July 31, 2025
Egypt’s Fading Hydro-Hegemony: Rebutting Foreign Minister Abdelatty’s Claims
Dr, Birhanu Lenjiso, Oromiya, Ethiopia
Egypt’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Badr Abdelatty, in discussion with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, made controversial statements regarding his country’s position on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and its commitment to safeguarding its water security. His provoking remarks were published by Egypt Today Magazine on July 30, 2025, under the title “Egypt to take all legal measures to Safeguard water security.”
Egypt to take all legal measures to safeguard water security, FM tells US senators
Egypt’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Badr Abdelatty with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham in Washington D.C.
While I acknowledges Egypt’s concerns as a downstream riparian state, the assertions made by Egypt’s Minister of Foreign Affairs in many ways misrepresent the legal, technical, and cooperative dimensions of the GERD project. In this rebuttal I will try to address five key issues raised in his conversation with U.S. Senator clarifying Ethiopia’s position and reaffirming her commitment to equitable utilization of the Nile River in accordance with international law.
First, Egypt repeatedly claim that the Nile is an “Existential Issue” and its Sole Water Source. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also reiterated the same position in his discussion. It’s true that Egypt relies on Nile for over 90% of her water needs. This clearly reflects the significance of Nile for Egypt or Egypt’s significant reliance on the Nile river, but it doesn’t by any means negate the legitimate rights of upstream riparian states, like Ethiopia which contributes approximately 85% of the Nile’s flow, to utilize the Nile for their own socio-economic development. This reality has been clouded by Egypt’s now fading hydro-hegemony.
Under the principles of international water law, notably the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, all riparian states are entitled to “equitable and reasonable utilization” of shared watercourses. The GERD, a non-consumptive hydropower project, is designed to generate electricity without significantly reducing downstream water flows, thereby aligning with Ethiopia’s sovereign right to harness the Blue Nile, which originates within its territory.
On the flip side of Egypt’s framing of Nile as “Existential matter”, Ethiopia faces its own existential challenges, including energy poverty affecting over 60% of its population and limited access to clean water for millions. The GERD is a critical national project to address these existential challenges, which are no less vital than Egypt’s water needs. Furthermore, Egypt has viable other alternatives to enhance its water security, including improving irrigation efficiency and expanding groundwater extraction or desalination projects like other countries in the region. Framing the Nile as Egypt’s sole water source and existential matter not only overlooks other options but also disregards the shared nature of the river, which necessitates balancing the needs of all Nile Basin states.
Second, the Foreign Minister’s allegation that Ethiopia’s actions violate International Law and the 2015 Declaration of Principles (DoP) is not substantiated by the legal framework governing transboundary watercourses. The DoP, signed by Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan, emphasizes cooperation, equitable utilization, and the principle of causing no significant harm. It does not, however, prohibit Ethiopia from proceeding with the filling or operation of the GERD during negotiations, nor does it grant Egypt or Sudan veto power over Ethiopia’s sovereign development projects, like the colonial-era treaties.
Ethiopia, in fact, has consistently demonstrated good faith by sharing technical data, proposing staged filling schedules to minimize downstream impacts, and engaging in numerous rounds of negotiations facilitated by the African Union and other mediators. Egypt’s claim of unilateral action ignores its own rejection of Ethiopia’s proposed technical solutions and its insistence on maintaining historical water allocations under the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement, to which Ethiopia was not a party and which is not binding under international law. Ethiopia’s actions are consistent with its sovereign rights and the DoP’s spirit of cooperation, whereas Egypt’s demand for guaranteed annual water releases risks undermining the principle of equitable utilization.
Third, the Foreign Minister also made a claim that GERD threatens the livelihoods of 1.1 million Egyptians and 15% of agricultural lands in his country. This data is speculative and lacks credible evidence linking the GERD operation to such specific impacts. Independent hydrological studies indicate that the GERD’s downstream effects can be effectively mitigated through coordinated filling and operation protocols, particularly during normal or above-average rainfall years. Ethiopia has proposed such measures, including phased filling schedules, which Egypt has consistently rejected in favor of demanding fixed water releases that prioritize its interests over those of other riparian states – in away to maintain her hydro-hegemony.
