THE RIVER NILE: AFRICA'S NEXT CONFLICT?

The river Nile is the longest river in the world, flowing over 6,700 kilometres, with tributaries spanning over ten countries in eastern and northern Africa. It has long been the lifeblood of Egypt, whose economy is largely based on agriculture and depends on the river Nile waters to thrive. Thus, the security of its population and economy depends to a sizeable extent on the river Nile. Egypt has legal and historical rights to a large percentage of the waters of the river Nile, mostly treaties signed between Egypt and the British colonizers before independence.

Ethiopia, on the other hand, is the source of up to 85% of the river Nile. Yet it has largely been restricted on how much water it can use for its own economic development by treaties it either signed under duress, or it had no party to, such as the Nile waters agreement of 1929, and the 1959 Nile waters agreement between Egypt and Sudan.

the flow of River Nile, image source wikipedia

All this is about to change, as Ethiopia is building Africa’s biggest hydro power plant at a cost of no less than US $ 4.8 Billion. It hopes this power plant, named The Grand Renaissance Ethiopia Dam (GERD) will generate electricity to sell to its neighbouring countries, as well as a major boost to an economy that depends heavily on agriculture and is hampered due to its landlocked nature from developing.

When one looks at the divergent needs and interests between Egypt and Sudan on one hand, and other countries that also claim a piece of the river Nile (Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania), it is clear that strong leadership and calm heads are needed to avert future potential conflicts that could occur, as well as new treaties that demarcate afresh how these countries use the river Nile, so as to ensure prosperity and peace between all countries involved.

Yet the politicians in both countries are ratcheting up the tensions, with Egyptian president saying recently in a speech that, "As head of state, I confirm to you that all options are open." He later added: "We are not calling for war, but we will never permit our water security ... to be threatened." I do not think that war is an option at the table at the moment, while the internal political dynamics of Egypt cannot be ruled out to explain why the politicians are engaging in such fierce rhetoric. According to international crisis group analyst Yasser el-Shimy, “Mursi is addressing the concerns of Egyptians regarding their water supplies, while sending a blunt message to Ethiopia and other Nile basin countries that Cairo takes this issue seriously.”

But the feeling upriver is at odds with Egypt’s sentiments. In countries such as Uganda, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Burundi and Kenya, the Nyerere doctrine which states that former colonies have no obligation to abide by treaties signed for them by Great Britain. Many analysts contend that Egypt and Sudan have gotten away with using majority of the Nile’s waters by the political instability and poverty of many of these countries upstream. As they get richer, more powerful and more ambitious, they will have the power to exploit the river Nile’s waters to their own benefit. Thus how the conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt could have ramifications for all these countries, and how they exploit this natural resource.

In the meantime, leaders will be looking keenly at the unfolding scenario and who will blink first. I am confident an agreement can and will be found, whether it will be to the benefit of the environment, the Nile ecosystem, all the citizens of the Nile basin and sustainable however, is not clear.

·         Ethiopia also has a hydro project on river Omo, that will create a reservoir and reduce the water flowing into lake Turkana, thus endangering the livelihoods of many fishermen and the populace that depend on lake Turkana for sustenance. It is not clear how Kenya plans to adjust to its construction, and save the livelihood and future of the biggest fresh water lake within its borders.

MY CONCLUSIONS FOR AFRICA AFTER THE LIBYAN CONFLICT

On 15th February 2011, the protests that had begun in Tunisia then Egypt swept into Libya, beginning in the west in the city of Benghazi before other cities and regions followed suit. The Libya leader colonel Muammar Gaddafi vowed to crush these uprisings and sent his soldiers into the fields. The attacks on civilians (some of them violent protesters) by Gadhafi in towns such as Misrata led to un security council resolution 1973 that imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and “authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.” This led to NATO airplanes and helicopters joining the fray in the Libyan conflict that has lasted over seven months, and changing the momentum in the Libyan conflict in favour of the rebels.

Now that the conflict is reaching its final legs, one can attempt to review the happenings that have occurred since February 15^th when the first major protests began, and what this civil war has taught us about the western media, humanitarian intervention, the African union, the fight for democracy and freedom in the middle east, the big man syndrome in Africa, and development and political freedom in the third world.

Humanitarian intervention

According to Wikipedia, humanitarian intervention "refers to a state using military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed." In Libya, this humanitarian intervention was perpetuated by NATO, and some elements of the Arab league. The French warships, British and French airplanes, and American intelligence and Qatari financial support were all rolled out to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians, and bombings of military installations, government compounds, missile and communications centres.

This military intervention was limited to the air operations, although the CIA did send covert operations as reconnaissance operations into Libya. The Special Forces troops from Britain, France and Jordan also entered the country in contravention of the UN Security Council resolution 1973.

The biggest questions arising from this humanitarian question, according to me, include:  1) what were the reasons behind it? That the government used excess force in shutting down the protests is without doubt, but the other reasons the west would have wanted Gadhafi to leave such as wanting a government that was less abrasive in rhetorical terms and to the interests of the west than Gadhafi’s. The Lockerbie disaster and the repatriation of who was supposedly suffering from life threatening ailments, among many other incidents with Gadhafi have soured relations down the years. However, the regime has improved relations recently yet this did not satisfy the west efficiently to stop them from carrying out the attacks.

It is impossible to talk of humanitarian intervention in Libya, or in any other state in 2011, without mentioning Syria. Why hasn’t Bashar al Assad faced the fate of his contemporary? The stronger military, protectors from the neighbourhood such as Iran and Hezbollah have all been touted as reasons. The simple fact is, some dictators will always have a near free reign to do what they want in their country due to the interests of the superpowers and other realistic reasons. Thus the only people who can change their fate are the citizens that are being oppressed. Help from the outside will always come with its complications, and as much as it can have a positive impact, the regional leaders and countries should always have the biggest influence over any interventions in such countries.

The second issue I have with the humanitarian intervention in Libya is the apparent lack of political will and support for the NATO operations in Libya by the populations back home in America, Britain and France, which these politicians ignored at the beginning and went ahead with the operations. This weakness and “leading from behind” led to the unnecessary deaths and destruction of property in Libya that could have been averted. The civil war could have been over in a much shorter time than was eventually the case. Multilateralism and coalition building seems to be the long term legacy left after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but how efficient is this when you need to get a well prepared, well-armed and determined dictator out of office?

The African union

The African Union was at best the smallest voice in the room, and at worst a confused spectator in this unfolding conflict. The African leadership, led by South Africa could offer no meaningful solution to the crisis and came out looking like Gadhafi apologists who were protecting their “king of kings” in the United Nations.

The torturously slow evolution of the African union from a “non-interfering” group to a continental body that can help solve the internal conflicts of the smallest country such as Comoros to the biggest is taking too long. What happened to the unified military? Making the tough decisions that are needed to resolve conflicts in Africa seems to be beyond many of the African leaders at the moment. Is the youth that is spearheading the change in countries such as Senegal, Egypt, Tunisia and Malawi ready to assume this leadership? Is there a new ideology ready to evolve the pan African ideals of Nkrumah and Nyerere to the 21^st century conditions?

The fight for democracy in Africa

The Libyan civil war has also brought to the fore many serious issues in the fight for democracy in Africa. One of the leaders of the transitional national council is, former justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil. How democratic and revolutionary is he? Only time will tell. The fight for democracy in many parts of Africa has been always spearheaded by members of the elite that were part and parcel of the same government they are fighting. RaIla Odinga, Morgan Tsvangirai, Alassane Ouattara, Jalil, Kizza Besigye and others always get favourable exposure from the media and many foreigners. However, how democratic are these people who have been intimately involved, either politically, personally or professionally with the same dictators they are trying to oust?

Western media coverage

According to amnesty international, “much western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regimes security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrating who presented no security challenge.” This is despite there being numerous accounts of torched police stations, hanged police officers and mercenaries and violence by the protesters in Benghazi and other towns. The media were obviously trying to show a picture of peaceful non-violent protestors being massacred to their local viewers. This would have played into the hands of the NATO and the political leaders who wanted Gadhafi out at all costs.

Balanced and fair broadcasting of news events from Africa and other parts of the third world by the western media seems to be a dream. Who will tell Africa’s story to the world from our perspective then? Even Aljazeera can only do too much. The more important lesson to be learnt is that even private enterprises will always practice self-censorship, biasness and promote the interests of a given class of people, no matter how “developed” and “free” the society views itself. Hence the citizen TV, NTV etc. of Kenya can only follow this rule. It is time we started asking the media questions and not viewing them as above reproach or criticism, whether the international or local.

The ICC

The prosecutor of the ICC hastily released arrest warrants for Muammar Gadhafi, his son and the intelligence chief after stories of rape, war crimes and using heavy machinery against civilians was reported. This is despite the amnesty international stating that “there is no evidence that mercenaries, aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used against the crowds. On several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.” The international criminal court has prosecuted, or issued arrest warrants on Africans, and Africans only, since it was formed in 2003. This is despite war crimes being committed in Iraq, Syria and Guantanamo bay by the Americans and their allies.

The international criminal court’s inability to even complete a case successfully, let alone prosecute anyone not from the African continent needs to be evaluated. The crusade led by Kenya to leave the ICC is laughable and deeply embarrassing at the least. The solution for leaving the deeply flawed and partisan ICC would be to form an African or world court that can prosecute all war criminals from Donald Rumsfeld to Charles Taylor. Anything less than that is not workable, and we are better off with the international criminal court.

The big man syndrome and transitions of power

From strutting African union meetings and the world stage to releasing barely audible audio tapes condemning the rats and mercenaries from “unknown locations,” Muammar Gadhafi has come a long way. No doubt the man had ruled for more than his fair share of time since the last 1960s. The big man syndrome in Africa is well on its way out, yet the exit of some of the longest serving heads of state in the African continent, such as Robert Mugabe, Paul Biya, and Meles Zenawi among others can only be potential sources of conflict and upheaval in this countries. Is the opposition in these countries, the African union and the continent at large any closer to resolving these potential conflicts than they were at the beginning of this year? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Economic development and political freedoms

Many Africans believe that having a “benevolent dictator” such as Muammar Gadhafi is the better option for development, prosperity and stability in a country, rather than pursuing political freedom hand in hand with economic development. However, the development of the middle class that will occur with higher literacy levels, economic opportunities, and better standards of living all suggest that this can only be a temporary ideology. When the people start agitating for greater freedoms, bigger say in government and fighting corruption, the benevolent dictator has to be ready to deal accordingly with this. The response he offers will be the difference between taking his country down Morocco’s or Libya’s path.

In my conclusion, I think that the conflict that happened in Libya may yet occur in another part of Africa, with little or no change in strategy or response from the international community or the Africans. Lessons should be learnt, and I am not sure Africans and the world at large has learnt them.