The Geopolitics of Water in the Nile River Basin

By IndepthAfrica
In Article
Nov 19th, 2012
1 Comment
17 Views

In Africa, access to water is one of the most critical aspects of human
survival. Today, about one third of the total population lack access to
water. Constituting 300 million people and about 313 million people lack
proper sanitation. (World Water Council 2006). As result, many riparian
countries surrounding the Nile river basin have expressed direct stake in
the water resources hitherto seldom expressed in the past. In this paper, I
argue that due to the lack of consensus over the use of the Nile basin
regarding whether or not “water sharing” or “benefit sharing” has a tendency
to escalate the situation in to transboundary conflict involving emerging
dominant states such as the tension between Ethiopia-Egypt over the Nile
river basin. At the same time, this paper further contributes to the
Collier- Hoeffler conflict model in order to analyze the transboundary
challenges, and Egypt’s position as the hegemonic power in the horn of
Africa contested by Ethiopia. Collier- Hoeffler model is used to predict
the occurrence of conflicts as a result of empirical economic variables in
African states given the sporadic civil strife in many parts of Africa. In
order to simplify my argument and analysis, I focused on Ethiopia and Egypt
to explicate the extent of water crisis in the North Eastern part of Africa.

One may question why Ethiopia? My answers are grounded in three main
assumptions. The first is based on the failed Anglo-Ethiopia treaty in 1902
which never materialized. The second assumption is based on the exclusion
of Ethiopia, since 1902 and the subsequent water agreement of 1929 between
Britain and Egypt and the 1959 water agreement between Egypt and Sudan after
the later became independent in 1956. The final assumption is the emergence
of Ethiopia as a powerful and influential nation in the horn of Africa
because of its military power in the sub region.

Ethiopia has pushed forward her demand to develop water resources through
hydroelectric power along the Nile. However, for several decades, Egypt has
denied other riparian countries complete access to water resources along the
Nile, and for that matter has exercised her hegemonic powers over the
development and control of the use of water resources in the Nile river
basin for many decades. The Nile river basin has survived centuries, and for
many years has served as Egypt’s economic hub, political power and growth
since ancient times. The water resources in the Nile basins have also served
as economic, political, social and cultural achievements of Egypt’s
influence in the sub region1.

The water resources in the past were used as trade routes which enhanced
Egypt’s mobile communication and international relations for centuries. In
which many earlier contacts of Egypt described Egypt as “the gift of the
Nile” This hegemonic status enjoyed, since the beginning of earlier
civilizations of the ancient kingdoms of Egyptian civilization compelled the
ancient philosopher Herodotus to describe this civilization as “Egypt is the
Nile and the Nile is Egypt.” This again coincides the period of Egyptian
economic boom and its political dominion. What has further entrenched
Egypt’s position in the past, which ultimately contributed to Egypt’s power
over other riparian countries in the Nile river basin is the 1929 water
treaty agreement signed between Egypt and Britain2. Britain, then in charge
of many riparian countries as colonies negotiated with Egypt on behalf of
its colonies, thereby, giving Egypt an urge over other riparian countries in
the use and access to water resources in the river basin.

However, with the attainment of independence by these countries, high
population growth, global warming, global economic crisis natural disasters,
political development, pollution and resource depletion, industrialization
as well as urbanization, high capital cost of water drilling, poor rural
electricity for pumping underground water have impelled these riparian
countries to engage Egypt’s control in order to re-negotiate earlier water
treaties and to abrogate all attempt by Egypt to control the use and
development of water resources over the Nile3. Egypt has been in control of
the Nile Rivers for a long time and has emerged as the major country that
has complete access to the Nile. The shortages of water and water resources
in Ethiopia and of course Sudan has prompted those countries to take a
second look at Egypt’s access to the Nile, most especially Ethiopia’s
attempt to confront Egypt in the Nile river. Berman and Paul concluded that
the tension between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Nile is likely to escalate
to a war in the future. Due to Ethiopia’s rapidly growing population, in
consequence, Ethiopia’s water demand has almost doubled in the last decade4.

