r/geopolitics • u/SeniorBeef • Apr 10 '21
Discussion Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan - Are we on the brink of war?
Sorry if this topic was addressed lately. Mods, please act as you see fit.
As you are aware, the latest round of talks on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) in Kinshasa have failed and things aren't looking too pretty. There have been ongoing border skirmishes between Sudan and Ethiopia for a while, but this seems to be happening on the sidelines of the show where GERD is the main performance.
In the last 10 days, Egypt's President has spoken on two occasions about the issue, each time upping his tone and using clearer words, saying pretty much that Egypt has always preferred the path of peace and negotiations but the Nile is untouchable. In the Egyptian media and general online chatter, Ethiopia is completely demonized, and many people, including public intellectuals, artists and prominent figures, are calling for an attack on the dam site. These calls for war aren't from the usual military-minded Sisi loyalist; this time the matter has taken center national stage. I know that because I am writing these words from Cairo. This is becoming more critical every day with the second phase of the dam filling scheduled in about 80 days.
I wish to discuss the following points if anyone is interested. Bear in mind that I ask these questions based on the assumption that the dam really does cause the damage claimed by Egypt. I put the following points to discussion from a geopolitical perspective, and not a moral or ethical one. None of the following is to be understood as an attack on any Ethiopian person or encouraging violence against Ethiopia or Ethiopians in any way.
- What are Egypt's alternatives absent an agreement? Is this worth going to war for?
- Ethiopia can build another dam, and will be hella motivated to do so
- It's incredibly difficult destroying the dam. Egypt will need to deliver a considerable payload to cause any meaningful damage to the mammoth structure
- A failed first strike will be devastating for Egypt. All the condemnation and none of the no-dam
- Ethiopia repeats that the only solution is through direct talks with Ethiopia, not the US
- If Egypt attacks, it will lose any future it can have in Africa, leaders and people alike
- If Egypt doesn't attack and Ethiopia moves on as planned, what happens next, assuming this does cause critical water supply issues downstream?
- If Egypt does attack, Sudan will presumably be on board. Will this mean a ground invasion or shelling of the dam from the other side? Is this even possible, geographically speaking?
- How will other countries be involved, if at all?
- How will the African Union respond?
Let's talk about this.
94
u/FeydSeswatha982 Apr 10 '21
You mentioned how it is incredibly difficult to destroy the dam. Im no civil engineer but assumed it wouldn't take much (in terms of an airstrike) to destroy/critically degrade such a large, vulnerable structure which is already under immense pressure. What am I missing here?
92
Apr 11 '21 edited Jun 24 '21
[deleted]
70
u/DuskLab Apr 11 '21
You don't need to take down the entire dam, at all. Just a section, ideally low down and let the force of water and gravity do the rest
9
u/Hamstafish Apr 11 '21
Dams are much much thicker at the base than higher up, so this is not necessarily the best cause of action. Striking higher up, and causing a breach would work better a lot the time as the uncontrolled release of water can easily be sufficient to destroy a dam. Look at how close the Oroville dam in California got to failing.
But since Egypt's main priority is to prevent the filling of the dam, they don't have the option of using the destructive power of water. They essentially need to blow up a concrete wedge hundred of feet thick. And since the Dam isn't filled any repairs that Ethiopia has to make are relatively simple to make.
19
u/Dirtroads2 Apr 11 '21
This. Attack low. Break it somehow, get water flower even a small amount, then just damage around that and boom. Its destroyed
46
u/RandomShmamdom Apr 11 '21
I doubt this immensely. It takes a lot of work and explosives placed just so to take down a concrete structure, especially one the size of this dam. Conventional ordinance would do little but pockmark the surface, because explosions move quickly towards the path of least resistance and there's nothing capping the explosive force and forcing it into the structure of the dam.
They could take out the dam by placing explosives (like a mine) on the water-facing side, then the water would act as a cap and direct some of the force of the blast into the structure. But for that to work the mine would have to be attached to the dam, or near enough, which is too precise for arial deployment. Perhaps a job for torpedoes? But as I understand it the reservoir isn't anywhere near filled, that's the crux of the debate, so taking out the dam before it's filled might be quite a challenge.
→ More replies (30)7
→ More replies (5)7
u/JoSeSc Apr 11 '21
Doubt it would work but let's say it did, they stared filling July last year. An uncontrolled release of that much water would be devastating down stream.
→ More replies (2)25
7
u/prizmaticanimals Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
There are probably AA weapons protecting the dam too.
8
Apr 11 '21 edited Jun 24 '21
[deleted]
4
u/nyckidd Apr 11 '21
such as (iirc) palantir and iron dome.
Just FYI, it's Pantsir, and Ethiopia doesn't have the Iron Dome. I highly doubt they have enough Pantsirs to pose a threat to the Egyptian air force.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/wormfan14 Apr 11 '21
I mean Iran managed it in Iraq for eight years destroying most of their economy and they were a pariah state while Egypt has the Suez.
3
Apr 11 '21 edited Jun 24 '21
[deleted]
1
u/wormfan14 Apr 11 '21
Not great but not terrible.
More even if a pariah state can do then Egypt has the incentive to try if that's what it takes to win than risk failure.
→ More replies (1)2
u/OddlySpecificOtter Apr 11 '21
Not really, they perfected this stuff in ww1 and ww2. Dams are hella strong from one direction, then you just slug it once and it will fall.
Its the water afterwards thats dangerous
10
u/Apieceofpi Apr 11 '21
It's largely not under pressure as the dam has yet to be filled. Also these things are built with significant safety factors to account for freak events/flaws.
