A leaked document sparks controversy over a Sudanese-Ethiopian understanding regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.
Written by Ayman Bahr 🇪🇬
A leaked document sparked widespread controversy after its circulation in the media, alleging a secret technical understanding between Sudan and Ethiopia regarding the rules for filling and operating the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). This opened the door to numerous questions, accusations, and attempts to cast doubt on Sudan's stance towards Egypt.
The document that has been circulating in recent days has turned the tables and ignited debate about the nature of the relationship between Cairo and Khartoum, especially with the growing calls to reassess Egyptian support for Sudan and link this to what was stated in the circulated document.
The significance of what is being circulated is inseparable from the timing of these leaks, which coincide with the visit of Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council, to Cairo. This necessitates a deeper analysis that goes beyond sensational headlines and media hype.
According to reports, the document pertains to a technical framework for coordination between Sudan and Ethiopia regarding the operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). It was signed in October 2022, and Addis Ababa considers it the first written agreement regulating technical rules between the two countries, separate from the tripartite negotiation track that includes Egypt.
Reports indicate that this framework includes a commitment to gradual filling during the rainy season and setting a permanent operating level for the dam between certain levels, with storage limits, which Ethiopia has tried to present as evidence of agreement with Sudan.
However, the established fact is that the only officially recognized agreement between the three countries is the Declaration of Principles signed in Khartoum in 2015, which is the only legal framework upon which Egypt bases its diplomatic and legal actions.
Analysis of the document raises serious questions about its authenticity and the context of its signing. If it is indeed authentic, Sudan was going through a complex political and security phase at that time, which weakens its ability to pass crucial agreements of this magnitude and makes the possibilities of pressure and exploitation very real.
Practical experience has also proven that Ethiopia's mismanagement of the dam has caused direct damage to Sudan, including unprecedented floods, disruption of water facilities, and the submergence of vast areas of land, which contradicts the idea of a truly balanced partnership.
The Egyptian position remains unchanged; Cairo rejects any unilateral actions, whether by Ethiopia or any other party, and adheres to international law and its historical rights to the Nile waters. It emphasizes that any bilateral agreement cannot diminish the rights of a major downstream state that depends on the Nile for its very existence.
Even if this document is proven authentic, its greatest impact will be media and propaganda-driven, attempting to bolster the Ethiopian narrative that the dispute is solely with Egypt. This does not alter the strength of Egypt's legal position, nor its diplomatic and security tools for protecting its interests.
It is also noteworthy that the timing of the release of this document coincides with rapid regional developments in the Sudanese file and the entry of new parties seeking to quickly secure positions of influence in official Sudan, which explains the attempts to undermine trust between Cairo and Khartoum and diminish Egypt's historically deep-rooted role.
Egypt was aware of the fluctuations in the Sudanese position in previous periods, but it dealt with them as a result of misjudging the issue rather than hostility towards Cairo. As events unfolded, Khartoum realized that the Egyptian position was the most consistent with its true interests.
Today, with the arrival of General Burhan's team in Cairo, numerous files are being opened away from the public eye, and there will be further behind-the-scenes discussions at a later time.
The question remains, if this document is authentic, why did Sudan pursue a dual policy at that stage that served neither its interests nor its water security, nor did it contribute to its strategic partnership with Egypt?
0 تعليقات