The Need for Multi-Track Diplomacy in the Nile Waters Negotiation
The negotiation of the New Nile Water Agreement by riparian states to determine the sharing of the Nile waters, has reached a critical point. Tension is in the air and no one can predict for sure what will come out of the next Nile Council of Ministers’ meeting that is going to be held in February 2010. Herodotus said that Egypt was a gift of the Nile. Today this adage is being questioned persistently by the upper riparian states. The upper riparian states - Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda - are claiming their rights and advocating the principle of ‘reasonable and equitable utilization’ of the Nile waters based on the 1997 International Watercourse Convention.
Wondwosen Michago, Intern, African Conflict Prevention Programme,ISS Addis Ababa Office
The negotiation of the New Nile Water Agreement by
riparian states to determine the sharing of the Nile waters, has
reached a critical point. Tension is in the air and no one can predict
for sure what will come out of the next Nile Council of Ministers’
meeting that is going to be held in February 2010.
Herodotus said that Egypt was a gift of the Nile.
Today this adage is being questioned persistently by the upper riparian
states. The upper riparian states - Burundi, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda - are claiming
their rights and advocating the principle of ‘reasonable and equitable
utilization’ of the Nile waters based on the 1997 International
Watercourse Convention. In contrast, downstream states - Egypt and the
Sudan - insist on their ‘historic rights’ and advocate the principle of
‘no significant harm.’ The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), which was
established in 1999, is trying to reconcile the two divergent
principles. It is an inter-governmental institution functioning at the
level of the Council of Ministers of Water Affairs of the Nile Basin
states until an agreement on the New Nile Water Cooperative Framework
is reached, which may lead to the formation of a permanent Nile Basin
Commission.
The Nile River has always defined the political and security map of
North-Eastern Africa. There were and still are many gloomy predications
of conflict over the waters of the Nile. The NBI no doubt has a huge
potential to reduce and solve a number of problems in the basin and its
emphasis on basin-wide conflict resolution should be applauded. Some
years ago, Professor Robert Collins, a distinguished water expert,
explained United States foreign policy towards the Nile Basin as one in
which ‘indifference is not in the long term interest of the United
States in North-East Africa and the Middle East’. He further said that
‘it is in the best interest of the United States to use its influence
among the Nile Basin states to encourage the development of the Nile
waters as a whole, rather than for the only principal and most powerful user.’
As it has been said time and again, in the Nile basin, there is no
legal statement which acknowledges that all the riparian states have
equal rights to its water resources. As a result, the question of
sharing the Nile waters between upstream and downstream states is still
unresolved. In fact the extent of the Nile water utilization shows the
direct opposite of the contribution structure. This is to say that
those who contribute more than ninety percent of the Nile water flows
are not significantly benefiting, whereas the downstream states
particularly Egypt are utilising the lion’s share of the River.
To address this disparity, the riparian states formed the
Cooperative Framework or D3 project, which was initiated in 1997 by a
Panel of Experts (POE) with the objective of ‘enabling the Nile River
basin countries to determine equitable entitlements for each riparian
country for the consumptive and non-consumptive use of the Nile waters
for optimum sustainable socio-economic benefits of the inhabitants of
the basin.’
A year ago, there was a high optimism among the basin people and
newspapers were filled with the hope of the Nile Pact being signed
among the riparian states. But, that hope simply did not materialize.
The negotiation of the New Nile Water Agreement is now imminent with
the next Nile Council of Ministers’ meeting scheduled for February.
After the Nile Council of Ministers meeting at Alexandria Egypt, in
August 2009, the riparian states are dived into two clear blocks, the
upstream versus the downstream states. It was reported that the
riparian states agreed on ninety percent of the document but a deadlock
ensued with very crucial and contentious articles. It is noted that
Egypt supported by Sudan stated that the 1929 and 1959 agreements which
entitled them a historical rights should remain as binding agreements
in the Basin.
On the contrary, the upriver states adopted a draft pact that does
not recognise Egypt and Sudan’s ‘historical rights and uses’ of the
Nile waters during the Nile Council of Ministers meeting in Kinshasa in
May 2009. The other contentious issue is Article 14 of the agreement
which reads as follows: ‘Nile Basin states therefore, in a spirit of
co-operation, a) agree to work together to ensure that all states
achieve and sustain water security, b) not to significantly affect the
water security of any other Nile Basin state.’ Egypt and Sudan want
part b) of this article to read, ‘Not to adversely affect the water
security and current uses and rights of any other Nile Basin states.’
Some argue that the NBI’s emphasis on the formal government-level
diplomacy approach to the Nile waters’ negotiation is not solving the
stalemate in the Basin. They insist that multi-track diplomacy should
be employed to build confidence among the basin states and their
peoples. However, thus far, it is only the national governments which
are directly involved in the Cooperative Framework negotiations.
Elements of civil societies, the local peoples and other stakeholders
are not involved at all. The public participation has lagged behind in
understanding what the D3 project is all about and how to take part in
the negotiations.
This author is of the opinion that there is a need to shift the
gear of diplomacy from formal to informal diplomacy. The Nile Basin
Cooperative Framework negotiation is exclusively
government-to-government and too formal, and the interaction between
instructed representatives of the riparian states is occasionally
rigid. The public participation in the negotiation should be encouraged
as people-to-people diplomacy or citizen diplomacy can be, at least
potentially, much more productive and could effectively lessens
prevailing tensions. In no way, is Multi-Track diplomacy a substitute
for formal diplomacy. Instead, it could complement the goals of the
Nile Council of Ministers negotiations. As things are now standing or
better stuck, it may be high time to consider the track that has never
been taken in the Nile Basin