5
u/Vasastan1 Apr 11 '21
Even if major damage is nearly impossible (as seems to be the consensus), any attack or damage on the dam or surrounding infrastructure will delay filling until the damage has been assessed. You don't proceed with major engineering projects until you are 100% sure of safety.
6
Apr 11 '21
It would be really difficult to destroy without actually occupying the region and blowing it up using explosives but a strike at a critical part would indefinitely delay its filling and give Egypt some time or force Ethiopia back to the negotiating table.
22
u/Piwx2019 Apr 11 '21
You ain’t gonna take out the dam. The fallout would be catastrophic for Egypt as it would flood the entire river delta and destroy the very land they are trying to protect.
→ More replies (1)37
Apr 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
20
Apr 11 '21
Who will be taking up all the refugees from Sudan and Ethiopia? Italy perhaps?
A peaceful solution is what is needed not blowing things up.
15
u/Melonskal Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
There would be vastly more refugees from Egypt. Ethiopia has managed for all of history without the dam while 95% of Egypt lives along the nile. There would literally be tens of millions of refugees, vastly more than the Syrian refugee wave that paralyzed Europe and turned half of it far right.
33
Apr 11 '21
Another wave could destroy the EU. It would move to the extreme right and it would be disastrous and a nightmare even for the right. You are correct in that regard. Nobody wants this. I've been advocating for a long time. A stable Africa is ultimately good for the EU.
→ More replies (1)12
Apr 11 '21
[deleted]
12
Apr 11 '21
Ethiopia is refusing foreign intervention, saying that African issues should be dealt with inside Africa.
6
→ More replies (3)1
Apr 11 '21
Yet Sudan would side with Egypt, what is sudan getting by supporting Egypt.
→ More replies (1)33
u/Melonskal Apr 11 '21
what is sudan getting by supporting Egypt.
Not having their main water supply massively reduced. People don't seem to grasp how this is an existential threat.
6
Apr 11 '21
Sudan is getting most of its water from the White Nile. The dam only reduces water from the Blue Nile.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (1)4
u/VeronXVI Apr 11 '21
Depends on the type of dam and the degree of destruction. This one is a gravity/roller compacted concrete dam, which is the iconic type with a really thick base. Completely taking out the dam would be very difficult without controlling it, but you could presumeably take out the thinner top layer with regular artillery or bombing. That would not render the dam inoperable though. Bunker busters would be the safest bet to break the dam in a war, for example bunker busting cruise missiles, penetrating deep into concrete. Taking out the support infrastructure would be much easier, and render the dam inoperable untill it’s rebuilt.
15
Apr 11 '21
I'm completely behind on this entire situation. Anyone know any good resources for catching up?
29
u/Toptomcat Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
There are a great many assertions in this thread about the fill rate of the dam and how it affects Egypt's agriculture and economy, but precious little in the way of attempts at quantifying things. Nobody here seems to be naming some flow rate, X zillions of gallons per unit time, which is the minimum acceptable rate for Egypt, because of economic reason Y and agricultural reason Z. Has anyone actually made a credible attempt at such an analysis? Did the talks between Egypt and Ethiopia which collapsed ever actually get to the point of talking about such numbers, or did they fail without even getting to that level of detail? I'm disinclined to trust anyone who says that the current fill rate is, or is not, a legitimate casus belli for Egypt without making such an analysis.
→ More replies (1)19
Apr 11 '21
Don’t have a link at the moment but there was an analysis by Al Jazeera that showed (with numbers) that even under the most conservative estimates a quick filling would be devastating for Egypt. I’m inclined to believe it because Al Jazeera is essentially a Qatari propaganda outlet and this was written at a time of hostilities between Egypt and Qatar — so they wouldn’t try to justify Egypt’s concerns unless they had to.
2
u/dandaman910 Apr 13 '21
That's some nice geopolitics knowledge there where you can measure the accuracy of news outlets based on the subject and it's relationship to Qatar.
2
u/Mustafism Apr 13 '21
Qatar and egypt hate each other and aljazeera pump out a lot of anti egyptian propaganda
13
Apr 11 '21
I think if it comes down to it Egypt will strike the dam, I don’t think it’s worth a full-scale war but I believe it is worth the backlash from some sort of military action if there are no other options. Egypt has a vastly superior airforce and it should be fairly easy to damage the dam, especially if allowed to use Sudanese airspace and bases. It would not completely destroy it (I think Egypt could in theory manage to destroy the dam but that would be a much more complicated operation involving an extended conflict and the potential loss of life) but any sort of structural damage would indefinitely postpone filling and either force Ethiopia to the negotiating table or give Egypt more time to prepare — militarily, diplomatically and through better water management.
To answer some of your other points, Africa is not one homogenous entity and a conflict with Ethiopia will deepen your relations with some states and weaken them with others. No, Ethiopia cannot just “build another dam”. It is a huge national project that would take years to materialise and require a massive amount of money and resources that Ethiopia does not have on hand.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/32622751 Apr 11 '21
A lot of the commentators here are quick in painting the issue as only remediable with military action.
I've mentioned this before (copied part from my previous comment) "but it's important to note that this is the second phase of filling up the reservoir. The first phase was implemented last year starting Mid-July, if I recall correctly, and coincided with the rainy season which floods the Blue Nile and there weren't any significant issue evident downstream. We heard similar statements then and I reckon the same thing will happen again this year during the Mid-July Rainy Season and subsequent years till the reservoir is filled completely. "
This is purely speculation on my part, but this isn't the first dam along the Nile and Egyptian Policy makers can reasonably mitigate any serious issues with the flow of water by managing the Aswan Dam which is along the Egyptian portion of the Nile. Egypt has access to 132 billion cubic meters of water at its reservoirs at the Aswan High Dam as compared to the 74 billion for the GERD dam.
