen dams, diesel generators, geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, potable water projects, drilling of small wells, promoting traditional agriculture, harnessing small streams, resettling populations, digging ponds, and reliance on food aid will not bring about the progress deserved by the Ethiopian people.

At best, these efforts not only reflect a low regard for Ethiopia’s needs and potential but further reflect a calculated delaying strategy designed by Ethiopia’s western “friends” to keep Ethiopia in a weakened state and to empower the lower riparians to continue to appropriate every drop of the shared resource for their own use while preempting Ethiopia’s future prospects. The status quo will condemn Ethiopia to perpetual underdevelopment and poverty and the possible demise of the nation itself.

The western pre-disposition to meddle in developing country affairs, to bully, to threaten and to impose western values, principles, form of democracy, standards, and models in developing countries must come to an end. The predisposition to favor one people over another based upon relative resemblance and thus the western hierarchy of equality which allows the west to expect, accept, and permit a level of misery, death, abject poverty, underdevelopment, famine, dependency, lack of electric power, and basic human needs in Ethiopia, while not allowing the same level to exist in Egypt is glaring.

What are the assumptions that allow the west to accept failed States and human misery in Sub-Saharan African countries such as Somalia, Congo, Sierra Leone, Burundi among others while committing enormous financial, diplomatic, and human resources to maintain human security and national dignity in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo?

While a certain level of poverty in Egypt might be acceptable to the west, it is doubtful for example, that the west would tolerate recurring famine in Egypt and seeing the picture of an emaciated Egyptian child plastered in western media. Egypt we are told receives in excess of US $ 2 billion each year to allow the Egyptian government to fill its “food gap” with its dignity intact by purchasing commodities, albeit from the west, while Ethiopia on the other hand is expected to appeal and beg to feed its people and indeed is fed by the ever burgeoning international NGOs, international institutions, and every international charity known to man. What is it for example that motivates Ethiopia’s western friends to promote integrated basin management in the Nile basin, a western notion and experiment, which has heretofore not even been successfully achieved in any international river basin in Africa or Asia.

As a logical consequence of the socio-political awakening, Ethiopia has become development-conscious. The scientific and technological developments have rendered it possible to use water on a large scale for different purposes, more particularly for agriculture, production of energy or power and construction of dams not only for irrigation but also to serve as flood control measures. Under the circumstances, I do not believe that neglecting to fully engage the endemic famine, poverty, and lack of sufficient electric power in Ethiopia, the “water tower of Africa” by exploiting its water resources is a sustainable policy.

The historical effectiveness and legitimacy of Egypt’s legal (prior appropriation) arguments, military hegemony and threats and the promises of international financial incentives as means of restraining and influencing Ethiopia’s behavior in the sub-basin, as strategies to enforce or maintain the status quo are no longer determinant. Although it may be possible for Egypt to gain short-term advantages by prevarication, threats of military intervention, abridging perceived rights by obstructing international financing of co-riparians' development efforts, and remaining indifferent to the legitimate needs of co-riparians, Egypt will pay a heavy price. These strategies may forestall development but they cannot restrain unilateral development by Ethiopia nor able to impose needed voluntary cooperation to achieve the optimal and sustainable use of the shared resource and will only exact revenge and resentment towards Egypt from sub-basin riparians and invite unilateralism.[1]

There is also a risk that constantly pushing to find additional value through linkages such as basin wide agreements, further feasibility studies, scientific uncertainty and joint projects will create a climate that Fisher calls “stingy bargaining environment” in which one side holds out for more, even after satisfying fundamental interests.[2] This stance can become weary and self-defeating if Egypt turns down cooperation and compromise in favor of theoretically superior outcomes and unilateral control.

Therefore, the increasing population, the demand for improved living standards by its people, the endemic poverty, the decreasing reliance on international institutions as the major source for financing major hydro-electric development schemes, the drought, the famine and the absence of a binding accord among the sub-basin riparians should embolden any responsible government to pursue development activities in its sovereign sub-basin unilaterally.

In the long-term, independent development of the sub-basin by Ethiopia would be to Egypt’s great detriment. Unilateralism will produce Pareto-inferior outcomes for the riparians, subordinate opportunities for joint multipurpose development, conservation, protection and preservation, projects, reduce communication, cooperation and interaction between the sub-basin riparians, and neglect the principle of equitable and sustainable use of the shared resources to benefit all of the citizens of the sub-basin.

In the final analysis, unilateral action by upper riparians may eventually draw Egypt’s attention and produce the impetus for negotiations. However, the increasing viability of unilateralism as an effective strategy and the freedom of action offered by unilateralism may also emerge as Ethiopia’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Hence Ethiopia’s strategy in this context should not be a declaration to “abide” by non-existent international rules or a commitment not to infringe on Egypt’s ever increasing “prior appropriation” and hence “security” as recently stated by the Ethiopian Government. Rather Ethiopian strategy should be informed by the relative circumstances of its people and Ethiopia’s ability to engage in unilateral development. Appeasement of Egypt and Egyptocentric western donor governments and institutions should not be the controlling principle for any basin state that is unable to fulfill the basic unmet needs of its own population and therefore Ethiopia’s policy on the utilization of the Blue Nile Sub-basin.

The inauguration of the Gilgel Gibe Dam is a clear admonition to the wise and indeed forewarning to Egypt. The strategy of avoidance, delay, prevarication, and playing political contests will unleash misadventure in the Nile Basin. Equitable utilization of the Nile River through indigenous consensus building by the citizens and stakeholders in the sub-basin, without the meddling of western “partners”, and their intrigues, values, biases, and self-interests is the only course left for the Nile Basin riparians to avoid foretold calamity. Egypt’s best alternative and strategy is genuine engagement and negotiation with the upper riparians.