PRINCIPLE FRAMEWORKS OF DIASPORA CAMPAIGN REGARDING GERD
Ethiopian American Civic Council and Ethiopian Advocacy Network together submit the general of framework principles instituting the Diaspora Nile Campaign. The primary facts establishing our independent analysis were brought about from Government sources including US Treasury, Professional studies and Media Reports. Therefore, the campaign we are conducting is based on the following elemental factors:
1. Whereas US proposal infringes in the national sovereignty of Ethiopia by insisting all future development on the upstream locations starting from lake Tana, shall not undergo without Egypt’s consent.
2. Whereas US proposal prohibits Ethiopia from control and manage the GERD operations within its own border including the initial filling schedule of the dam.
3. Whereas US proposal imposes unprecedented rules that were never contemplated against any other sovereign nation restricting the use of its own natural resources.
4. Whereas US proposal rewinds the timeline back to the colonial era by insisting Ethiopia recognizes existing downstream water allocation enshrined in the 1959 treaty which Ethiopia was never part of. The treaty granted Egypt the right to construct the Aswan High Dam that can store the entire annual Nile River flow of a year, thereby allocating Sudan 25%, Egypt 75% and Ethiopia 0% of the water.
5. Whereas US proposal incorporates provision that will make Ethiopia to be responsible for water allocation for downstream nations thereby Ethiopia’s own water needs become secondary consideration hence low water share for herself.
6. Whereas US Proposal is one sided benefiting Egypt only at the expense of Ethiopia and Sudan.
• Ethiopia is required to provide relevant data on regular basis while Egypt is exempted from such requirement.
• Obligates Ethiopia to abide by Egypt‘s data issued unilaterally without any other method to verify its validity. Therefore, If Egypt reports artificially low data, Ethiopia is responsible to allocate more water for Egypt.
7. Whereas US proposal does not provide arbitration mechanism to resolve any dispute in the future.
8. Whereas US proposal will make all Nile basin countries vulnerable to Egypt’s will thereby creating permanent regional hegemony on water allocation. Since the Nile river functions as a system, such proposal put into action will devastate the remaining Nile basin nations without their prior consent. Therefore, if signed it will put these nations in disadvantage perpetually by repeating the historical error of 1959 treaty.
9. Whereas US proposal is too rigid for update and revision even at time of hydrological changes that are out of Ethiopia’s control. With its sole intention of guaranteeing water allocation for Egypt, the proposal incorporates no flexibility hence lacks any possible cross-boundary remedies.
10. Whereas US proposal lacks honesty and impartial judgement throughout the process. Instead of adjudicating in good faith for fair and equitable outcome, US chose to propose a one-sided resolution benefiting Egypt by incorporating due diligence materials that were never previously discussed or agreed upon.
11. By consistently refusing to take into consideration Ethiopia’s legitimate concerns, US Secretary Steven Mnuchin was ill prepared to handle such complex negotiation.
12. Unrelated Mideast peace process, which was closely held by US Secretary Steven Mnuchin was bundled with assistance from Egypt at the expense of Ethiopia regarding GERD.
13. Whereas US initial role from silent observer to mediator and finally as chief negotiator was severely protested by Ethiopia in more than one occasion to no avail.
14. The negotiation task should have respected customary international protocol from the start where Department of State should have handled such diplomatic portfolio.
15. Although GERD is solely financed by the Ethiopian people, Mr. David Malpass, President of World Bank Group involvement was devised to posture economic hindrance against Ethiopia. Such act is in violation of the World Bank’s own Article of Agreement prohibiting such political activity.
“The Bank and its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member (nation); nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political character of the member or members concerned.”
Articles of Agreement: Article IV, SECTION 10. “Political Activity Prohibited”