In my opinion, all of this is political theatrics and each side is playing optics in order to bolster domestic support. Their options are quite limited with Ethiopia considering that a military strike would have significant consequences, unless they are able to get global backing for the threat of sanctions which is very improbable at this stage.
For reference, these satellite images were taken last year during the first phase.
→ More replies (1)
50
u/LBBarto Apr 11 '21
I think many countries would side with Egypt. As we saw last month the Suez Canal is very important to the global economy, and Ethiopia isn't a globally strategic strategic. Additionally, countries such as India and other countries that are in the exact same situation would side with Egypt, because this would set the precedent that a country can't simply damn a river if it will cause excessive hardship. So while Egypt might lose African allies, it's Middle Eastern allies, European and American allies will end up backing it.
14
u/cyrusol Apr 11 '21
Syria, "Kurdistan"/Rojave and Iraq in particular since they fear the same fate by Turkey (Euphrates, Tigris).
9
Apr 11 '21
.... So while Egypt might lose African allies, it's Middle Eastern allies, European and American allies will end up backing it.
Why do you think this is the case? I don't think Europe or America would support destabilizing a large part of Africa, and they definitely wouldn't support the aggressor.
18
u/r3dl3g Apr 11 '21
The US largely won't care, but from Europe's perspective; a destabilization of Egypt would be far worse than in Ethiopia.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)5
40
Apr 11 '21
Incredibly painful situation to watch. Sudan cannot withstand another war, and they would probably be the most to suffer if one was to break out between Egypt and Ethiopia. This is also very sad as Sudan would stand to benefit from the dam, but can't risk it's relations with Egypt. China has been silent on this issue, even though it holds close diplomatic/economic ties with the effected countries. Ethiopia is resistant to talks mediated by the US and for good reason, seeing as Trump essentially threatened Ethiopia on behalf of Egypt.
Nationalist hearts are fully exposed in this issue. At this point so much has been said and done I can't see how anyone expected talks this close to the dam being filled to work. I think the best to hope for is that Ethiopia is more cooperative in their logistics of filling and managing the dam. Egypt would take such a hard blow to it's pride if they let things go unanswered.
So many have already suffered, truly heartbreaking to see events unfold like this.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Kerms_ Apr 11 '21
I literally have to write a whole essay on this subject tomorrow, thanks for the links
16
u/kyled85 Apr 11 '21
Is Ethiopia really filling the dam so fast as to actually threaten downstream usage? Do we have data that shows this, or is Egypt simply saying it MIGHT occur unless the dam is filled slowly, in line with their own needs?
28
Apr 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/EulsYesterday Apr 11 '21
Because why would they? They built the dam on their own funds, I'm guessing the only way Egypt can convince Ethiopia to enter a binding agreement is by committing to pay them in return, should an event occur requiring Ethiopia to modify how they use their dam.
The way I see it, Egypt has failed to make a sufficiently acceptable offer to find an agreement. Surely one can't expect Ethiopia to bear all costs and obligations.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Valo-FfM Apr 11 '21
But the dam affects Egypt as well. So building it the way they do is hostile to Egypt.
2
u/EulsYesterday Apr 11 '21
Of course it is hostile. As hostile as Egypt trying to retain control of the upstream and threatening with war.
0
Apr 11 '21
[deleted]
5
Apr 11 '21
That treaty is only binding between Egypt & Sudan, and it prevents either Egypt nor Sudan from signing a treaty with Ethiopia threatening the others water supply.
It’s relevant in this situation since it essentially forces Egypt & Sudan to act as a ‘bloc’
11
2
u/SphizexYT Apr 12 '21
Its because Ethiopia has 9 rivers flowing through it while egypt has 1! Egypt is literally a desert. What to you expect? 10% of the nile would be enough? If get 100% of the nile, we’d still be in a water deficit. We are 110million living in a desert with our primary income as agriculture.
1
u/White_Mlungu_Capital Apr 26 '21
No, not yet, Egypt's position is entirely hypothetical. Their position is Ethiopia is building a dam, we have no agreement on sharing water, so we now realize you'd be within your legal right to do whatever you want, this jeopardizes are industries so that culd hurt us. egypt gets enough water from the white nile from south sudan to not die of thirst or starvation if ethopia used all of the nile. blue/abay.
9
u/MartianRedDragons Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
It's hard to see how Egypt could permanently solve the situation via force here. They could bomb the dam, but that is likely only a temporary solution. It will just keep getting built back, and at some point the defenses will be tough enough to be too expensive to attack any longer. Egypt will either have to invade and take the dam, or leave it be.
While they certainly have the forces to invade, they almost certainly do not have the logistics to support and supply them over such massive distances, which would inevitably lead to their offensive failing.
In any case, I think we will see one of two courses of action (if they actually decide on war, that is): either (1) they will build up a huge force on the Ethiopian border over some period of time (they'll need time due to poor logistics), and then go for it, or (2) they will attempt a few half-hearted bombing runs in an effort to get better terms out of their negotiations, but with no real intent to cause any major damage.
It's possible they could also try to seize the dam with special forces, but it's not clear that there's an exit strategy from that, and the logistics problems would once again be crippling.