Nile River Basin and Declining Water Resources

The Nile river basin comprises of ten countries namely, Burundi, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania,
and Uganda. These countries are known as the ten riparian countries due to
their proximity to the Nile river basin5. It is the longest river in the
world constituting about 6700 km or 4100 miles long and drains almost all
ten aforementioned countries. The flow of the Nile as a naturally endowed
commodity has benefited North Eastern countries’ economic activities through
agricultural and tourism. About 90% of Egypt’s land mark is desert and
therefore, many populations have concentrated along the Nile river basin,
due the economic opportunities available along the Nile river basin couple
with irrigation activity for landscape farming and animal rearing.6

The complete dependence of water resources over the centuries have caused
the Nile river basin to deplete, especially of essential material resources
causing high rate of unemployment, diseases and hunger in the countries
depending on the water resources. Declan et al, argue that the resource
depletion in the Nile river basin is due to three spatial factors, namely
global green house effect, regional (through land use) and river basin (land
management). This assertion is also consistent with Oxfam studies in Askum
region and the drought that has engulfed the entire country. In a brief
quote Oxfam indicated the situation in Ethiopia and said:

“Climate variability in Ethiopia is not new – but now, in addition to the
usual struggles, Ethiopians living in poverty are additionally suffering the
effects of climate change – both more variable climate and more extreme
weather events. People who are already poor and marginalized are struggling
with the added burden of climate variability. For now, this means that the
little that they have goes to dealing with the current unpredictable weather
because their livelihoods are so dependent on it. When selling off assets
becomes a mean to cope, there is little left to plan for the future. Thus,
communities are faced with simultaneously increasing climate variability,
and with it increasing risk and vulnerability.7″

Global warming due to climatic conditions and green house emission effect
according to Declan et al is one of the contributing factors for the recent
water resource decline in the Nile river basin8. They argued that high
temperature couple with underground water reduction in the Blue Rivers in
Egypt and Sudan is undergoing drastic impact of global warming. As a result,
development along the Nile River has led to water resource pollutions by
many riparian countries.9

For example, the Ethiopian and Eritrean wars in the late 1990s polluted a
substantial part of the river basin with military accoutrements and missile
deposits into the Nile Rivers. This pollution activity is further
exacerbated by the huge population growth concentrated in the river basin.
This populations growth according to the world water council 2006 have
double in the last two decades, and continues to rise amidst migrations to
the Nile river basins.10

The impact of population pressures and the resource decline in the river
basins is also consistent with Aston’s argument that the southern and the
northern portions get less rainfall than their equatorial neighboring
countries.11 For example the Nile has two confluent tributaries connecting
the White Nile and the Blue Nile, the Blue Nile which is considered the most
fertile for crop production flows from Lake Tanna in Ethiopia through to
Sudan from the South East.12 The Blue and White river basins also coincide
with the division of upstream and downstream riparian, and their source of
water. While the upstream mainly benefit on water rainfall, the down streams
such as the blue river basins enjoys physical flow of water.

Braune, and Youngxin argue that the demand for allocation of water resources
has witnessed several treaties and pointed out that “in the past 60 years
there have been over 200 international treaties on water and only 37 cases
reported on violence between countries.13.” These magnitude of the problem
resulted in lack of adequate resolution in resource allocation of water
resources.

The impact of Industrialization and mechanization has played a significant
role as a result of expansion projects along the Nile river basin. In 2004,
the Ethiopian minister for trade accused Egypt of using undiplomatic
strategies to control Ethiopia’s development projects on the Nile. Said,
“Egypt has been pressuring international financial institutions to desist
from assisting Ethiopia in carrying out development projects in the Nile
basin.14.”

Farming along the Nile is one of the major sources of livelihood for
communities living along the concentrated Nile river basins, but the ensuing
drought, famine, population growth and land degradation have impacted the
water resources in the Nile river basin. The Environmental Protection Agency
in its 2010 report also argued that land degradation and deforestation in
the river basin due to excessive burning for land cultivation in many parts
of the Nile River has virtually eroded the oasis making it extremely tough
for cultivation and water conservation.15

Thus before the 1950s, there were fewer resentments on the Nile water
resources by riparian countries, however with changing circumstances such as
declining water resources, hunger, and diseases, riparian countries have
decided to renegotiate themselves in order to access the Nile. Kenya
together with Ethiopia are pioneering this process as seen in the
cessionary address to parliament by the Member of Parliament for Kenya Paul
Muite in 2004 who remarked “Kenyans are today importing agricultural produce
from Egypt as a result of their use of the Nile water.” In a similar
statement, Moses Wetangula, the assistant minister for foreign affairs
remarked “Kenya will not accept any restriction on use of lake Victoria or
the river Nile” and stated ” it however does not wish to be alone ranger in
deciding how to use the waters, and has consequently sought the involvement
of involved countries.”16

Methodology

Conflict Theory and the Collier-Hoeffler Model

Kofi Anan reiterated that “Unsustainable practices are woven deeply in to
the fabric of modern life. Land degradation threatens food security. Forest
destruction threatens biodiversity. Water pollution threatens public health,
and fierce competition for fresh water may well become a source of conflicts
and wars in the future.”

