Conversations > Unilateralism

Like any compromise text that is fair and balanced, the agreement formulated by the U.S. and the World Bank is imperfect and does not completely satisfy Egypt’s needs. Nonetheless, given its genuine political commitment to reach an agreement, and in light of the fact that the text prepared by the international mediators is equitable and mutually beneficial, Egypt opted to initial this agreement. On the other hand, Ethiopia rejected this text and declared that it will unilaterally commence the filling of the GERD in breach of its obligations under the 2015 DoP.

The unilateral filling of the dam, before agreeing with downstream States on the rules governing both the filling and operation of this dam, is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation between co-riparians that share an international watercourse and amounts to a material breach of Ethiopia’s international legal obligations.

Ethiopia’s announcement of its intention to fill the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam without an agreement is consistent with its policy of unilateralism that it has adopted since it commenced the construction of the dam in 2011 without notifying or consulting with its downstream co-riparians in violation of its obligations under international law.

Ethiopia has recently declared that it intends to commence the impoundment of waters in the GERD reservoir and to begin the filling process without an agreement with downstream states. Ethiopia has sought to justify this position by citing article 5 of the DoP. This position is untenable. Any reading of article 5 that purports to permit the unilateral filling of the GERD is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the text, its context, and the object and purpose of this provision and the DoP as a whole. As aforementioned, article 5 regulates the process of conducting the studies recommended by the IPoE, which are to be utilized to agree on the rules governing the filling and operation of the GERD.

In a further demonstration of its unilateralist posture, Ethiopia has declared that it intends to commence the filling of the GERD during the summer of 2020, which constitutes a material breach of the DoP. Also in contravention of the DoP, Ethiopia has announced that it will not enter into an agreement on the long-term operation of the GERD, and affirmed that it will not accept any constraints on its future projects upstream of the GERD. These positions are wholly inconsistent with international law, and are unacceptable to Egypt as a downstream riparian that will be invariably affected by these projects.

Egypt has repeatedly affirmed its wholehearted support of Ethiopia’s right to development, including by harnessing the benefits of the Blue Nile. However, this must be undertaken in a cooperative manner and in accordance with the applicable principles of international law.

Unlike Egypt, which did not consult Ethiopia when it constructed the Aswan High Dam and when it decided to direct the Nile out of its natural course through the Peace and Toshka canals, Ethiopia held discussions with both Egypt and the Sudan throughout the entire period of construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

Egypt unilaterally requested the United States Government to get involved in the negotiation on the GERD. As the owner of the Dam, Ethiopia, in good faith and to show flexibility accommodated the persistent demands of Egypt and agreed to have the US and the World Bank as observers.

Egypt owing to its continued unilateral approach, has rejected region-wide cooperative frameworks on the Nile River and constructed the Aswan High Dam and new canals without any consultation with regional stakeholders.

The Ethiopian position reflects its desire to fill and operate the GERD without any meaningful protections that would minimize the adverse effects of this dam on downstream states, and to consecrate an unregulated and unrestrained right to construct future projects upstream of the GERD and to unilaterally utilize the waters of the Blue Nile, even if to the detriment of the rights of downstream riparian states.

Filling and operating such a mega project as GERD without an agreement and in the absense of any mutually agreed safeguards that protect downstream riparians against the potentially significant harm that may be inflicted upon them constitutes a clear and present danger to Egypt, which could have serious repercussions that threaten international peace and security.

Ethiopia continues to insist on unilaterally commencing the impoundment of waters in the GERD reservoir. This would be deeply disconcerning politically, as it would represent an alarming attempt by Ethiopia to establish and exercise unfettered control over a vital transboundary river. Moreover, this would constitute a material breach of the Agreement on Declaration of Principles on the GERD that was concluded between our three countries on March 23, 2015, which stipulates that the filling and operation of the GERD must be undertaken pursuant to the guidelines and rules to be agreed between Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Sudan.

Ethiopia finds it extremely hypocritical that Egypt continues to accuse Ethiopia of undertaking "unilateral measures". Needless to say, unilateralism is not in Ethiopia's national character or foreign policy practice. As indicated in my previous letter, it was Egypt that built the High Aswan Dam without consulting Ethiopia. It was Egypt that ignored Ethiopia's protests in the years 1956, 1957, 1980 and 1997, objecting to the significant harm its water infrastructure would cause to Ethiopia and other Nile riparian states. It was also Egypt that decided to direct the Nile out of its natural course through the Peace and Toshka canals. Furthermore, it was Egypt that eventually rejected the region wide cooperative framework on the Nile River that was a result of decade-long dialogue and negotiation among the basin countries.

Ethiopia is not taking any unilateral measures. We are spending so much time and energy engaging in the tripartite negotiation process to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. We believe we have come a long way in addressing most of the outstanding technical issues, but we still have some work to do in nanowing the gaps on the legal issues.

Egypt knows that there is nothing more unilateral than apportioning the entire average annual flow of the Nile to Egypt and the Sudan at 55.5 and 18.5 billion cubic meters, respectively, excluding Ethiopia, which contributes 86 percent of the Nile waters. This, Excellency, is the crux of the matter and why we have not been able to achieve a breakthrough in the trilateral negotiation. In plain language, Egypt had made it a point to use the GERD negotiations to impel Ethiopia to endorse the unfair and unequal 1969 Agreement, which is anathema for Ethiopia, as it would be for any soverign nation.

