The famine and the Nile

 The residents of the Horn of Africa suffer from a long period of drought that causes famine, a famine that affects millions of people, most of them in Somalia, but there are also quite a few hungry people in eastern Ethiopia, northern Kenya and northern Uganda. 

Apparently, Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia are supposed to be protected from the dangers that arise from drought and stoppage of rains, since these are countries blessed with rivers and water bodies that can satisfy the needs of their entire population, but in order to satisfy the needs of the population, it is necessary to develop means of storing and transporting water.... And those are missing.

One of the larger and more permanent sources of water is the Nile River. About 15% of the Nile water flows from Lake Victoria which "belongs" and is located between Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya. The sources of Lake Victoria are diverse and in addition to the three countries on its shores, they also come from Rwanda, Burundi and Congo (south), (hereafter: the countries of origin) which means that Lake Victoria is fed by streams from six countries.

Lake Victoria flows into the White Nile. 85% of the water comes from Lake Tana in Ethiopia and flows in the Blue Nile. The White and Blue Niles meet at Khartoum in Sudan and cross the deserts of Sudan and Egypt to the Mediterranean Sea.

In 1929 an agreement was imposed on the countries upstream of the Nile, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda were then colonies, it was important for the British to control the Suez Canal, whoever controls Egypt controls Suez, the lifeblood of Egypt is the Nile, meaning whoever controls the Nile controls the Suez Canal. (These were also the reasons for the search for the sources of the Nile). Being the "rulers" of East Africa, the English imposed on their colonies a contract that forbids them to develop water systems that would utilize the Nile water or that would reduce the flow that reaches Cairo.

 The contract "divided" the Nile water between Sudan - 15% and Egypt - 85% and others... is nothing ! When Sudan gained its independence in 1959, the contract was "amended" and Sudan was given the authority/right to use 25% of the Nile water and Egypt 75%. The countries up the Nile, the countries that sit on the sources of the longest river in the world remained.... "Orphans"/drylands.

In previous lists I mentioned the danger of conflicts over water, https://www.hayadan.org.il/rosentalwater_3005041 and the fact that at any given time there are about 25 water conflicts that could turn into wars over water, one of the more acute conflicts is developing between the source countries and Egypt, a conflict which may break out and intensify if the hawkish parties do not come to an agreement, a conflict which can certainly affect us as well....even if indirectly.

In the near future, six East-African countries, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Congo and Rwanda, the countries of origin, are gathering (again) to try to sign a "Cooperative Framework Agreement regulating use of the Nile". The gathering arouses great excitement in the media because of Egypt's unwillingness to give up its "right" to water and even more so because of Ethiopia's announcement that work is beginning to build a huge dam on the (Blue) Nile, a dam that will allow water to be diverted for irrigation and to generate electricity.

Members of the media direct the spotlight to a direction that usually does not attract attention and in the process report inaccurate reports. for "damaging Egypt's right". For example, Sir Brown, a journalist of the "New York Times" writes about "the danger to the new democracy of Africa (Egypt) and its population of more than 80 million if its water sources dwindle"?

Perhaps the respected journalist should remember that around the sources of the Nile there are about 250 million people whose standard of living is lower than that of the Egyptians and until today they were prevented from building waterworks because of a colonial "contract". Perhaps journalists in general should remember or learn that the "agreement" to divide The Nile water was sealed between the English and themselves. That is why even today the English press for the continued existence of the "contract".

I don't understand international laws, that's why I bothered and checked: it turns out that in the agreements signed before

Gaining independence only the sections that refer to the borders of the countries are valid. In addition to this, it should be remembered and known that Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda and Congo (South) are not signatories to the agreement. And again 85% of the Nile water comes from Lake Tana... from Ethiopia. As much as there is no "fairness" in this, it is worth remembering that Egypt does not contribute even one drop of water to the Nile. So is Sudan (Northern), both are deserts and hot.

The correct situation (in contrast to false and misleading reports) is: the 1929 contract does not legally bind the countries around the sources of the Nile, the countries of the sources do not try to amend or discuss the contracts from 1929 and 1959 because again these contracts are illegal and invalid.

The right of 80 million Egyptians to use water is no greater than that of 250 million East Africans. That is why there is no attempt to improve, correct, or change a contract that is not valid, the source countries are trying to build and organize a logical framework for the use of Nile water, an organization for distribution that did not exist. The countries of origin are not trying to harass Egypt and dry it up, the lack of activity up the Nile (to this day) does not constitute consent to Egypt's exclusive right to the Nile water, but rather stems from weakness and an economic inability to initiate and implement development, therefore the beginning of development should not be a threat but the implementation of their right of countries to utilize the water.

The historical and legal right of countries upstream of the Nile is clear and abundant even to international bodies, therefore it is to be hoped that when these countries begin to exercise this right, they will have broad and sweeping support.

In addition to the demands of the countries upriver, a new player has been added to the system, there is a new country... It is true that most of South Sudan receives rains for the most part, but this does not mean that the new country will not demand its share of the water.

Any change, project or process will have a sweeping effect. We saw how the Aswan Dam "contributes" to the disappearance of sand from our shores as well as a decrease in the amount of fish due to a lack of nutrients. The Egyptians are continuing with the implementation of the "grandiose" plan to develop agriculture in the Western Desert with the help of the Nile water that will be transported through the "Tushka Canal", in the background there is a plan to transport water to the Sinai.... Will Egypt have enough water to implement the plans?