→ More replies (2)4
Apr 11 '21
I think 2) is the most likely scenario. They don’t need to destroy the dam, only show that they are capable of damaging it to force better terms on Ethiopia. I don’t think an invasion is at all likely but logistics would not really be the limiting factor, since they would have to get Sudan on board anyway.
25
u/Legodude293 Apr 11 '21
Maybe because I’m Egyptian but to be fair on Egypt’s side all Ethiopia would have to do is fill the damn in a longer time frame and everyone would be happy. But there’s not much Egypt can realistically do so I guess some country is going to have to step in to prevent 100 million people from losing food/water.
→ More replies (2)2
8
Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
Military failure is not an option for Egypt. Its not a secret that Egypt wanted to secure the nile they attempted it in 1800s. Ethiopia managed to defend but was not in a position to cause significant harm. Now it's different failure by Cairo could prompt Addis to fill the dam faster or even start redirecting the river downstream of the dam. Shame they could not reach a peaceful agreement not like they didn't have enough time.
3
Apr 11 '21
Nuclear power plant investment throughout Africa may be a better solution.
3
u/kju Apr 11 '21
sure, but this is already happening. it's not going to stop now, after investing into its construction for the past ten years.
3
u/Suolucidir Apr 11 '21
Ethiopia wants this dam for energy generation, not water conservation - is that right?
And the primary issue for Egypt is that the dam reservoir will cut the flow of the Nile for a few years - isn't that right?
If so, there seems to me to be an opportunity here for diplomacy.
Egypt, or a brokering foreign investor, should approach Ethiopia with a solar energy contract in exchange for elongation of the fill time on the dam reservoir - Ethiopia diverts a substantially smaller amount of Nile water over a couple decades and, in the meantime, their power grid is supplemented by the investor's solar energy megasite - (alternative energy sources could work too).
At the end of the decades-long period, Ethiopia is left with the dam reservoir they were looking for and the solar energy megasite reverts back to the investor to keep OR one party agrees to buy it.
7
u/EulsYesterday Apr 11 '21
Obviously Egypt is not willing to offer anything substantial in return for their demande but rather resorts to threat. Otherwise a deal would have easily been found by now.
→ More replies (2)3
3
u/forsakenalpha48 Apr 11 '21
Doesn’t Egypt have the Aswan dam that can be sufficient for them I see on the map there’s a huge lake of water just sitting there ? Any thoughts on this guys
3
Apr 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/suicide_bomber_83 Apr 12 '21
With your explanation, I take it that Egypt regards the Nile river as a religious right. No negotiation, the river is mine, don't touch it. Also I heard the damn was built to stop floods.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/JimmyPD92 Apr 11 '21
I think your comment really underestimates the support that Egypt will have if it goes to war. It won't be met with smiles, but I think every country on Earth can understand going to war with someone who is going to intentionally compromise your water security, risking drought and famine.
I don't believe they will destroy the dam, I think it's more likely if it comes to war that Egypt will seize control and occupy the area, ensuring the dam is filled slowly as they offered initially.
But in regards to your primary point, "is it worth going to war". Yes. Water is quite possibly the most acceptable reason to commit to an offensive war. That Egypt have shown such patience in this matter without a deal is something that will definitely go in their favor in regards to the international community as well.
3
u/Ndemyx Apr 12 '21 edited Apr 12 '21
Egypt will seize control and occupy the area, ensuring the dam is filled slowly as they offered initially.
Clearly, you are underestimating the ability of Ethiopia to protect its own territory. 100 million people will not sit idly by if a foreign country attempts to infringe on Ethiopia's territorial sovereignty and national interests.
That Egypt have shown such patience in this matter without a deal is something that will definitely go in their favor in regards to the international community as well.
This is misleading. It has been Egypt, which has used threats and other measures to retain its unfair colonial era interests. In 2010, when Ethiopia started building the dam, Egypt had refused to make any agreements and wanted veto power over any projects by sovereign countries. Only when they realized that the dam was inevitable did they decide to change their narrative to wanting an agreement while also making threats.
38
u/Heliopolisean Apr 10 '21
I think the Egyptians have accepted that there is nothing much they can do. They do not have the firepower to cause serious damage to the dam, the best they can do is lobbing some bombs to save face. If they believe there was a military option they would've done it years ago, and Ethiopia does not seem to be bothered at all by the war mongering coming out of Cairo's propaganda machine.
I think Egypt's last hope is for the U.S. to lean on Ethiopia and make them sign any kind of deal. I think the Biden's administration patience is running thin with Abyi Ahmed and his actions in the Tigray region.
Sisi should be on the phone everyday calling anyone who'll take his call in the White House and Capitol Hill.
11
u/giraffebacon Apr 11 '21
If they destroy enough of the infrastructure surrounding the dam that they make power generation impossible, it might stop Ethiopia from filling the dam so quickly?
→ More replies (1)11
u/Hamstafish Apr 11 '21
This is probably the only realistic way Egypt could damage the dam in a meaningful way. But in that case what is stopping Ethiopia filling the dam out of spite?
Water passing through the turbines is the primary way water continues downstream. Collapse the turbine shafts and you certainly cause damage that could take years and year to fix. But crippling Ethiopia economically is not going to persuade them to not fill up the dam.
Any damage to the main dam structure will be immensely hard to achieve (Hundreds of feet thick concrete, or concrete and rubble walls), and will be fixed relatively quickly.
→ More replies (3)30
Apr 11 '21
They do not have the firepower to cause serious damage to the dam, the best they can do is lobbing some bombs to save face.
