Spilling Blood ouer Water? The Case of Ethiopia 297and/or Sudan. The validity of these agreements is a source of controversy
and disagreement between the upstream riparian countries and the down-
stream countries in the post-independence period. Ail the upstream riparian
countries, including Ethiopia, reject the validity of these agreements because
of their colonial and unilateral nature, while Egypt and Sudan claim that
these treaties are still valid because they are boundary agreements.
Apart from the Nile waters, there is little that binds Ethiopia with the two
downstream countries in terms of economy, language, culture and religion.
Egypt and northern Sudan are predominantly Islamic and Arabic speaking.
Moreover, they were both under British colonial control from 1869 onwards.
It is at this time that the first steps towards economic and hydrological ties
were taken. However, there is also the fact that Egypt's perception of Sudan
was historically colonialist because of Egypt's commercial and military dom-
inance in the region. Moreover, the engagement of superpowers in the basin
during the Cold War, and shifting allegiances at the time influenced by
increased control over the water resources of the Nile, increased tension
among the basin countries.
The other factor that has limited development of Nile waters in the basin
is the weak economies of the different countries. Except Egypt, which has a
comparatively stronger economy, the other riparian countries lack the invest-
ment and capital to develop infrastructure to harness the Nile waters. Thus.
the role of bilateral and multilateral agencies in promoting cooperation is
vital, since they can target funds to projects having mutual benefits for the
different basin states. The policies of some international financial institutions
such as the World Bank (which follows a 'no objection' criteria for providing
funds) are often criticised on the basis that it increases the risk of conflict
between the riparian states by neglecting to give necessary funding to devel-
op water resources in Ethiopia, which may alleviate widespread poverty and
food insecurity in the country.2w
Historical Factors in the Conflict
For the two downstream countries, particularly Egypt, securing an unintermpt-
ed and stable Nile water supply has been the foremost concern of political lead-
ers from time immemorial. Control of Nile water is a primary strategic concern
for Egypt since it is highly dependent on Nile waters to sustain the livelihoods
of its people historically and today. Indeed, the oft-quoted expression that
"Egypt is the Nile, and the Nile is Egypt" has lent some credence to the Nile
being considered by many Egyptians as a symbol of national security.
The sense of vulnerability and consequent fear that upstream countries
might block the waters have largely guided Egypt's management and policy
on Nile water. Egypt uses a mixture of complex technological, legal and polit-
ical means to attain greater water security.