Yonas Ethio 🇪🇹

THE NILE IS NOT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF EGYPT AND SUDAN: ETHIOPIA CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM ITS OWN RIVER! The latest agreement between Egypt and Sudan, once again reaffirming the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement and rejecting Ethiopia’s independent management of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), is yet another demonstration of their persistent disregard for historical justice, sovereign equality, and the legitimate rights of upstream nations. Let us make one fundamental fact absolutely clear: Ethiopia contributes approximately 86% of the Nile’s water, principally through the Blue Nile and other tributaries originating in its highlands. Yet Egypt and Sudan continue to behave as though the Nile were their exclusive property, with Ethiopia merely expected to obey decisions made in its absence. This is neither equitable nor acceptable. Have Egypt and Sudan forgotten history? In 1929, Egypt entered into an arrangement with Britain, which purported to regulate Nile waters on behalf of territories then under British colonial administration. Ethiopia, an independent sovereign uncolonized state, was excluded. In 1959, Egypt and Sudan went even further, signing a bilateral agreement dividing the Nile’s waters between themselves, allocating 55.5 billion cubic metres to Egypt and 18.5 billion cubic metres to Sudan, without Ethiopia’s participation or consent. Now, decades later, these two countries continue invoking those same arrangements as though they were universally binding international law, demanding that Ethiopia accept decisions it never negotiated, signed, or consented to. Under international law, an agreement between two states cannot, by itself, impose obligations on a third sovereign state without its consent. The Nile is a transboundary river, not an inherited colonial entitlement belonging exclusively to downstream countries. There is an even deeper contradiction in their latest declaration. Egypt and Sudan demand prior notification, consultation, consensus and respect for their water security, yet repeatedly demonstrate little regard for the sovereign rights and development interests of the principal source country. Does consultation apply only when their own interests are concerned? Does international law operate in only one direction? Ethiopia does not deny the legitimate water and development interests of Egypt and Sudan. It recognizes the importance of cooperation, dam safety, information exchange, and preventing significant transboundary harm. But cooperation must be founded on equitable and reasonable utilization, mutual respect and the sovereign equality of all riparian states—not historical privileges, political pressure or unilateral claims. It is also worth remembering that Ethiopia’s security concerns have repeatedly been compounded by allegations and documented tensions involving the presence and activities of hostile Ethiopian opposition groups and armed elements in neighboring territories, including concerns involving both Egypt and Sudan. Regional cooperation cannot be built on selective respect for sovereignty. Let there be no misunderstanding: Ethiopia’s sovereign rights over its natural resources are not subject to Egyptian or Sudanese approval. The 1929 and 1959 arrangements cannot be imposed on Ethiopia as binding agreements when Ethiopia was not a party to them. The 1959 agreement cannot serve as the legal foundation for granting two countries exclusive control over a shared international river while disregarding the rights of other riparian states. The GERD is a legitimate Ethiopian development project. Its operation should be addressed through good-faith technical cooperation and an equitable, mutually beneficial framework—not intimidation, threats or attempts to dictate terms. The future of the Nile must be determined through inclusive cooperation among the Nile Basin countries, respecting the rights and interests of both upstream and downstream nations.