The UN Security Council did not present Egypt and Sudan in their crises with Ethiopia over the Nile waters with anything new. Rather, the 15 members of the UN called on the three parties to negotiate through the African Union, a position consistent with the desire of the Ethiopian side, and disappointing the Egyptians.

In its session, which took place Thursday, in New York City, USA; The Security Council urged Cairo, Khartoum and Addis Ababa to have a dialogue on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

On Friday, the United Nations announced its readiness to support the three countries to resolve the dispute, without indicating what measures and steps they could take, and it did not express its opinion on the Tunisian proposal to the Security Council calling for a halt to unilateral actions on the Nile River.

The United Nations Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Parfait Onanga, said in a statement on the organization’s website that recent negotiations within the framework of the African Union have not resulted in progress, and that “the United Nations is ready to provide a win-win solution.”

Meanwhile, the threatening speech returned to the tongues of Egyptian officials, and prior to the Security Council session, the Egyptian Minister of Defense, Lieutenant-General Mohamed Zaki, said in his meeting with some army officers, that the armed forces, with their combat capabilities and advanced weapons, are capable of deterring anyone who tries to compromise the security of country and people.

For his part, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry told the Security Council that he had previously warned Egypt against seeking to impose control and seize a river on which it depends for survival.

He added that if Egypt’s water rights are damaged or its survival is endangered, it has no alternative, but to protect and preserve its inherent right to life.

interests before justice

The Egyptian expert interested in the Nile water file, Dr. Abdel Nabi Abdel Muttalib, said that “Egypt has a just cause, but the international community does not look at justice as much as it does with interests.”

He added to “Arabi 21”, that “Ethiopia represents in the global conscience the memories of slavery, human trafficking, and the injustice of the white man to his brother in brown Africa; Hence, the bias of the international community to Addis Ababa was expected.

Egypt and Sudan demand a legal agreement binding on all parties, including Ethiopia, that guarantees a mechanism for filling and operating the dam during a long-term drought, and defines a mechanism for settling disputes, in addition to managing the guarantee of the two downstream countries’ shares of water.

Regarding the options available to Egypt to deal with this problem, Abdel Muttalib believes that they are “many and varied; But I see that integration and cooperation among all the Nile Basin countries is the best solution to this problem, believing that “the Security Council will not take a decision at any future stage, and it will refer the matter again to the African Union, and thus the vicious circle will continue.”

In response to the question: “Is the Egyptian discourse mixed with the language of threat to reassure the Egyptian interior, or is it a real trend?” He said that “the words exchanged in the Security Council are mostly diplomatic messages, and do not necessarily mean a threat, or acceptance of the fait accompli.”

political and administrative reasons

The Egyptian expert in African affairs, Dr. Khairy Omar, confirmed that Egypt and Sudan lost a round of internationalizing the Ethiopian dam file through the Security Council in the face of Addis Ababa.

A professor of political science at the Middle East Institute, Sakarya University, added to “Arabi 21” that “the Security Council countries came with Ethiopia, not with Egypt and Sudan, for administrative and political reasons.”

He explained that “the administrative reasons are the absence of a real and clear conflict, and it also believes that the crisis can be resolved through a negotiated agreement, and regardless of the content of this agreement and the points of mutual commitments in it, it is another issue that the Council is not up to investigate.”

Regarding the political reasons, he stressed, “The dam project represents a common and differentiated interest at the same time for many countries, and therefore the Council does not have to take a position on developing the dam.”

He pointed to another aspect, which is “the presence of many similar disputes; If this file is opened at the Security Council at an international level, it will be a prelude that will push many countries to try to internationalize similar contentious issues around the water files.”

He alluded to the crises of countries such as “Iraq and Syria confronting Turkey over the Euphrates River, as well as the dispute between India and China over the Brahmaputra River, and also the Europeans if the Swiss said that the land from which the Rhine River originates is ours and the water will not pass to the rest of Europe.”

The Egyptian academic believes that it would have been better for Egypt to change its equilibrium situation on the ground, take decisive action, or show a point of contention that would force the world to intervene.

He explained that the agreement between the three countries on the Ethiopian dam crisis in itself is sufficient, but it needs political support that has not been available to it so far, and therefore this is a major reason for the negotiation crisis.

Egypt gets about 85 percent of its water from the Blue Nile, which comes from the Ethiopian plateau, on which Addis Ababa builds a dam. Egypt and Sudan fear their historical share, which amounts to 55 billion cubic meters and 18.5 billion cubic meters, respectively.

In his estimation, Omar believes that “the UN Security Council will not interfere again if an armed conflict or other confrontation erupts and will not be able to settle them, and that the matter will be within the framework of the concerned countries that care about the interests of the two countries, such as America and others.”

In his vision of what matters will go to him in the future, especially the return to the African Union, and the start of the second filling of the dam, he said that “the problem is how Egypt resolves its options in the file in the long term and determines its fate.”

He stressed that this is “the central point that must be discussed, without waiting for a unilateral action if it is issued, or a decision that does not specify a time frame or stop individual actions, and therefore here there is no interest in returning to negotiation.”

Despite Egypt’s return to the threatening discourse again, the expert in African affairs praised the Foreign Minister’s presentation in a wonderful way and specified the joints of matters, stressing that resorting to the Security Council “will not be the last solution,” and Egypt has the right to protect its citizens.

Regarding the Minister of Defense’s talk about the Egyptian deterrence force against what affects the country’s security, Omar stressed that this must be accompanied by the method of performance, deployment, or transition to another crisis, or to operations within the framework of the dam file.

He concluded by saying: “Egypt must take a quick position, within a week, the extent of which will be achieved in the speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, like many issues that have not been resolved through the United Nations.”

time duty

For his part, the General Coordinator of the National Coalition of Egyptian Parties, Nagy El-Shihabi, said: “Egypt’s speech before the Security Council is strong and clear, explaining in detail the Ethiopian intransigence during a whole decade of tripartite technical negotiations, in which it resorted to prevarication, procrastination and procrastination to make the dam a reality.”

The head of the “Generation” party added in a letter to “Arabi 21” about the next steps: “If the UN Security Council cannot force Ethiopia to stop unilaterally filling the dam, Egypt will have to take the necessary measures to protect the capabilities of its existence and the lives of its citizens.”

The Security Council session sparked controversy on social media, and the expert in international law, Mahmoud Refaat, said on Twitter: “What I said the past days has been verified that the Security Council will not provide anything.”

Mustafa Bakri, a journalist close to Egyptian sovereign bodies, considered Egypt’s speech to the Security Council a “strong warning to Ethiopia and those behind it.” He continued, “The positions have been clarified, who is with us, who is against us, and who is deceiving us with his sweet words,” in reference to the positions of the Security Council countries, including America. He downplayed the extent of the organization’s bias towards Ethiopia, saying: “Egypt did not rely much on the Security Council, but it assured the world once again that it is a peace advocate and seeks to obtain its water rights.”

The Egyptian academic, Dr. Hassan Nafaa, said that “even if the Security Council adopts the Tunisian draft resolution, Ethiopia will not abide by it, as it will not stop filling the reservoir and will not agree to conclude a binding agreement within 6 months.”
However, he believes that “the step of presenting it to the Security Council was necessary, to exhaust the means of a peaceful settlement before the moment of military decisiveness comes, for which we must prepare with all seriousness.”