This statement by Kofi Anan is buttressed by Amery when he alluded to the
Egyptian Member of Parliament’s assertion that Egypt’s “national security
should not only be viewed in military terms, but also in terms of wars over
waters17.” The horn of Africa has been bedeviled by conflicts, both
interstate and civil wars for several years now. These conflicts are mainly
concentrated on the north east and central Africa. While many of these
conflicts have been disputes over land occupation in mainly oil rich areas
of the Congo, others have been the issue of diverting water resources. This
paper examines the water scarcity in the North East with an attempt to focus
on Egypt and Ethiopia through the Collier-Hoefer model of theory of civil
wars in order to construct the model on water scarcity with an attempt to
reconcile the tensions over water resources and its effects on the people of
the north East African people.

There have been several applications and interpretations of the earlier
conflict theorists propounded by earlier scholars such as Karl Marx, Lenin,
and Weber. Collier-Hoeffer, also known as the C-H model is one of such
interpretation of recent times. Their analyses on conflict is based on the
framework of many variables such as tribes, identities, economics, religion
and social status in Africa, and subjecting the data to a regression
analysis and concluded that of the many variables identified in Africa and
the examination of the 78 five year increments(1960-1999) in which conflicts
occur, and of five year 1, 600 inputs in which no conflicts occur,
concluded that based on the data set that economic factors rather than
ethnic, or religious, identities are the bane of conflicts in Africa. In
complementing this model with the earlier conflict theory propounded by Karl
Marx, Marx, recognized the significance of the social and interactions
within a given society. These interactions according Karl Max are
characterized by conflicts. Hence, the conflict between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie of the capitalist system forms a synthesis of the forces of
the interaction within the system.18

Marx, again reiterated the fact that these social and human interactions is
dialectical in the sense that when a dominant nation seeks to control
dependent nations or peripheral countries what yields in consequence is the
tension to rebel against the oppressor by dependent states in order to
agitate for equitable and fair share of national resources. This point is
consistent with the C-H model when they argued with empirical data on the
causes of conflicts in Africa, and concluded that economic factors are the
significant predictor of conflict in many parts of the African continent.
Therefore, according to C-H, economic reasons contributed to a large extent
the greater portion of conflicts in Africa19. While these economic reasons
are varied and numerous due to the resources available in a given region and
the allocation of resource whether naturally endowed or man-made, any form
of competition to control these resources or allocation of resources will
naturally generate two outcomes: tension and potential conflict, and
cooperation. In this case, Egypt’s sole access to the Nile for centuries now
has invariably gratified itself as the sole control of the Nile water
resources.

As a result of the 1929 mandate that gave Egypt absolute control of water
resources in the Nile, she has worked to sabotage many riparian countries
through other diplomatic and international treaties. Ethiopia has vowed to
engage Egypt over the control of water resources in the Nile valley basin.
This is exemplified in many water agreement initiated by Ethiopia and the
other riparian countries to abrogate all previous agreement hitherto entered
by Egypt. Consequently, Stars argues that the looming tension between Egypt
and the riparian countries initiated by Ethiopia is a recipe for conflict in
the North Eastern Africa20. For instance, these tensions are exemplified in
Egypt’s response to Kenya’s assistant foreign affairs minister’s statement
when Mohammed Abu Zeid, Egypt’s minister for water resources remarked that
Kenya’s statements were a “a declaration of war” against Egypt and
subsequently threatened Kenya of economic and political embargo.21

This looming tension among riparian countries is further worsened by Kenya’s
continuing threat of engagement. In 2002, a senior Kenyan minister Raila
Odinga, called for the review and renegotiation of the 1929 treaty which
gave Egypt the right to veto construction projects on the Nile river basin,
and said “it was signed on behalf of governments which were not in existence
at that time.” This paper’s argument is further rooted in the idea that
there are emerging players such as Kenya and Ethiopia in the horn of Africa
as major hydro-political powers to engage Egypt’s hydro-hegemonic status.
Prior to the Nile basin initiative in February 1999, Wondwosen, argues that
there have been several similar water treaties such as the 1993 Technical
Committee to promote development cooperation among riparian countries. Also,
in 1995 the Nile Basin Action Plan was launched, and in 1997, the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA) through collaborations with the
World Bank attempted to foster cooperation among riparian countries to
promote dialogue.22

