Spilling Bhd over Water? The Cose of Ethiopia 299
estimated on average at 84 billion cubic metres. By this agreement, Egypt was
allocated a share of 55.5 billion cubic metres and Sudan 18.5 billion cubic
metres, while 10 billion cubic metres was left as loss from evaporation at the
Aswan High Dam. This agreement also envisaged possible future claims by
upstream riparian countries and provided that if the claims of any riparian
states be accepted by both parties (Egypt and Sudan) then the accepted share
would be equally deducted from their current share. It is wonh noting here
that this implies consent by the two downstream countries, Egypt and Sudan,
before any upstream country is allocated a share of Nile waters.
There are still divergent positions between the upstream and downstream
countries as to the validity of both the colonial agreements and the 1959 Nile
Waters Agreement. As a bilateral agreement, the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement
is effective only between Egypt and Sudan. However, some contend that this
bilateral agreement gives Egypt and Sudan an 'established', 'historic' or
'acquired' right over the waters of the Nile, and therefore the agreement is
non-negotiable and should be respected by the upstream riparian coun-
On the other hand, others stress that the Nile Waters Agreement is a
bilateral agreement and could not in any way affect the rights of upstream
states to utilise the waters of the Nile and that the claim to historic rights has
no basis in current international law.>"
Likewise the colonial agreements are also rejected by the upstream ripari-
an states mainly because of their colonial and non-reciprocal nature. Ethiopia
has made its position clear in several official communications to the effect
that these agreements do not affect its rights to use Nile waters within its ter-
ritory to pursue its development It is also noted that one of the
major sticking points in the current Nile Basin Initiative is the status of the
existing agreements. Egypt and Sudan still claim that any water use in
upstream countries should not affect existing water allocation agreements.
Apart from the various colonial and post-colonial agreements intended to
unilaterally secure control of the Nile waters, historical records show that
Egypt attempted to secure the origin of the Nile in Ethiopia through repeated
incursions in Ethiopian territory. The Battle of Gedarif in 1882 and the Battle
of Gura in 1832 are examples.206 The war of words between Egypt and
Ethiopia is still frequently rife, particularly at times when Ethiopia proposes
plans to develop its share of the Nile waters. Past acrimony has dampened
potential cooperation in sharing the Nile waters fairly between Egypt, Sudan
and Ethiopia.
Evident from the above is that there has not been a significant attempt in
the past to achieve basin-wide cooperation in the Nile, because the river has
never been considered a common resource between the different basin coun-
tries. Rather, unilateral development of the Nile was and remains the rule.
Past utilisation of Nile waters aimed to achieve one objective: to ensure the
secure control of Nile waters for Sudan and, particularly. Egypt. Water