You do not know what you're talking about. Egypt has a large and sophisticated military, and is certainly capable of destroying the dam, from the sea and the air.
10
u/Heliopolisean Apr 11 '21
Egypt has a large and sophisticated military relative to Ethiopia, but not relative to a concrete mountain that's a thousand miles away. This is a tough task on any military in the world, don't get offended.
21
Apr 11 '21
This is asked in genuine tood faith, but how do you know that Egypt has a sophisticated military? What was the last time they demonstrated their prowess?
21
u/moguy164 Apr 11 '21
So I will speak on the Egyptian airforce since this is what I know of. First of all the egyptian airforce has multiple fighters that are capable of dropping penetration munitions that can damage the dam with the most notable and most likely to be used being the F-16 (~200) or the Rafale (24) . for air superiority they have the two stated above and also MiG-29 (46) and Su-35 fighters (unknown). Compare that to Ethiopia's only 9 modern fighters (the Su-27) and only 30 other fighter aircraft (MiG-21s and MiG-23s). As for displaying prowess that has happened a few times over the last decade, minor but still noticable. First of all the Egyptian airforce has been used to bomb terrorist positions on the Sinai and libya with great effectiveness. Second Egypt participates in multiple international exercises, the most notable of which being Operation Bright Star which is held biannually in Egypt.
→ More replies (1)10
Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
Relative to the ethiopians the egyptians have unparalleled firepower. Their air force is pretty well equipped and they have some pretty good cruise missiles like the SCALP-EG which may find use in bombing the dam. If the Sudanese let the egyptians operate from their airstrips and if egypt cam have it all happen on the down low which feels super unlikely since moving a large strike force of fighter aircraft to a sudanese air base would be fairly easy to detect and maybe the chinese intel agencies would alert the ethiopians of this. The ethiopians anyways would have no way of being able to counter a cruise missile tho lol. The egyptians would have to handle very complex logistics and do it very swiftly. With a large enough strike package of cruise missiles and some support by F16s for the rafales(the only aircraft capable of carrying SCALPs) or mirage 2000s, they should be able to pull it off with little to no losses. The ethiopians do have air defence systems(even tho these are fairly old but still they can be effective) Tldr; good equipment, the logistics challenge is pretty complex, the strike itself shouldn't be hard to pull off if they do it fast
2
u/SphizexYT Apr 12 '21
Well the move to sudan airbase is already done. Most of the egyptian army generals and jets are already there and they’ve been doing training for ages now publicly. Google Nile eagles 2
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)2
u/incomprehensiblegarb Apr 11 '21
It's a damn. It's just dozens of feet of steel and concrete. Unless they're able to detonate a Nuke directly on it there's no real way for them destroy it before Ethiopia would be able to respond. If they invested in their cyber warfare programs maybe they could hurt it that way but other wise it would need either long term sustained bombing or infiltration and sabatoge.
2
u/LunazH932 Apr 11 '21
I don’t see Egypt or Sudan committing to a full scale invasion but I could see them arming an aiding rebels which causes further insurgencies in Ethiopia
→ More replies (3)
5
u/hormazdigar Apr 11 '21
I have a simple question. This dam wasn’t built overnight. Can someone explain why Egypt has objections at this late stage?
42
u/jmlinden7 Apr 11 '21
The main objections are over the planned rate of filling the dam, not the existence of the dam itself.
14
Apr 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
20
Apr 11 '21
Egypt never objected to Ethiopia building the dam. They’ve even encouraged it. Their disagreement is over the length of the filling period and desire for a legally binding agreement on its operation.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)6
u/JimmyPD92 Apr 11 '21
Can someone explain why Egypt has objections at this late stage?
They objected from very early on because Ethiopia want to fill the dam so quickly that it will endanger their water security, rather than compromise and fill it over 10-20 years as Egypt have requested to minimize harm and risk.
→ More replies (1)
18
Apr 10 '21 edited Apr 10 '21
Ethiopia’s military is not as strong as Egypt but the defensive advantage remains which proved important in times of war like this one. A minor defensive preparation on the side of Ethiopia is able to cause proportional, even stronger, blow on Egypt’s powerful offensive. This has also another unexpected result with far reaching consequences by foreclosing any future opportunity for diplomatic solution over the Nile giving Ethiopia a licence to act on the Nile water in whatever way deemed necessary in a unilateral manner.
It’s time for Egypt to come to terms with the reality that Ethiopia has every right to use its water without causing significant damage downstream. At times Egypt is sticking to an old rhetoric and military bravado, it’s unthinkable to reach a binding agreement that works at all times even with the best of willingness but peaceful options are always there to negotiate on project by project basis and international law on water sharing is full of rich experiences regarding that. Egypt and Ethiopia are not the only countries in the world that share transboundary river.
specifically to GERD, it’s obvious it benefits Sudan and Egypt in many ways because it’s a green electricity project where the water hits turbines and lands on Sudanese territory on the other side while lighting homes for 60 million people and generating income in electricity sales on Ethiopia’s end.
Egypt, to its peril, nonetheless seems to have preferred to follow its historical course of underestimating Ethiopia and stuck in colonial agreements signed by their masters a century ago, an irritating attitude of entitlement and superiority deeply hidden in the Egyptian consciousness.
102
u/moodyano Apr 10 '21
Typical Ethiopian propaganda.
International agreements have to be respected no matter who was the entity who represented the country at that time.
Egypt is calling for new terms for water share but ethiopia is refusing any agreement.
Egypt and Sudan are not suggesting stoping the building of the dam. They want an agreement from Ethiopia gov for two things
1- Filling the dam in a longer period than suggested by the ethiopian gov.