This initiative including earlier treaties already mentioned shows the
magnitude of the problem in the Nile basin, and of course the consensus
necessary to equitably allocate water resources and thereby encourage
development projects along the Nile. In 2010, for instance, Ethiopia
announced that it was initiating a hydro-electric development projects in
order to improve its country’s electric and energy needs. This announcement
few days later saw resentment by Egypt and Egypt attempt to veto any such
policy along the Nile. While Ethiopia is poised to making this project
reality, Egypt has begun galvanizing international support in order to
prevent Ethiopia from undertaking such projects.

Cascao, argued that the asymmetrical flow of water resources in the Nile
river basin and the access to physical flow of the blue Nile by Egypt and
Sudan in the downstream has extremely heighten hydro-political tension over
the Nile. These tensions have attracted the United Nations organizations
interventions and other international organization on matters concerning the
distribution and allocation of water resources in the Nile river basin and
in which compensation are offered to other riparian countries unequal access
to the distribution of water resources, especially those on the upstream who
only benefit rainfall.23

Thus in 1999, nine riparian countries met in Dar Es Salem, Tanzania by the
Council of Minister of Water Affairs of Nile River Basin Countries and
agreed to cooperate in solidarity for equitable allocation of water
resources in the Nile basin as well as for economic integration through
sustainable development.24

This economic solidarity through cooperation is declared in the Nile Basin
Initiative as the shared vision by riparian countries to promote cooperation
and economic well being, while at the same time “to achieve sustainable
socio-economic development through the equitable utilization of, & benefit
from, the common Nile Basin water resources25.” This Nile Basin Initiative
is the first attempt by riparian countries to push demand for equal access
to the Nile, and at the time promoting economic cooperation. Egypt’s
defiance of the NBI and its lack of participation in the NBI’s initial
attempt to convene such a cooperation agreement is a crucial aspect of the
NBI’s objective to consolidate through cooperation in the negotiation for
equitable distribution. The subsequent institutional mechanism for policy
guidelines for riparian countries to agree to follow is set forth by NBI in
order to stimulate cooperation rather than intimidation in the allocation of
water resources.

The following objectives in February 1999 were set up by the NBI as
follows:26

. To develop the Nile Basin water resources in a sustainable and
equitable way to ensure
. prosperity, security, and peace for all its peoples
. To ensure efficient water management and the optimal use of the
resources
. To ensure cooperation and joint action between the riparian countries,
seeking win-win gains
. To target poverty eradication and promote economic integration
. To ensure that the program results in a move from planning to action.

Thus among the NBI’s core functions include among others to promote water
resource management, water resource development and capacity building
enhanced through cooperation. These initiative have proven worthwhile, in
preventing a escalating a major conflict in the region, although there are
still tensions among riparian countries along the Nile. Egypt still
exercises hydro hegemonic powers in the region because of her absolute
control of the Nile basin, Egypt has participated and is willing to
cooperate with other riparian countries in bringing lasting solutions to the
increasing demand of water resources on the Nile river basin. When it comes
down to water resource allocation and distribution, it has always been
sidelined and not considered a significant issue in the solution to the Nile
problem.

Africa’s interstate conflicts in the past have been on a number of issues
such as ethnic and tribal as well as land disputes and acquisitions. The
discovery of oil however has proven to be a blessing in disguise in many of
the oil regions of Africa. In the Congo for instance, there have been
several conflicts with rebels over the control of oil regions of the
Brazzaville. This area has not been spared of violence and mayhem for
several decades now. In Nigeria for example, the Movement for the
Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has created havoc and tensions
culminating in violence and attacks on oil expatriates in the Niger Delta
region. These oil regions in Africa today are bedeviled with conflicts,
violent attacks and conflicts in order to control oil resources. The least
said about the diamond and gold areas of sub Saharan Africa the better.
Similarly, and in consistent with the paradigm this paper takes is the
assertion that water conflicts like many of the natural endowed assets
bestowed on the African continent is a bane for the continent’s development.
In the cases of the Nile, although there is no any imminent conflict,
scholars are predicting that the lack of concrete and up-to-date resolution
on the water policy regarding the distribution of water resources on the
Nile is a recipe for conflict in the region.

