Blue Nile River Agreement

(Reuters) – Egypt has looked up at river nations over their efforts to overthrow colonial-era treaties, which represent the lion`s share of the river. In dealing with the major problem, which depends on the general conditions of the agreement, it is worth recalling that the representative of Niger stated that his country, as a landlocked state and home to Africa`s third longest river, Niger, is indispensable to the peaceful coexistence of countries that share an important natural resource. States have established the Niger Basin Authority, the Lake Chad Basin Commission and the Mano River Union, because water must be a source of cooperation and shared prosperity, not a source of conflict or discord between the countries along the river. While the escalation of tensions around the Ethiopian Great Renaissance dam is worrying, the project is expected to have a positive result as it includes three brotherly countries united by history and geography. A few days ago, the situation was tense between the three countries due to a deadlock in the negotiations. Today`s Council debate takes place in a different atmosphere, with the African Union`s initiative to convene a video conference with the Egyptian, Ethiopian and Sudanese heads of state being promising. Recalling some of the results, he said that more than 90% of the problems had already been resolved and that the three countries were determined to discuss the differences that remain within the framework of the African Union. The tripartite negotiating mechanism will present a report to the current President of the African Union in the coming days that may convene a meeting in early July to decide the outcome of the negotiations. The CFA was ready to be signed as of May 10, 2010; Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda have signed the agreement; Ethiopian parliament has ratified it.

However, in arguing that their “acquired rights” in the waters of the Nile would not be protected, Egypt and Sudan immediately announced their intention not to sign the agreement because they opposed the text of Article 14, point b): “The States of the Nile Basin therefore accept, in a spirit of cooperation: … b) not to significantly affect the water safety of another Nile Basin state.” They then proposed an alternative formulation to Article 14, point b): “The States of the Nile Basin therefore accept, in a spirit of cooperation: . . . . . (b) not to significantly harm the safety of water and the current uses and rights of another Nile Basin state,” this formulation was rejected by the upstream riparian states, which assert that “current rights and rights” would anchor the concept of prerogatives, including those created by the Nile water agreements , and have effectively maintained the injustice and injustice that have characterized the allocation and use of water in the Nile basin since the 1920s. The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is a partnership between the Nile Rim countries, which aims to “develop the river cooperatively, share essential socio-economic benefits and promote peace and security in the region.” It was officially launched in February 1999 by water ministers from nine countries sharing the river: Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with Eritrea as observers.

The Nile Basin initiative was a real challenge that could have changed life in the Nile basin towards more development, peace and more equitable use of Nile water[11] Egypt has in the past taken an aggressive approach to the Nile River.

Categories: Uncategorized