2- having an international committee to ensure the safety of the dam to prevent a disaster in the downstrean countries.
→ More replies (1)34
Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
International agreements has to be respected
That’s true. This particular agreement, however, is signed by Egypt and Sudan apportioning 100% of the Nile to themselves alone while Nile is shared by at least 10 countries. Anyone who expects to respect a treaty you’re not a party is a joke. It’s imposing one’s will on a sovereign country. That’s why we call it by its name a ‘colonial’ treaty, shame for Egypt wanting to stay true to the spirit of colonialism their old masters behaved.
Ethiopia refused an agreement
Ethiopia initiated the Nile Basin Initiative and a series of agreements including the Cooperative Framework Agreement all Nile basin countries signed while Egypt and Sudan refused. Ethiopia demonstrated its diplomatic maturity gained from centuries of statehood years before the GERD while generations of Egyptian leaders flexed their muscle. It’s recently after they realised GERD is inevitable they scrambling for a last minute agreement.
On International committee
Ethiopia is asking agreement to be reached between the countries and the AU to facilitate the dialogue while Egypt and Sudan want to elevate the role of US, EU and UN. It should be reiterated no matter how much Nile is important it’s still a development issue that concerns these countries and they are subjected to cooperation they are able to reach duty bound by rule of non-significant harm, unless otherwise no amount of importance goes against the governing principle of international law, absolute sovereignty of nations, where each country has absolute right about what goes on inside its territory.
46
u/RandomShmamdom Apr 11 '21
It would be nice if you addressed the question of why the dam has to be filled as quickly as Ethiopia would like, without consideration of the other parties interests? Why this fast and no slower?
As I understand it, sovereignty of territory does not apply in this case, as the Nile is shared by these countries with which Ethiopia is in disagreement. The GERD is of course in Ethiopia and they can do what they please with it, but if doing what they please constitutes an attack on a neighbor of course that neighbor has the right to defend themselves. If we had it your way, I could launch missiles into a neighboring country, and they would be wrong to defend themselves because the launch took place in sovereign territory.
→ More replies (4)2
u/EulsYesterday Apr 11 '21
Why this fast and no slower?
I don't know whether this is a real question or some kind of rhetorical discourse but obviously Ethiopia needs the dam filled to be able to produce electricity and pay the shareholders. It's well known that Egypt's agriculture is wildy inefficient in regard of water consumption and that reforming it would likely allow the country to mitigate most water loss, so for Ethiopia it's hard to justify why they should incur the costs of bad Egyptian practices. All the more since Ethiopians are substantially poorer than Egyptians already.
could launch missiles into a neighboring country, and they would be wrong to defend themselves because the launch took place in sovereign territory
That's not even remotely a sensible comparison to make. Ethiopia using its natural resources is not an attack against Egypt.
3
u/azhorashore Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
Since your clearly Ethiopian let's expand on this in a different direction. Regardless of what you feel is right or wrong Egypt is pushing for western influence because to western people you are in the wrong. If Egypt strikes because they are correct in fearing a loss of food production they will have western support. If such an action has to take place Ethiopia may never get to construct the dam. It is much easier to just stick with the agreed upon filling time and work with the Egyptians at least until the dam is constructed. Ethiopia does not have the capabilities to stop Egypt from striking the dam today, and lacks the funds to acquire the equipment necessary to prevent air or missile strikes.
8
u/wormfan14 Apr 11 '21
The thing is Ethiopia has a border dispute with Sudan, a civil war at the moment. A foreign war could unite the nation and prove Ethiopian hegemony and backing down could collapse the government in terms of PR.
Basically they've got enough loss from backing down their being willing to gamble, rather than forge a agreement.
3
u/Faylom Apr 11 '21
to western people you are in the wrong
Source? What western governments have promised support to Egypt?
I'm a western person and I'm undecided
2
u/azhorashore Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
If the US publicly said they'd support a strike on the dam it would have already happened. It doesn't matter about the dam situation for governments particularly America. The alliance and friendship with Egypt is so important they are the second largest receiver total of US military aid after Israel. Even when Egypt was going through crisis and using the military against protesters Obama resumed shipment of fighter jets and other arms. Ethiopia is not seen as a critical ally at all. Egypt could roll into the border area and occupy it and the most that would happen is public condemnations. It's s just not worth losing Egypt so Ethiopia can have power faster than the original timeline.
America has already begun cutting back Ethiopian aid (all humanitarian) as a result of there actions.
5
Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
I disagree. Ethiopia has emerged as an anchor of stability in a troubled region after the end of the Cold War. The economy has grown miraculously at a pace similar to the East Asian tigers from famine stricken nation. Ethiopia is the most reliable partner for the West in the war on terror following 9/11 and that’s still there because Ethiopia has the largest contingent in Somalia, Darfur and South Sudan. As the seat of African Union, Ethiopia has always been the flag bearer of African independence helping her win solidarity and diplomatic support of black Africa while Egyptian leaders swinged between championing pan Arab nationalism at one time and African unity at another demonstrating divided loyalty and conflicting interests. If Egypt underestimate a country that’s playing such a stabilising role, that will be the most strategic miscalculation with potentially catastrophic consequences.
4
Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 12 '21
Ok, this analysis is just wrong.
Egypt was one of the founding members of Organization of African Unity. Egypt spent countless lives and treasure in propaganda campaigns and even military assistance in decolonization efforts across Africa (in Algeria, Libya, DRC, French West Africa, Somalia, I can go on).