Relations of Power

As already mentioned and by extension Herodotus comments on Egypt as “the
gift of the Nile,” has been extrapolated by Egypt in order to exercise
hydro-political power in the Nile river basin for several decades. This
status Egypt has enjoyed for some time now without allowing any riparian
countries along the Nile to negotiate any form of control on water resources
and development projects such as hydro electric power by neighboring
countries. The asymmetrical flow of water resources in the Nile has also
afforded Egypt a position of dominance compared to other riparian countries
who are situated upstream on the Nile. The Nile’s downstream is currently
housed by Egypt and Sudan, consequently, Sudan’s attempt to renegotiate
Egypt’s unilateral control on the Nile27.

In 1959, a water agreement signed between Egypt and Sudan gave Egypt 55bcm
and 18bcm to Sudan. Again this uneven allocation of resource points to
asymmetrical power relations of riparian countries ability to negotiate
Egypt to access water resources28. Cascao, provides a theoretical
understanding on this hydro power hegemony of Egypt in controlling water
resources. And indicated that the hegemonic power of Egypt is due to many
factors in the horn of Africa, but argues that this hegemonic status is
about to end as counter hydro hegemonic powers are beginning to emerge in
order to contest Egypt’s long standing hegemony in the region. I totally
agree with Cascoa, and in fact her analysis is in line with my argument that
the position Egypt finds herself is about to change due to first the
declining rate of water resources in the Nile.

This is because in the past when life was booming riparian countries made no
mention of inequity if water resources however, with the emergence global
water crisis due to global warming these riparian countries are beginning to
contest power relation on the access to the Nile. Cascao points to “apparent
consent” to illustrate the apparent lackadaisical attitudes of consent by
riparian countries. This apparent consent, Cascoa argues was latent consents
by riparian countries along the Nile on many agreements that were signed as
far back in 1902. Ethiopia is a case in point. In many of these water
treaties Reginald points to about 60 water agreements since the first one in
1902 which either ignored Ethiopia or Ethiopia decided to apparently consent
to by keeping mute to the issue. But what is significant is a looming civil
war among riparian countries. There have been scuffles between Sudan and
Burundi, also Ethiopia and Eritrea and Rwanda and Somalia in the past
several decades without totally engaging Egypt’s hydro-hegemonic power in
the region, given the emerging hydro political configuration that is
beginning to unravel29.

In order to understand the relations of power and dominance in regards to
the situation in the Nile river basin it is prudent to again invoke Cascao
analysis of power and dominance as they significantly hinges on the
Ethiopia’s counter hegemonic strategy in the Nile river basin for some time
now. Cascao begins by citing Gramsci’s definition of hegemony as “political
power that flows from intellectual and moral leadership, authority, or
consensus as distinguished from armed force30″ she continues to argue
“power is relational and the outcome of hegemonic power relations is
determined by the interaction of diverse actors” diverse actors for me seem
meaningful and significant here in terms of the power relations here. It can
be recalled that there are ten riparian countries each diverse with varied
needs and demands in regard to the fair allocation of water resources in the
Nile. This diversity is yet galvanized for a common interest as seen in the
Nile basin initiative put forth by the nine riparian countries.

Once gain the significant portion Egypt occupies comes under a counter
hegemonic truce by riparian countries to renegotiate earlier treaties
concerning the Nile river allocation of resource which is consistent with
Cascao assertion that “power relations are not static or immutable” and
points to a dialectical thesis of challenging the status thereby bringing in
new status quo with alternatives. This dialectics is one earlier propounded
by Marx and Lenin in their conflict theories regarding the suppression of
groups and their simultaneous revolt of the existing status quo. In the case
of the river basin, these riparian countries see themselves as having
asymmetrical power relations with Egypt, and because Egypt’s consistent
dominance in both economic and hegemonic political relations in the sub
region, there is an attempt to contest existing status quo as seen in the
earlier water treaties and allocation of resources in the Nile basin.