The unilateral filling and operation of this dam, without an agreement that includes the necessary precautions to protect downstream communities and to prevent the infliction of significant harm on their riparian rights, would heighten tensions and could provoke crises and conflicts that further destabilize an already troubled region

This means that, if GERD is filled and operated unilaterally, in the absence of a mutually beneficial agreement that protects the lives and livelihood of downstream communities, it can place further stress on an already severely strained hydrological reality and endanger millions of people in both Egypt and the Sudan.

Filling GERD unilaterally, without an agreement with Egypt and the Sudan, would jeopardize the interests of downstream communities, whose existence and survival depend on the Nile River.

Any other understanding or interpretation of this commitment would reflect the lack of political will to reach an agreement on GERD and reveal an underlying intention to impose an unacceptable fait accompli on downstream States and enforce the unilateral will of an upstream State on its co-riparians, and turn any talks into an exercise in futility.

Failure to reach this agreement, the infliction of harm on the riparian interests of the downstream States and jeopardizing their water security would result in the escalation and heightening of tensions throughout East Africa and the Horn of Africa and would constitute a serious threat to international peace and security. It would place Egypt in a strategically untenable position and would make the survival and livelihood of our peoples subject to the control of an upstream riparian that has demonstrated a lack of the political will to act as a responsible stakeholder and co-riparian.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that Ethiopia has repeatedly declared that it intends to execute the second stage of the filling of GERD regardless of whether an agreement is reached with Egypt and the Sudan. If undertaken unilaterally, this second filling, during which Ethiopia is expected to impound at least 13.5 billion cubic metres of water in the GERD reservoir, could cause significant, if not disastrous, harm to Egypt and the Sudan.

In particular, 20 million Sudanese citizens, who live downstream of GERD and Sudanese hydropower facilities, including the Roseriers Dam, will be directly impacted and threatened by the second stage of the filling and by the continued unilateral operation of GERD. Similarly, Egypt, which is entirely dependent on the Nile River for its livelihood and for the survival of its 105 million citizens, will be adversely affected by GERD, especially during periods of drought that might coincide with the filling and operation of this dam, which could cause significant water shortages in Egypt.

This is due to Ethiopia’s intransigent positions that reflect a lack of political will to conclude an agreement that takes into consideration the riparian rights of Egypt and the Sudan or that includes adequate measures to mitigate the potential harm that GERD could inflict on the two downstream States. Indeed, Ethiopia appears reluctant to become party to a legally binding instrument that establishes clear rights and obligations for the three parties and that includes robust mechanisms to ensure its effective implementation.

More troublingly, Ethiopia has declared its intention to continue the filling of the GERD in the upcoming weeks. This is an act of unilateralism that Egypt categorically rejects.

Failure to reach an agreement on the GERD owing to Ethiopia’s intransigence and its unilateral filling and operation of this mega-dam, which is the largest hydropower facility in Africa, could have significant, if not disastrous, socioeconomic impacts on Egypt.

Egypt has elected to, once again, bring this matter to the attention of the Security Council in the light of its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The current lack of progress in negotiations, Ethiopia’s continued intransigence, and its policy of unilateralism, which is embodied in its determination to fill and operate the GERD without regard to its impact on Egypt and the Sudan, could have serious ramifications that threaten peace and security throughout the region. Averting this eventuality requires the active engagement of the international community to reach a peaceful settlement to this matter.

Ethiopia has declared its intention to continue the filling of the GERD in the upcoming weeks. This is an act of unilateralism that Egypt categorically rejects, and which constitutes a serious breach of Ethiopia’s obligations under customary and conventional international law, including the 2015 agreement on the Declaration of Principles, and is also inconsistent with the spirit of African solidarity and the principles of comity and good-neighbourliness.

It is deeply disconcerting that Ethiopia has sought to exploit the GERD negotiations in order to consecrate an unfettered right to unilaterally construct further waterworks and undertake future developments along the Blue Nile upstream of the GERD and across other transboundary rivers that it shares with its neighbours. For Egypt, all riparian States of the Nile basin, including Ethiopia, have an inalienable right to enjoy the benefits of the Nile River.

The Council of the League of Arab States at the ministerial level, at its extraordinary session held on 15 June 2021 in Doha, express strong concern about the announcement by Ethiopia of its intention to continue filling the Renaissance Dam reservoir during the upcoming flood season in the summer of 2021, a unilateral measure that would violate international rules in force, in particular the Declaration of Principles signed by the three countries in Khartoum on 23 March 2015, and damage the interests of Egypt and the Sudan, in particular with regard to water facilities in the Sudan, most notably the Rusayris Dam

It is deeply alarming that Ethiopia has decided to continue to execute the filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) unilaterally in the absence of an agreement that regulates this process and provides the requisite protections and guarantees for the rights and interests of downstream States, including the safety of their hydropower facilities and waterworks.

Accordingly, I am writing to inform you that Egypt categorically rejects this further act of unilateralism and intends to bring this matter to the attention of the Security Council. Ethiopia’s persistent policy of unilateralism, and the adverse impacts on Egyptian riparian rights and interests that will result from the continued unilateral filling and operation of the GERD, will have serious political ramifications that could threaten peace and security throughout the region.

This act of unilateralism constitutes a further material breach by Ethiopia of the Agreement on Declaration of Principles concluded between Egypt, Ethiopia and the Sudan on 23 March 2015. This Agreement clearly and unequivocally requires Ethiopia to reach a legally binding agreement on the filling and operation of the GERD before undertaking the filling of the reservoir of this dam.

Therefore, Ethiopia’s attempt to disrupt the Sudan’s agricultural capabilities by imposing its hegemony in a unilateral manner with regard to the filling and operation of the GERD is extremely dangerous and threatens our promising emerging agricultural renaissance and the Sudan’s widespread strategic agricultural projects.