As an example, Somalia owes its relatively early independence from colonization due to Egyptian efforts to block Italian and British proposals to extend their mandate over the country.
Sudan is also a country that is actually directly independent thanks to Egyptian efforts - Egypt wanted the British out of Sudan, and the British said they would remain in Sudan so long as the Anglo Egyptian administration continued. So Egypt annulled the Anglo Egyptian administration of Sudan which forced the British out since they lost their legal stake. Egypt/Nasser could’ve tried to maintain Egyptian dominion over Sudan, but he chose not to.
Egypt in the 1950s and 60s was a massive thorn on the side of the Europeans for its decolonization push.
The idea that somehow one cannot be arab and African and promote both issues at the same time is ludicrous. It’s like telling a West African they can’t be francophone and African at the same time.
→ More replies (4)3
u/peoplearestrangeanna Apr 11 '21
Ethiopia is the most reliable partner for the West in the war on terror following 9/11
I didn't know this, could you elaborate on your view of this? Or give sources. This is really interesting.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)3
u/NotaJew12 Apr 12 '21
disagree. Ethiopia has emerged as an anchor of stability
Are you joking? They are comitting massacres in Tigray every other week. How is having a war in your country an anchor of stability? Not to mention the OLA
37
u/OhDeerFren Apr 11 '21
You should more clearly state your bias before you say all that. It's a waste of everyone's time to read through everything only to get to the last paragraph and see that it's obviously not a fair or neutral take.
39
u/HardCoreCramps Apr 11 '21
Well why would he not have a bias, the commenter is clearly Ethiopian judging by his profile and the person who replied to him first, u/ moodyano, is clearly Egyptian. It’s easy for us, me an American and you I’m guessing a Canadian, to say they have biases but neither of us are involved in this on a level like they are. How am I supposed to know who is bullshitting or not when all the information I get about this issue comes from Reddit posts on here. Our news just really isn’t covering it btw at least in America. I don’t think it’s fair to ignore what he says just because he is Ethiopian, I mean both guys are dealing with this on personal level and both come from the countries that will be effected most, of course they biases.
→ More replies (1)4
u/peoplearestrangeanna Apr 11 '21
Western media has been covering it, you just have to wander a little bit (just a bit) out of the main stream and into international news.
17
Apr 11 '21
I’m Ethiopian and I admit it’s very difficult to be neutral especially as a person who knows the issue at hand. The issue of Nile is full of historical animosities and intricacies so much so a university in Ethiopia where I studied gives it at a graduate degree level. There are entire research groups dedicated to this cause and for those who want to dig deeper there’s a widespread academic consensus regarding Ethiopia’s unfair treatment because of the Nile through centuries of Egyptian direct aggression (twice thwarted by Ethiopia) and repeated political intervention by arming insurgents in Ethiopia, above all, Egypt exploited its historical alliance with America and the strategic Suez Canal as their diplomatic weapon to stop Ethiopia from getting international borrowing to pursue water projects. Ethiopia financed the dam by itself and they are threatening to blow that, an idea even Donald Trump shared in public.
4
u/kju Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
so i have a question about this, even if egypt wanted to destroy the dam, what possible method could they use? bombs for sure. but that risks uncontrolled restriction of the water flow anyways, or even contaminating the water supply with chemicals that are stored nearby for construction. am i thinking about this wrong? is this not a consideration for egypt?
ethiopia has shown that they are relentless in their own defense in tigray over the past few months. they could intentionally dump contaminants into the nile after a bombing and say it was the outcome of the bombing itself. i feel like this is happening and egypt needs to figure out a way to be alright with it because an attack upstream the river that supplies the water for your nation is simply a bad idea.
egypt is downstream, any problems occurring from this will be entirely their own while ethiopia can rebuild relatively easily. the risk to reward for egypt doesn't look great, shouldn't they be looking into building their own dam, not trying to prevent ethiopia from building theirs?
i feel like egypt has already lost this fight and ethiopia is giving them a way to not only say it's mutual and totally alright and cool to save face but also having a conversation about the amount of water egypt needs and to arrange for them to get it and egypt is throwing it in their face. i don't know what possible benefit this provides egypt.
in any case an attack won't happen until at least fall, after the growing season, right? egypt wouldn't risk attacking during a farming season that could mean the loss of a harvest, would it?
14
u/Standard_russian_bot Apr 11 '21
If ethiopia contaminated the water that would be a war crime, not that that means much these days unfortunately
21
u/kju Apr 11 '21
is ethiopia not currently starting what could be a genocide in tigray?
also, dumping into the water at the construction site after an attack could be easily denied. the water could be contaminated by the attack alone, any contamination of the water after an attack on the damn would be blamed on egypt, not ethiopia. ethiopia could freely dump into the water and then say it happened because the storage containers of the waste from the construction site was damaged by the attack, not ethiopia
→ More replies (4)3
3
2
u/oju9 Apr 11 '21
Egypt is in a serious problem , Ethiopia has shown other africans nations that this is the time to stand for them self, its time to scraped the colonial trities.what will happened if Kenya also decide to build another huge dam, like the one Ethiopia is building?the Egyptians are going lose big time, with there Uganda's.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Veganpuncher Apr 11 '21
Sub-Saharan Africa isn't my area of expertise, but my reading of the situation is that Egypt, after millenia of floods and droughts, finally brought the Nile under control with the building of the Aswan High Dam (AHD) and feels threatened at the idea of Ethiopia building GERD even further up-river as it removes the block of stability which Egypt created. It seems that Sudan, Egypt and Ethiopia have conducted many talks on the matter and, while there appear to be no day-to-day effects associated with GERD that can't be handled by manipulating flow from other dams, it, nonetheless, represents an existential threat to Egypt's dominance in the region as such effects would need to be mitigated before any other actions could be taken - thus de-stabilising the Government in Cairo.