Based on the accusations and counter accusations on the allocation of water
resources along the Nile, Ethiopia like Egypt have both galvanized for
support in terms of international diplomacy and legitimacy over the use of
resources in the Nile. While Egypt continues to maintain its legitimacy
based of the earlier water agreements and proclamations that exclusively
gave Egypt dominance with right to veto any development projects, Ethiopia
has taken its stands to engage Egypt on talks to renegotiate Ethiopia’s
position of the Nile resources. When it comes to international funding on
the Nile river basin, the IMF and the World Bank has withhold funds for
development along the Nile because of the looming tension between the
riparian countries and has promised not to get itself tangled on the water
crisis along the Nile river basin.31

“Water sharing” or “benefit sharing”

The debate as to whether “water sharing” or “benefit sharing” has dominated
many scholarly discourse on the Nile issue. According to Teshome, benefit
sharing is “the distribution of benefits through cooperation” and argues
furthermore that “benefit sharing gives riparian states the chance to share
the benefits derived from the use of water rather than the physical
distribution of water itself32.” Teshome’s analysis regarding benefit
sharing through cooperation sounds a laudable alternative to riparian
countries capacity to cooperate in order to tap water resources, but this
argument is idealistic given the power relations along the Nile, and the
asymmetrical flow of water resources in the upstream and downstream
countries could be difficult to ascertain. I offer the following reason to
buttress my argument.

Most significantly, the lack of political will to cooperate by riparian
countries is the number one reason benefit sharing could be difficult to
achieve. Several water agreement have been launched since the 1929 Anglo
Egyptian water agreement that gave Egypt the exclusive power to monitor
development activities along the Nile. The lack of political will is clearly
demonstrated by Ethiopia’s “apparent consent” to many water treaties that
has been passed. The most recent treaty the Nile Basin Cooperative Frame
Work Agreement launched in (1997-2007) shows the nature of participation by
riparian countries to cooperate to achieving common goals and the allocation
of water resources. This lack of political will is also consistent with
Teshome argument that the lack of political leadership has exacerbated the
situation to the extent that at present there is no international treaty or
agreement that binds riparian countries together. Although the many
cooperative agreements between upstream and downstream riparian have
sidelined issues bordering benefit sharing in their agenda33.

In addition, problem in benefit sharing cooperative agreement is the fact
that many riparian countries comes from different political and
socio-cultural backgrounds and are therefore prone to series of political
and civil upheavals that will endanger any attempt by riparian countries to
cooperate for mutual benefit sharing. The most significant one is the
Ethiopia Eritrea conflict that has rocked the region for several years, also
the Somalia civil conflicts, the Rwanda Burundi and many others in Sudan has
worked to prevent many cooperative agreement to realize its potential.
Although mutual benefit is essential its implementation to a full potential
is unattainable.

This argument is also supported by Cascao when she argued that cooperative
agreement can be a “battle ground for opposing tendencies” (p24) Not only
that but, also Egypt’s power and international diplomacy over the region. It
is indeed important to acknowledge the role of Egypt’s diplomatic relations
in the past that has ushered its dominance over the Nile. The strategic
position of Egypt on the Suez Canal has been a strategic location for
British involvement in Egypt and for British access to India through the
canal. This important location of Egypt was advanced by British interest in
India34. Benefit sharing or cooperative agreement by upstream and
downstream countries have been in opposing terms for quite some time now.
The recent National Basin Initiative (NBI) has been used as a platform by
Ethiopia to get the 1959 water agreement between Egypt and Sudan annulled,
since Ethiopia was excluded, and for that matter the other seven riparian
countries in order to enact a comprehensive water policy that will promote
the advancement of cooperative water sharing without hostilities.

Also, significant factor that hampers any cooperative agreement on benefit
sharing is Egypt’s diplomatic influence on the region. If all riparian
countries agree to benefit share these cooperative agreement maybe lopsided
and for that matter benefit Egypt more than the other riparian because of
Egypt diplomacy with Britain and US, and the international organizations
including the Arab league. This point is argued in Teshome when he said
“Egypt has been pressuring international institutions to desist from
assisting Ethiopia in carrying out development projects in the Nile basin
.it has used its influence to persuade the Arab world not to provide
Ethiopia with any loans or grants for Nile water development.”

My final alternative is that several water sharing agreements have been
adopted by riparian countries at least since the 1959 between Sudan and
Egypt in terms of allocation of water resources. This allocation which
earmarked 18 BCM to Sudan and 55BCM to Egypt is seen by Sudan as an unfair
deal and have since pushed forward for renegotiation on the allocation of
water resources that has given Egypt an unfair proportional distribution of
resources and for development projects on the Nile. This last alternative
could be dangerous in if physical allocation of water resources are to be
shared among riparian countries through demarcation, this is because land
demarcation and allocation of resources have been one of the dangerous
recipe for conflicts currently ongoing on the continent, to physically
allocate recourses is nothing but to add more insult to injuries. With
emerging hydro-political powers in the region, Ethiopia and Egypt could
dominate other countries and for that matter wage physical wars in order to
control water resources.