Moreover, the GERD offers potential benefits to downstream states, including flood regulation and the provision of affordable electricity. Egypt’s portrayal of catastrophic socio-economic consequences overlooks its own water management challenges, such as inefficient irrigation practices, and dismisses the potential for cooperative management to achieve mutual gains. In general, Ethiopia’s pursuit of the GERD is not to cause harm to any riparian country but to address its own pressing developmental needs, which are critical to improving the livelihoods of millions of its citizens.
Fourth, the claim that the United States Support for Egypt’s Water Security is also misleading and harmful for Ethio-American relations. Egypt’s repeated reference to U.S. support for its water security, citing reaffirmation by the former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, does not confer legal or moral superiority to Egypt’s position in the GERD dispute. The United States, as a strategic partner of Egypt, may express diplomatic support, but such statements do not override the principles of international water law, which prioritize equitable and reasonable utilization over unilateral claims. U.S. support for Egypt’s water security is noted, including in statements made by U.S. leaders, but that does not inherently validate Egypt’s position or imply that Ethiopia’s actions are illegitimate.
Ethiopia has sought impartial mediation facilitated by the African Union, which Egypt has undermined by escalating the issue to forums like the United Nations Security Council, which are less suited to resolving technical water disputes. Ethiopia believes and respectfully submits that external endorsements do not negate its legitimate rights to develop the GERD or the need for a balanced resolution that considers the interests of all riparian states.
Fifth, the Foreign Minister made a claim that Egypt has proposed a middle-ground technical and legal solutions, which Ethiopia has persistently refused. This claim misrepresents the dynamics of the GERD negotiations. Ethiopia has consistently offered practical solutions, including staged filling plans and data-sharing mechanisms, to ensure minimal downstream impacts while advancing its developmental objectives. Egypt’s proposals, however, have often centered on preserving its historical hydro-hegemony, which is disproportionate and rooted in colonial-era agreements that excludes Ethiopia. Such demands effectively seek to grant Egypt veto power over the GERD’s operation, undermining Ethiopia’s sovereignty and the principle of equitable utilization.
The breakdown of negotiations reflects mutual challenges in reaching consensus, not solely Ethiopian intransigence. Egypt’s preference for externalizing the dispute, rather than engaging fully in African Union-led processes, has hindered progress toward a cooperative solution. Ethiopia remains committed to good-faith negotiations that respect the rights and needs of all Nile Basin states, in line with the DoP and international law.
In conclusion, Ethiopia as always reaffirms its commitment to the equitable and reasonable utilization of the Nile River, recognizing the shared importance of this vital resource to all riparian states. The GERD is a transformative project aimed at addressing Ethiopia’s existential developmental challenges, including energy poverty and economic underdevelopment, without causing significant harm to downstream neighbors. Egypt’s portrayal of the GERD as an existential threat overlooks the potential for regional cooperation, Ethiopia’s sovereign rights, and the need for modern water management practices in Egypt to complement Nile flows.
Ethiopia continues to call for genuine dialogue under the auspices of the African Union, guided by the principles of the 2015 Declaration of Principles and international water law, to achieve a mutually beneficial agreement. Ethiopia stands ready to collaborate with all riparian countries to ensure the Nile remains a source of prosperity and cooperation for all, rather than a point of contention.
Read below my earlier posts on this topic
Completed Ethiopia Dam-GERD Can Power East African Nations
The Legacy & Vision of The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam
Ethiopia’s Majestic GERD Is Not Appreciated By The U.S. & West
͏Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for 35 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, consultant on Africa, and an analyst of global strategic relations. Mr. Freeman strongly believes that economic development is an essential human right. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com, also publishes on: lawrencefreeman.substack.com, “Freeman’s Africa and the World, and on X @lkfreemansafrica