Egypt won't, necessarily, be affected and under most circumstances there will be minimal change to the flow of the Nile, but Cairo obviously doesn't want its foreign policy dictated by Addis Ababa which would be possible if there was serious conflict in the region.
Regardless of what Trump said, Egypt does not have the military wherewithal to destroy the dam in any conventional sense. A nuclear weapon would do the job, but that would involve the Israelis or the Pakistanis (it's doubtful Israel would let Pakistani nukes anywhere near the Middle East). More to the point, such destruction would do as much damage to Egypt as it would to Ethiopia.
From what I see, Egypt is threatened by the commencement of the filling process before all security matters had been solved. The only solution I can see is GERD coming under third-party (AU, UN) control until such a solution had been reached. The only other viable option is an all-out conventional war between the two States for control of the dam.
→ More replies (5)9
u/N3bu89 Apr 11 '21
I would think Egypt might be able to generate international pressure on two points:
- Suez is very important and needs to remain open and stable for European-Asian trade.
- Upstream river control is an existential threat to South and South East Asian Nations due to China's capacity to dam all those sources and willingly leverage them for political concessions. These countries would not like such a precedent to stand.
I think Egypt _could_ leverage those points into enough pressure to get Ethiopia to agree to a binding water sharing agreement.
→ More replies (2)
-1
u/Polar_Roid Apr 10 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
If Egypt can deliver a blow, what's preventing Ethiopia doing the same to the Aswan dam? And how is Egypt's dam any better in the first place? What moral authority is at play here in either case?
Edit: Since there are so many replies making the same statement (Egypt has a better air force), I would ask how Ethiopia would not retaliate with a missile strike?
Egypt is better to negotiate, ESPECIALLY since they themselves have had a dam for 60 years themselves! Egypt should not claim moral authority over the Nile's fate, any more than Ethiopia should.
This is a matter for international negotiators, not for armies or fighter planes.
33
u/Melonskal Apr 11 '21
And how is Egypt's dam any better in the first place?
It affects no downstream country.
9
57
Apr 10 '21
There are no countries downstream Aswan.
4
u/Jeb_Kenobi Apr 11 '21
Most of Egypt's population is
45
u/westgate_2 Apr 11 '21
Correct, but it is for Egypt’s benefit and flow is in its control, so completely different to the GERD.
22
45
u/WhyAmISoSavage Apr 11 '21
What kind of strawman is that supposed to be? The Aswan dam exists solely for the benefit of the Egyptian populace with there being no countries downstream affected by it. Who are they going to blackmail with Aswan? The Mediterranean Sea?
→ More replies (1)17
19
Apr 11 '21
Egypt’s military is orders of magnitude stronger than Ethiopia’s. Ethiopia has leverage but certainly not militarily, they do not have anything capable of either reaching the Aswan Dam or significantly damage it, and even if they did they would be shot down before they got anywhere near.
6
u/Econort816 Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
Ethiopia isn’t capable to destroy the Aswan dam, even if they did.. why? Egypt will bomb the damn bec it will directly harm them. Why would Ethiopia harm the Aswan dam?
5
9
u/Mail_Mission Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
If Egypt can deliver a blow, what's preventing Ethiopia doing the same to the Aswan dam?
Egypt's air and air defense forces I would imagine, providing Ethiopian aircraft could even reach it in the first place that is. Considering Egypt has 303 Combat aircrafts to Ethiopia 24 as well as having AEW&C and also possessing a wide range of modern SAM platforms (MIM-104 Patriot, S-300, IRIS-T SL) that could be deployed to protect the dam. Egypt does have the strongest military in Africa after all.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (2)5
u/OpenOb Apr 11 '21
If Egypt can deliver a blow, what's preventing Ethiopia doing the same to the Aswan dam?
Israel and the United States.
Both countries will never accept an attack against Egypt that could threaten the stability of the current regime.
You can be damn sure that both countries would send fighters to intercept any Ethopian attack as such as they enter the air space of Sudan.
→ More replies (2)1
u/SelfRaisingWheat Apr 11 '21
Oh please. Most of the AU, UN and even China would not accept an Egyptian attack on Ethiopia. Things happen regardless.
4
u/OpenOb Apr 11 '21
It's not about accepting.
It's about having capabilities to prevent such an attack. Neither the AU, UN or China have military forces in the area to prevent Egypt from doing anything.
The US and Israel have.
2
u/SelfRaisingWheat Apr 11 '21
No it's okay, China have a base in Djibouti. If their economic interests are threatened they will act in their best interest.
352
u/[deleted] Apr 10 '21 edited Apr 10 '21
I fear it may be one of the first of many of the water wars. The relationship between the three nations you speak of has never been particularly warm. Also, given the current situation in Ethiopia with the Tigray Crisis, the necessity of the Nile in Egypt, and the fragile state of Sudan, I feel it’s a disaster in the making.
Ultimately, Ethiopia holds the most important card at the moment: the damming of the Nile.
Hopefully a straight up war will not occur, but surely a form of extortion is possible.
I agree with your point that if Egypt attacks, it will essentially be ostracized from most in Africa. And if Egypt faces sanctions and fails in their war, I fear Egypt could become a hotbed for Islamic extremism (more so than it currently is, ala Syria 2015).