On the basis of the above discussions, it can be safely concluded that the
nature of tension in North Eastern Africa most, especially the Nile riparian
countries are on a brink of conflict over the control and use of Nile water
resources. As already pointed out, and by extension Collier-Hoeffler’s
economic analysis of conflicts in Africa did not cite the potential trigger
of conflict as a result of the Nile, what is significant about his model is
the paradigmatic nature upon which his theory of analysis are based. And
since water is a vital part of the economic resources of Africa, this papers
concludes that the water resources just as any other economic resource has a
full potential of tension and conflict over the Nile river basin by riparian
states.

Notes

1.Wonddwossen Teshome B. “Transboundary Water cooperation in Africa: The
case of the Nile Basin Initiative.” Turkish Journal of International
Relations winter Vol. 7.4 2008 pp34-43
Also see Flintan, F. & Tamarat,I Spilling Blood Over Water? The case of
Ethiopia, in Scarcity and Surfeit, The Ecology of Africa’s Conflict. Lind
&J.& Sturman K.(eds) Institute for Security Studies, Johannesburg (2002)
2.Ibid
3.Ashton, Peter J. “Avoiding Conflicts over Africa’s Resources” Royal
Swedish Academy of Science. Vol.31.3, 2002 pp236-242
4.Berman and Paul, “The New Water Politics of the Middle East. Strategic
Review, Summer 1999. 21-28
5.Wonddwossen Teshome B. “Transboundary Water cooperation in Africa: The
case of the Nile Basin Initiative.” Turkish Journal of International
Relations winter 2008 Vol. 7.4 pp34-43
6.Alcamo, J., Hulme, M., Conway, D., & Krol, M. “Future availability of
water in Egypt: The interaction of global, regional and basin scale driving
forces in the Nile basin”. AMBIO – A Journal of the Human Environment,
25(5), (1996). 336.
7.Oxfam 2009 report
8.Kim, U., & Kaluarachchi, J. J. “Climate change impacts on water resources
in the upper Blue Nile river basin, Ethiopia.” Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 45(6), (2009). 1361-1378.
9. ibid
10.World Water Council Report 2006
11.ibid
12.Wonddwossen Teshome B. “Transboundary Water cooperation in Africa: The
case of the Nile Basin Initiative.” Turkish Journal of International
Relations winter 2008 Vol. 7.4 pp34-43
14.Braune, Eberhard and Youngxin Xu2. “The role of Ground Water in the Sub
Saharan Africa.” Vol. 48.2 March 2010, pp229-238
16.Cam McGrath and Sonny Baraj “Water Wars Loom along the Nile” 2004 news
24.com
17.EPA North East Africa 2010 report
18.Ibid
19.UN Secretary General Kofi Anan
20.Karl Marx. “Capital” A Critique of Political Economy Vol. 1, translated
by Samuel Moore and Edward Avelling Ed. F.Engels 1887
21.Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler. “Economic Causes of Civil War.” Oxford
Economic Papers Vol50.4 1998, pp563-573. Also in Paul Collier and Anke
Hoeffler Greed and Grievance in Civil War. World Bank Policy
Research-Working papers number 2355 May 2000
22.J.R. Stars “Water Wars” Foreign Policy Issue 82 991pp17-20
BBC 12 DEC 2003 also see AL-Ahram, 26 February 2004
23.Ibid also see Ana Elisa Cascao “Ethiopia- Challenges to Egyptian hegemony
in the Nile Basin” Water Policy 10 supplement 2 (2008)
24.Ana Elisa Cascao “Ethiopia- Challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile
Basin” Water Policy 10 supplement 2 (2008)
25.Ana Elisa Cascao “Ethiopia- Challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile
Basin” Water Policy 10 supplement 2 (2008)
26.The Nile Basin Initiative NBI
27.Ibid NBI
28.ibid
29.ibid
30.ibid
31.Gramci 1971 cite in Cascao (2008) p.18
32.World water council report 2009
33.ibid
34.ibid
35.Cascao “water policy” document No. 10

Majeed A. Rahman is Professor of African Studies at the University of
Wisconsin-Milawaukee.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/nile%20river%20basin.jpg

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS