������Ƶ

The dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has become one of the world’s major water conflicts. In recent weeks, it has gained renewed international attention, particularly after remarks from US President Donald Trump and a declaration by Ethiopia. As Ethiopia celebrates the “completion” of the dam, Egypt views the announcement as a direct challenge to international law and a threat to the foundation of its national security. With its inauguration set for September, the question remains: will diplomacy prevail or will unilateralism triumph over cooperation?

The GERD is Africa’s largest hydroelectric power project, constructed by Ethiopia on the Blue Nile, the main tributary of the Nile River. Launched in 2011, the dam is expected to generate more than 6,000 megawatts of electricity. While it promises much-needed energy for Ethiopia’s population, the project has been controversial from the start.

Egypt depends on the Nile for 97 percent of its freshwater needs. For more than a century, its water rights were guaranteed by treaties and its downstream position. But the GERD, located just a few kilometers from the Sudanese border, threatens to disrupt that balance. In Cairo, the concern is existential.

Despite years of negotiations and a 2015 Declaration of Principles signed by Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, Addis Ababa has pressed ahead with construction and the phased filling of the dam’s reservoir without a binding legal agreement on its operation. Cairo has repeatedly warned that such actions violate international norms governing transboundary watercourses. Ethiopia, however, has largely ignored these warnings, framing the GERD as a sovereign project.

Trump this month broke the American diplomatic silence that had defined the Biden years, issuing frank statements about the dam. Speaking at a press conference, Trump described the Nile as the “lifeline” of the Egyptian people, a description that aligns precisely with Cairo’s long-standing argument. He also criticized the American role in having, as he put it, “stupidly funded” the dam without adequately addressing its consequences. “I do not know why they didn’t solve the problem before they built the dam,” Trump said.

For Egypt, these remarks were not only long overdue, but they were also a validation. President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi welcomed the comments, praising Trump’s stance. Egyptian diplomats saw the US president’s statements as a diplomatic turning point, bringing renewed pressure to bear on Ethiopia’s unilateralism.

From Ethiopia’s side, the response was defensive and dismissive. Officials said the dam was funded domestically and some even portrayed Trump’s comments as an insult to Ethiopia’s sovereignty. But the broader reality is hard to ignore: the GERD has become a global concern and Ethiopia’s dismissiveness only reinforces the perception that it is acting outside the bounds of international consensus.

Days before Trump’s remarks, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced that all construction on the GERD had been completed. He declared that the dam would be officially inaugurated in September, calling it a victory for Ethiopia and inviting neighboring countries to join in the celebration.

Trump this month broke the American diplomatic silence, issuing frank statements about the dam. 

Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy

But in Egypt, this announcement was met with alarm. Cairo immediately condemned the move as a “flagrant violation of international law” and an act of provocation. The Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources issued a statement calling Ethiopia’s behavior “destabilizing,” arguing that the move to operate the dam unilaterally undermines every principle of cooperation and trust in international water governance.

The Ethiopian government claims that the dam will not reduce water flow downstream and that Egypt’s concerns are exaggerated. But these assurances ring hollow, as experts note that the GERD’s reservoir can hold 74 billion cubic meters of water, almost the entire annual flow of the Blue Nile. Egypt, already below the global water poverty line, cannot gamble on goodwill.

Ethiopia has repeatedly rejected calls to sign a legally binding agreement governing how the dam is filled and managed during droughts. This refusal alone should cause alarm in the international community. What nation would accept such unilateral control over its primary source of life?

Sudan, Egypt’s southern neighbor and fellow downstream country, has long had an ambivalent position on the GERD. At times, it saw possible benefits, such as regulated water flow and access to cheap electricity. But in recent years, Khartoum has leaned closer to Cairo’s position, especially after experiencing erratic water releases and infrastructure concerns.

Today, Sudan is wracked by internal conflict and thus largely sidelined in the GERD diplomacy. However, the interim leadership has reaffirmed its opposition to any unilateral action by Ethiopia. In a meeting with El-Sisi last month, Gen. Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan stressed the need for a coordinated solution and joint safeguards.

More broadly, the GERD dispute could destabilize the region. It threatens to fracture regional relations, provoke proxy conflicts and fuel instability in a region already grappling with conflict, economic crisis and foreign intervention.

Under international law, the use of shared rivers is governed by two core principles: equitable and reasonable use, and the obligation not to cause significant harm. Egypt has abided by these rules and has called, again and again, for negotiations to reach a fair agreement.

Ethiopia has adopted a narrow definition of sovereignty that places its national interests above regional stability. While no one denies Ethiopia’s right to development, that right must be exercised within a framework of shared responsibility. It cannot come at the expense of 100 million Egyptians and the security of an entire region.

The GERD is not a local dam. It is a regional project with continental consequences. Its success or failure will signal whether powerful upstream states can impose their will on downstream neighbors without consequence, or whether diplomacy, legality and fairness can still shape international outcomes.

With the dam’s inauguration looming and the US now taking a more decisive tone, the coming months will determine the future of one of the most important rivers on Earth. Trump’s words, if backed by action, could revive negotiations and pressure Ethiopia to concede.

But the international community must act decisively. Ethiopia’s unilateralism cannot become the new norm. Letting one country control another’s lifeline — without oversight, agreement or accountability — sets a dangerous precedent not just for Africa but for all transboundary river systems around the world.

• Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy has covered conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy