https://arab.news/gpaxz
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is once again at the heart of regional politics. Ethiopia last week officially inaugurated the project in a nationally televised spectacle, with it hailed by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed as a “historic achievement” on par with Ethiopia’s victory at Adwa. For Cairo, it is a direct existential threat to the lifeline of more than 110 million citizens. For Addis Ababa, it is framed as a 14-year development project. Between these two starkly opposed narratives, the Nile crisis has reignited — laden with mistrust, competing claims and difficult choices ahead.
From the beginning, Egypt has viewed the dam with alarm. It already lives below the international water poverty line. The country depends on the Nile for 98 percent of its freshwater, surviving on an outdated allocation of 55.5 billion cubic meters per year, set decades ago and already insufficient for its population’s growing needs.
The new dam, with its massive 74 billion cubic meter reservoir, raises the prospect that Ethiopia could unilaterally dictate the flow of the Blue Nile — particularly in drought years — leaving Egypt vulnerable to devastating water shortages that would cripple agriculture, the economy and daily life. Sudan, though weakened by internal conflict, shares Egypt’s concerns. Its Roseires Dam and other downstream infrastructure face immediate risks if Ethiopia operates the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam without transparent coordination.
Ethiopia downplays these risks, framing the dam as a purely hydroelectric project that “consumes no water” permanently and only delays its passage. Addis Ababa insists it is exercising a sovereign right to develop its resources and lift millions out of poverty through electricity generation, despite the downstream dependence of Egypt and Sudan.
The new dam raises the prospect that Ethiopia could unilaterally dictate the flow of the Blue Nile — particularly in drought years
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
Ethiopian officials dismiss internationally recognized agreements as “colonial-era.” Cairo’s insistence on maintaining “historic rights,” they argue, is neither fair nor sustainable. Thus, for more than a decade, negotiations have stagnated between Egypt’s discourse of “water security” and Ethiopia’s narrative of the “right to development.”
The latest confrontation unfolded at the UN Security Council. On the day of the inauguration, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty submitted a sharply worded letter denouncing Ethiopia’s unilateral operation of the dam as a violation of international law and a continuing breach of the 2015 Declaration of Principles. Egypt vowed it would “neither recognize nor accept” any fait accompli that threatens its existential interests.
The letter cast Ethiopia’s move as part of a long pattern of violations, accusing Addis Ababa of using the dam for political purposes rather than genuine development — mobilizing domestic support by portraying Egypt as an external enemy. Sudan backed Cairo with a joint statement warning that Ethiopia’s unilateralism poses a grave threat to stability in the Eastern Nile Basin.
Addis Ababa fired back with its own letter to the council, framing the dam’s inauguration as a “national triumph” while accusing Egypt of obstructionism, colonial-era thinking and efforts to destabilize the Horn of Africa.
The international reaction was cautious, even predictable. The US, the EU and China reiterated their calls for restraint and negotiations under African Union auspices but stopped short of pressuring Ethiopia. The Arab League, however, issued an unequivocal statement supporting Egypt and Sudan, condemning unilateral measures and insisting on a binding agreement. Across Africa, the picture is more complex. Several leaders attended the inauguration, signaling implicit support for Ethiopia’s right to development.
With tensions mounting, the central question remains: what lies ahead?
For Egypt, the optimal outcome is a legally binding agreement that sets out clear rules for filling and operating the dam, guarantees minimum flows during drought and establishes mechanisms for real-time data sharing. Such an accord would provide Egypt and Sudan with security while allowing Ethiopia to export electricity and attract investment. Yet this path requires Ethiopian flexibility and genuine compromise — conditions not yet in evidence.
The more probable near-term scenario is continued stalemate. Ethiopia appears content to operate the dam unilaterally, offering vague assurances of “no harm” while rejecting binding commitments. Egypt and Sudan will continue their diplomatic offensive at the UN and in Arab and African forums but they lack sufficient leverage to alter the reality on the ground.
Egypt and Sudan will continue their diplomatic offensive but they lack sufficient leverage to alter the reality on the ground
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
For Egypt, the uncertainty is perilous: in years of abundant rainfall, the damage may be limited, but in drought years, water supplies could be hostage to Ethiopian decisions. Cairo is already racing to expand its use of desalination plants, water recycling and conservation projects, but these costly measures cannot fully substitute for the Nile. Without a binding deal, Egypt’s water security remains exposed.
The possibility of escalation also lingers. Egypt has repeatedly declared the Nile a red line and has emphasized that all options remain open to defend its water security. Military action, such as a strike on the dam, would carry enormous risks — geopolitical, environmental and humanitarian. Yet Cairo’s consistent message is that patience should not be mistaken for weakness. For Egypt, water is not a bargaining chip but a matter of survival. Sudan, while internally constrained, would likely align with Cairo if tensions erupted, though its capacity for meaningful participation remains limited.
At the same time, a more optimistic horizon exists. With trust and political will, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam could be transformed into a platform for cooperation. In theory, the dam could help regulate seasonal floods, store water for droughts and provide cheap electricity across the region. Egypt could even benefit from electricity imports while Sudan stabilizes its grid and expands irrigation. But this scenario remains distant. Climate change may ultimately force such cooperation but, for now, the prevailing reality is hardened positions and entrenched distrust.
Egypt’s greatest fear is that this dam will not be the end but the beginning. Ethiopian officials have already hinted at plans for additional projects on the Blue Nile, multiplying the threat to Egypt’s water security and rendering the search for a comprehensive agreement even more urgent. The deeper issue is Ethiopia’s refusal to commit to any binding treaty or enforceable mechanism. Negotiations over the years have shown a consistent pattern: Addis Ababa reassures verbally but resists signing obligations, consuming time while consolidating its control.
In truth, the dam’s inauguration has not resolved the crisis, it has raised the stakes. While Ethiopia celebrates the realization of a long-sought national dream, Egypt sees a direct challenge to its national security and the survival of its people. Sudan stands between potential benefits and acute risks. With trust absent and positions rigid, the future remains uncertain: a peaceful settlement that makes the dam a symbol of cooperation, a prolonged cold conflict or, in the worst case, a dangerous confrontation.
What is certain is that, for Egypt, the Nile is not just a river. It is existence itself. Inaction is not an option. The coming months and years will reveal whether pragmatism can prevail over narrow nationalism or whether the Nile Basin will remain hostage to a conflict that threatens the stability of one of the world’s most fragile regions.
- Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy has covered conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy