Showing posts with label international relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international relations. Show all posts

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

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.

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

GLOBAL CIVICS IN A WORLD OF ANARCHY: IS IT REALLY WORKABLE?



Global civics is an idea that posits that civics in a global sense as a social contract between the world citizens in the age of interdependence and interaction. According to proponents of global civics, we all have rights and responsibilities to each other by virtue of being human beings. What happens in china can influence happens all the way in Ghana. Hence as citizens of the world, we have responsibility to mind our actions or inactions lest they cause more harm than good.
In a globalized world where economic and social interactions between people, companies and groups are increasing due to advances in telecommunication, transport networks and modernity, global civics makes certainly makes sense. The “imagined community” known as the state is increasingly powerless to deal with phenomena taking place outside its borders, but affecting its citizens.
A good example is the volatile oil market in the world currently. The slightest increase in the price of a barrel of oil will mean the commuter from OngataRongai will have to pay more to go to work in Nairobi’s central business district. How much power does the government of Kenya have to protect the commuter?
But if global civics implies having rights and responsibilities as human beings, it is silent on who should step in when my rights are infringed by someone clearing forests in the amazon, or when I neglect my responsibilities as a world citizen to protect my environment or put my government in check.
We live in a world of anarchy as Kenneth waltz put it. This means we do not have a central government to ensure order and stability in the international system. In my view, global civics cannot work in a world of anarchy, where might is right.
And that is the reason why the proponents of global civics are content to promote only the most diluted version of rights and responsibilities on all of us, especially the most powerful who, due to the lack of world government, do what they want with impunity. A powerful state such as America can go to war with virtually anyone it wants, kill anyone with unmanned drones wherever or whenever, and have its companies destroy the environment from Swaziland to the Gulf of Mexico, without any repercussions whatsoever.
As a minute part of humanity in Kenya, it doesn’t matter if I forfeit my rights and responsibilities, if someone in government halfway around the world can, due to greed, bring about a world recession that might affect millions like me in terms of future employment prospects!
The minimalist approach that is advocated in the booklet “dialogues on global civics” is not going to solve the immense challenges we face in the world today. It is the industrialized countries doing all the environmental damage, it is they with all the nuclear weapons, it is them destroying the global finance system, and it is they with the most to lose if a real protocol on greenhouse emissions is enacted!!
Most of us, in the developing world, and especially in sub Saharan Africa, we just want to live!! Let those with the most rights and responsibilities, by virtue of their immense wealth, power and military resources, practice global civics!
This takes me back to my point on anarchy. We do not have a world government to ensure global civics is kept. Ideas of a volunteer United Nations army are laughable at best. Let the global south rise, following the example set by the BRICS, and then we can talk on global civics. As equals!
There can be no global civics in the current system, and there shouldn’t be. Let Africa, Asia, and Latin America rise to the level of other countries. Then we can discuss on what our responsibilities and rights are, as “world citizens”who view each other with respect and the relationship is one based on more equality than now.