Ramy Zohdy — African Affairs Expert
The offer made by former U.S. President Donald Trump to mediate the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam crisis cannot be read in a superficial manner or in isolation from its regional and international contexts, nor from a prolonged negotiation process that has extended for more than thirteen years. This process has included dozens of rounds of talks, meetings, and statements, yet has effectively reached a dead end due to the intransigence of a single party that, from the very beginning, chose to transform a declared development project into a tool of political, economic, and existential pressure on the downstream states, Egypt and Sudan.
At its core, the Egyptian position has never been one that rejects development in Ethiopia. On the contrary, Cairo was among the first capitals to affirm its understanding of peoples’ right to development and to the utilization of their natural resources, provided that this is done in accordance with the rules of international law governing international rivers. Chief among these are the principle of not causing significant harm and the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, both of which are firmly enshrined in the 1997 United Nations Convention, as well as in established international customary law. However, the Ethiopian side, as demonstrated by facts rather than rhetoric, has persistently bypassed these rules and imposed a policy of fait accompli through construction, followed by filling and operation, all without a legally binding agreement. This constitutes a clear violation not only of the spirit of regional cooperation, but also of explicit legal texts.
Discussion of the potential harms is neither theoretical nor propagandistic. Egypt relies on the Nile River for approximately 97 percent of its water resources, with a historic annual share of 55.5 billion cubic meters, a share that barely meets the needs of a state whose population has exceeded 110 million people, in addition to more than 10 million refugees and non-Egyptian residents. Egypt’s per capita water availability has fallen below 500 cubic meters per year, officially placing the country under the threshold of severe water poverty. Any reduction in this share, even a limited one, particularly during periods of prolonged drought, would have a direct impact on food, agricultural, and industrial security, and would threaten millions of jobs linked to the agricultural sector, which contributes approximately 12 to 14 percent of GDP and employs nearly a quarter of the labor force.
Sudan, for its part, is not outside the circle of potential harm. Despite claims by some regarding possible technical benefits, the absence of a clear and legally binding agreement on filling and operation rules exposes existing Sudanese dams to serious risks and threatens the safety of water infrastructure, in addition to the dangers of sudden floods or droughts. This has been confirmed by Sudanese and international technical reports alike. Hence, the initial Egyptian and Sudanese welcome, in principle and within the general framework, of the American call for mediation reflects the consistency of their position rather than any change in it, and sends a clear message that Cairo and Khartoum still believe in political and negotiated solutions whenever genuine political will exists on the other side.
The Ethiopian silence regarding the American offer cannot be separated from a recurring pattern of negotiating behavior based on buying time, fragmenting issues, internationalizing only what serves the Ethiopian position, and rejecting any path that could lead to a legally binding agreement. Ethiopia previously accepted American sponsorship and then withdrew, accepted African sponsorship and then stripped it of substance, and participated in prolonged technical negotiations that ended without results, while continuing on the ground to implement unilateral steps, including the completion of four filling stages without consensus. This confirms that the problem lies not with the mediator, but with the absence of political will.
The American mediation proposal currently on the table, whether it reflects a genuine desire to revive the negotiating track or forms part of domestic and external political calculations, places the international community before a serious test. Either real pressure is exerted to reach a fair and balanced agreement that takes into account the interests of all three states and transforms the dam from a source of conflict into a platform for regional cooperation, or the continued turning of a blind eye to unilateral behavior will persist, threatening stability in one of the world’s most fragile regions.
From a strategic perspective, Egypt understands that the Renaissance Dam issue has gone beyond being a purely technical or negotiating file, becoming instead part of a comprehensive national security equation linked to water, food, energy security, and social stability. Accordingly, Cairo has handled the file with a high degree of discipline and responsibility, combining negotiation, legal and diplomatic action, and the enhancement of domestic capabilities through water desalination projects, water reuse, and the modernization of irrigation systems, with investments exceeding 400 billion Egyptian pounds in recent years in an attempt to reduce the water gap. Nevertheless, these efforts cannot compensate for the loss of a transboundary water resource of the magnitude of the Nile River.
Ultimately, the American mediation offer once again reveals the reality of the situation. Egypt and Sudan welcome any serious and fair effort, while Ethiopia resorts to silence or maneuvering, a silence that can only be interpreted as a continuation of the policy of imposing a fait accompli. Today, the ball is not in Cairo’s court, but in the court of those who insist on ignoring international law and alone bear responsibility for the consequences should this approach continue. Water is not a tool of pressure, the Nile is not a field for political gambling, and whoever believes that time is sufficient to normalize wrongdoing is misreading both history and geography.
Egypt and Sudan Welcome Resumed US Mediation Over GERD Dispute
