[ad_1]
November 28, 2020
Sudan boycotted the latest round of negotiations with Egypt and Ethiopia on November 21 over the controversial Ethiopian dam on the Nile River.
Sudan believes that the talks have yielded no results in recent rounds and calls for more trust in African Union experts as part of the effort to close the gaps between the three countries.
The African Union has been sponsoring arduous but fruitless negotiations between the three parties since June 26, in the presence of experts from the United States, the World Bank and the European Union.
In a press release on November 22, following a emergency meeting of the Supreme Committee of Sudan for the negotiations on the Great Renaissance Dam of Ethiopia, the Minister of Irrigation of Sudan, Yasser Abbas, said that it is necessary to change the negotiation methodology to achieve a breakthrough that allows progress in the talks. He added that Sudan continues to adhere to the sponsorship of the African Union negotiations, but seeks a different methodology. Apparently this has to do with a heavy reliance on African Union experts.
This was the first time that Sudan skipped the dam negotiations with Ethiopia and Egypt, which could further hamper already stalled talks between the three countries; The discussions have been ongoing for a decade.
The current round of negotiations, which Sudan boycotted, began on November 21 and was scheduled to last 10 days. The latest talks came as a result of a virtual meeting on November 19 between the foreign and irrigation ministers of the three countries, chaired by South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor, whose country currently heads the African Union.
After the November 19 meeting, Egypt and Sudan had different positions, disagreeing on the methodology of the negotiations. Egypt expressed its willingness to participate in the round that began on November 21. In a November 19 statement, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry stressed the importance of resuming talks to reach a legal and binding agreement on the filling and operation of the dam in such a way as to preserve common interests and rights of water from the three countries.
Meanwhile, Sudan’s Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources considered Pandor’s insistence on holding a new round of negotiations despite reservations expressed by the Sudanese delegation as a clear violation of procedure. In a Nov.19 statement, the Sudanese ministry accused Egypt and Ethiopia of continuing to hold talks that proved futile and were leading to a stalemate.
Ahmed al-Mufti, a former member of the Sudanese delegation to the dam negotiations and a Sudanese expert on international law, said on his Facebook page on November 21 that Sudan’s decision to rely more on Union experts Africana shows that Sudanese negotiators trust the experts to make recommendations in favor of Sudan.
Egyptian experts who spoke to Al-Monitor expressed concern that Ethiopia could use the dispute between Cairo and Khartoum to buy time and prolong negotiations, especially as Addis Ababa currently faces unrest in its country and is teetering on the brink of war. threatening civilian. to tear the country apart. Ethiopia’s federal government, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, has been embroiled in a conflict with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front in the north of the country, which has resulted in the death of hundreds of people. The United Nations has warned that some 200,000 people have been displaced.
On July 21, Ethiopia announced the first phase of filling the dam’s reservoir with 4.9 billion cubic meters of water during the rainy season, drawing ire from both Egypt and Sudan, who have been demanding that the filling the dam does not start until an agreement is reached. was hit. Ethiopia is trying to complete the second phase of filling the dam by next year.
Cairo fears the potential negative impact of the filling on its annual quota of Nile water, which it relies on to meet more than 95% of its freshwater needs. About 85% of the Nile’s water originates from the Blue Nile, on which the dam is being built at a cost of $ 4.6 billion. For Addis Ababa, the the prey is vital to develop its economy and combat rampant poverty in the country.
For Sudan, the dam is important for regulating the waters of the Blue Nile and generating electricity for the country. However, Khartoum wants guarantees that involve the safety and operations of the dam so that other Sudanese dams, notably the Roseires dam, the largest in the country, are not adversely affected.
Other technical issues are pending as well, including filling the dam during drought years that see less rainfall, which could mean less water released by Addis Ababa to downstream countries.
Sudan and Egypt are also demanding that a legally binding agreement be reached to resolve any disputes that may arise between the three countries.
Abbas Sharaqi, professor of geology and water resources at Cairo University, told Al-Monitor that the disagreement between Egypt and Sudan is not fundamental, but is related to procedural issues in conducting negotiations. He said it would be unlikely that Sudan would withdraw entirely from the negotiations, while explaining that Egypt is reluctant to give African Union experts a bigger role in the talks, using the argument that state observers United, the World Bank and the EU have more experience in this field.
The three countries failed to agree on November 4 on the role that experts could play in the methodology and timing of the negotiations. Egypt, however, agrees with Sudan on the need to set a time limit for talks, according to Sharaqi.
Hani Raslan, head of the Sudan and Nile Basin studies department at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, criticized Sudan’s decision to boycott the talks.
“The Sudanese minister for water resources and irrigation contradicts himself, as he previously refused to sign a Washington-sponsored draft agreement in February, in solidarity with Ethiopia’s position,” Raslan told Al-Monitor.
At the request of Egypt, the United States tried to mediate the talks last year and earlier this year in Washington with the participation of the World Bank. Negotiations, which lasted four months, came to a standstill in February when Egypt unilaterally signed a draft agreement to fill and operate the dam. Ethiopia did not attend the talks on the day of the signing, and Sudan refrained from signing.
Raslan questioned the feasibility of giving a greater role to African Union experts, saying that “African experts may be biased and may also not measure up to the required scientific and professional standards.”
“Sudan’s proposals will only serve Ethiopia’s interests, returning to ground zero in the negotiations in terms of proposals, scenarios and formulations. This will allow Ethiopia to only serve its interests, ”Raslan said.
[ad_2]
