Is Egypt drowning in the revolt over the Nile waters?

Standing over the point where the Nile flows from Lake Victoria in Jinja Uganda, dubbed ‘the source of the Nile,’ one is enthralled by the harmony of nature.

The gentle allure of the river and the generosity of the lake pouring its contents into the Nile unreservedly is thrilling. But as they say, still waters run deep.

Underneath this ecological serenity, a storm is brewing.

In May 1929, Egypt and Great Britain, which was the colonial master of the upstream riparian States of Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, and Sudan at the time, signed a pact on how to use the shared Nile water resources.

In the treaty, Egypt would enjoy at least 48 billion cubic metres of water annually while Sudan would be entitled to four billion cubic metres annually.

Further, the treaty gave Egypt the right to veto any upstream projects in other countries at will. Why did the British sign off the Nile waters so easily to Egypt? History records two potent reasons.

One, Egypt showed potential as an economic powerhouse in the Mediterranean trade routes and held promise in better agricultural production using methods developed over centuries.

With the scarcity of cotton at the time, it was natural its colonial masters would supply it with sufficient water for production and economic returns.

Suez Canal

The second reason for this favouritism is naval defence.

The story of the Nile is also the story of the Suez Canal.

Completed in 1862 after three millennia of effort, the Canal was being managed by a consortium of French, Egyptian and English shareholders.

Upon completion, it was agreed that the canal would serve all, in war and peacetime.

However, the British had experienced unease with this arrangement in the First World War and desired to have autonomy over the Canal.

To appease the Egyptians into acquiescing to their demands, they effectively surrendered the Nile in 1929 and got the Canal in the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936, whence they got rights to station their defensive forces in the Suez.

With the independence of other upstream riparian countries concluded in the early 1960s, clamour for review of the treaty began. 

Ironically, none of the countries declared the treaty null and void, even though the law was in their favour.

They opted to negotiate with Egypt and Sudan.

Half a century later, the negotiations remain fruitless.

Egypt has insisted that any pact must accord it at least 48 billion cubic metres and veto rights on any upstream projects, threatening military action if the 1929 treaty is not respected.

Egypt’s hard stance is informed by its overreliance on the Nile for agriculture, industrial production, and drinking water.

Ethiopia, which contributes about 70 per cent of the Nile waters, decided to construct the Grand Renaissance Dam in 2011 in spite of the treaty.

Egypt and Sudan on realising that the ground had shifted called Ethiopia to a roundtable gathering in Khartoum and signed the Nile Agreement of 2015, allowing the dam to go on.

Blue economy

But the problem is not limited to Ethiopia. In October 2018, 14 counties comprising the Lake Region Economic Bloc in Kenya met to discuss ways to exploit the blue economy resources available especially in and around the Lake Victoria.

The governors agreed to exploit the water resources at their disposal for their region’s development in spite of the 1929 Nile agreement.

Being the natural leader in East Africa, if Kenya defies Egypt and Sudan, the other countries will follow suit resulting in a full-blown Nile revolt.

Around 2010, 6 riparian States upstream signed the Cooperative Framework Agreement to the alienation of Egypt and Sudan.

The land of Pharaohs remains isolated in Nile politics and its capitulation to Ethiopia has emboldened the other States’ resentment.

With these developments, it is evident that Egypt has lost the water wars. The British are gone and with them the credibility of the treaty.

Having nationalised the Suez Canal, it minimised international interest in its affairs.

A century later, the odds are different from 1929. Water levels in Lake Victoria and Ethiopia have dropped significantly while the populations and economic capacities of the upstream nations have increased.

Tellingly, the Nile Agreement of 1929 is not only illegal and unjust but also impractical.

For Egypt to insist on the post-world war agreement would be equivalent to Iran, the former Persian Empire, laying claim to the Silk Road.

-The writer is the CEO of Elim Capital. @Odhiamboramogi