The very essence of the agreement is therefore clearly to preserve what is called “Egypt`s natural and historical rights in the waters of the Nile”. This current has been a river since the night of Egypt`s history. The recent agreement tends to maintain this relationship. It is envisaged that Sudan will be allowed to extract from the Nile a quantity of water that does not affect this traditional prerogative or violates Egypt`s “agricultural enlargement requirements”. On Monday 23 March 2015, the heads of state and government of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan met in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, to sign an agreement that is expected to resolve various issues arising from Ethiopia`s decision to build a dam on the Blue Nile. The Khartoum Declaration, signed by the heads of state of the three countries, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (Egypt), Omar al-Bashir (Sudan) and Halemariam Desalegn (Ethiopia), has been described as a “Nile agreement” and helps resolve conflicts over the sharing of the Nile` waters. However, this view is misleading because, as far as we know, the agreement relates only to the Grand Éthiopian Renaissance Dam (GERDP) Blue Nile project and not to the broader, still controversial issues of the distribution of nile waters among all riparian countries. This new agreement will not resolve the dispute over the equitable, equitable and reasonable allocation and utilization of the waters of the Nile. The Egyptian government agrees that a solution to these issues (irrigation issues) cannot be postponed until the two governments (Britain and Egypt) can agree on the status of Sudan, but, when concluding the agreements in question, they will expressly retain full freedom in negotiations that may precede such an agreement.

In 1959, Egypt and an independent Sudan signed a bilateral agreement effectively strengthening the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1929. The 1959 agreement increased water allocations to both Egypt and Sudan – Egypt`s water inflow rose from 48 billion cubic meters to 55.5 billion cubic meters and Sudan`s from 4 billion to 18.5 billion cubic meters, so that 10 billion cubic meters are responsible for infiltration and evaporation. Finally, the agreement provided that in the event of an increase in the average water yield, the increased yield would be divided equally between the two riparian countries downstream (Egypt and Sudan). The 1959 agreement, like the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, does not take into account the water needs of other riparian countries, including Ethiopia, whose highlands provide more than 80% of the water flowing into the Nile. The prime minister told the Cairo correspondent in the London Times: “As an Egyptian, I think the Nile waters agreement fully and totally protects Egypt`s rights. If I had had the slightest fear that this agreement would deprive Egypt of any rights it had enjoyed so far or undermine any just demands it might make in the future, I would not have signed it. I have consulted with high-level engineers, technical and other, and I am convinced that the agreement embodies the Egyptian point of view on the waters of the Nile. Over the years, especially as the population of other Nile basin countries grew and these countries developed the capacity to harvest nile water more efficiently for national development, differences emerged over Egypt insisting that the water rights it acquired through the 1929 and 1959 agreements (together called the Nile water agreements) were made. day; that the construction project is not respected on the Nile or on one of its tributaries without the prior authorization of Cairo . .

.

Share →