Ethiopia’s persistent refusal to sign binding agreements on drought mitigation regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Nile River suggests intentions that extend beyond electricity generation to potential “hydro-hegemony,” a new study has concluded.
The study, authored by Mohamed Samir, President of African Narratives, offers a comprehensive rebuttal to Addis Ababa’s diplomatic framing of the crisis. It argues that Ethiopia’s current position—often justifying unilateral actions by portraying itself as a victim of “colonial” treaties—contradicts historical sovereign commitments and ignores the stark hydrological differences between the upstream and downstream nations.
“The refusal to sign binding commitments on flow suggests… [a] hidden agenda: future plans for irrigation or consumptive use that would permanently reduce the river’s flow,” the report states.
The study arrives as the dispute over the $4 billion hydropower project remains one of the most complex geopolitical standoffs in the region. While Ethiopia views the dam as a sovereign right and a tool for development, Egypt and Sudan perceive it as an existential threat to their water supplies.
Deconstructing the ‘Colonial’ Myth Over Nile
A central pillar of Ethiopian diplomacy is the argument that existing Nile treaties are colonial agreements forced upon the region. The study, however, utilises historical records to argue that key agreements were concluded by Ethiopia as an independent, expanding empire, rather than a colonised subject.
The study highlights the 1902 treaty between the British Empire—then administering Sudan—and Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia. It notes that this was primarily a border delimitation agreement in which Britain recognised Ethiopian sovereignty over the Benishangul region, the precise location of the GERD. In exchange, the treaty demanded guarantees regarding water flow.
Article III of the 1902 text states that the Emperor “engages himself… not to construct, or allow to be constructed, any work across the Blue Nile… except in agreement with His Britannic Majesty’s Government.”
“Ethiopia cannot selectively accept the border demarcation (which granted it the land for the dam) while rejecting the water obligations attached to that same land,” the report argues, adding that questioning the treaty legally opens the door to questioning sovereignty over the Benishangul region itself.
Furthermore, the study characterises the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement not as a colonial relic, but as a bilateral pact between two independent states, Egypt and Sudan, to manage their shared resource. It also points to the 1993 Cairo Declaration, signed by then-Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, which explicitly committed both parties to refrain from activities causing “appreciable harm.”
Green Water vs. Blue Water
Beyond legal arguments, the study challenges the metric often cited by Addis Ababa: that Ethiopia contributes 86% of the Nile’s water but utilises 0%. The analysis claims this ignores the distinction between “Blue Water” (river flow) and “Green Water” (rainfall and soil moisture).
Data presented in the report indicates that Ethiopia possesses a “sea of rain,” receiving approximately 936 billion cubic metres (BCM) of annual rainfall. This “Green Water” abundance supports the largest livestock sector in Africa and rain-fed agriculture, the backbone of the Ethiopian economy.
In sharp contrast, Egypt is described as a “hyper-arid desert nation” with negligible rainfall of around 1.5 BCM annually. The report underscores that Egypt depends on the Nile for 97% of its renewable water resources.
“For Egypt, the Nile is a matter of biological survival; for Ethiopia, it is a developmental resource among many,” the analysis asserts.
The study also dismisses the argument that Ethiopia should claim a larger share based on its percentage of the Nile Basin area. While Ethiopia holds about 11.5% of the basin compared to Egypt’s 9.5%, the report notes that Egypt’s portion is its only habitable zone, supporting nearly its entire population.
The Stalling of Diplomacy
The study details a “pattern of evasion” in negotiations spanning over a decade. It points to the 2015 Declaration of Principles, which required agreement on guidelines for the dam’s first filling. Ethiopia has since executed four fillings unilaterally without such an agreement.
The African Narratives study closely examines the failure of the U.S.-brokered talks in 2020. The draft agreement produced in Washington included mechanisms for drought mitigation, ensuring Ethiopia would release water if levels fell critically low. Ethiopia withdrew from the talks at the last minute, citing sovereignty concerns.
According to the report, this refusal to guarantee water release during drought contradicts the claim that the dam is solely for non-consumptive hydropower generation. If the turbines are running, water must flow; blocking that flow implies “political leverage” or future consumptive plans.
The report also highlights the controversy over the “Cooperative Framework Agreement” (CFA). While Ethiopia pushes for “equitable utilisation”—interpreted by Addis Ababa as equal shares—downstream states insist on the principle of “no significant harm” and the recognition of current uses, which support millions of people.
Internal Crises and Regional Instability
The intransigence on the Nile file is linked by the report to Ethiopia’s internal political fractures. Analysts suggest a policy of “diversionary foreign policy,” where the GERD serves as a nationalist rallying point amid conflicts in the Tigray and Amhara regions.
“Compromise is framed domestically as treason,” the report observes.
This unilateral approach is said to mirror other regional moves, such as the recent Memorandum of Understanding with the breakaway region of Somaliland to secure sea access. The report notes this move was widely condemned for violating Somalia’s sovereignty, reinforcing a pattern of disregarding international law to achieve expansionist goals.
The analysis concludes that the evidence dismantles the narrative of Ethiopia as a victim. It asserts that true cooperation requires adhering to international law and signing a binding agreement that protects the existential needs of downstream populations, rather than unilateral actions that threaten regional stability.
