Imperialism, Post-Colonialism and its effects on the Politics along the River Nile

This episode investigates the relationship between historical contexts and the earlier establishments of the countries along the River Nile, to that of the current geopolitical discourse around water rights, whether it be influenced solely by the equitable and sustainable use of water from the Nile or is there any exogenous factors contributing to the discourse.

Image taken from Google Images

Walter Crane's Imperial Federation Map showing the extent of the British Empire in 1886 allows us to view the attitudes of the British then. Despite not showing the direct occupation of Egypt and Sudan on the map (Egypt was occupied by the British in 1882, Sudan afterwards), we are able to use various methods to showcase the then forms of Orientalism. Interpretations of the map based on geometry, representational hierarchies and decoration exemplifies the British domination of the world at that time. We can see the British-centric attitudes with Britannia being in the middle of the map (via Mercator Projection), sitting on top of the World with her trident pointing towards the middle of the world. In addition, the various trade routes drawn from Britain shows a "discursive grid of Western Knowledge and Power" across the world. Most importantly, the decoration of African labour shows the domination and rule of Britain over her colonies. The map also further shows the gender-biased nature of Colonialism, with the colonised females being sexualised, showing weakness and passivity of the colonies. This aligns with Edward Said's Orientalism, fictionally showing that the Orient as an "irrational, psychologically weak and feminised, non-European Other".

Following the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, Africa was further dissected and claimed by different European powers in the "Scramble for Africa". The British Empire took control of the countries along the River Nile, except for the Ethiopian Empire who managed to fend off European invasion and influence. Linking this to the current geopolitical context in the region of the River Nile, we consider various exogenous factors contributing to the political discourse of the area.

We first consider the British intent in the 19th century whilst colonising Sudan and leaving Egypt as a protectorate. British interests then was not on the River Nile, but more so on the Suez Canal and protecting its dominant trade routes across the world. Despite at first rejecting wholly to the construction of the Suez Canal as it would threaten British controlled trade routes around the Cape of Good Hope (Cape Colony). Regardless, the Suez Canal was constructed by the French and due to financial problems, it ended up with the sale of the Egyptian's share of the canal to the British to give the British leverage in decision making in the region. Hence, this very intent of colonising Egypt undermines the British and Egyptian reign on the River Nile, seeing it not as important a priority as compared to the Suez Canal. 

To add on, there is definitely a degree of coincidence to the British expansion across the River Nile. As the British Empire was keen on connecting the strategically important Suez Canal to the mineral rich South, the British South African Company began to occupy and annex territories from Egypt, Sudan, Tanzania to Uganda etc. The River Nile did not seem as the main region as occupying this waterway with the river mouth at Alexandria did not seem to benefit much to the empire's dominance in international trade and waters.

However, despite the paramount importance of the Suez Canal in world politics and British Imperialism, the rise of PostColonialism after the 2 world wars and the dispersion of the British Empire led to an increase interest of the River Nile as a source of food, livelihood and regional power. This interest resulted in a differing form of postcolonial geopolitical entity, one that challenged the previous more arrogant and Eurocentric deterministic thought. Could this more cultural holistic view on ownership and rights create a potential distinction in power relations based on the idea that the Nile gives a differing identity to each of the players involved, based on the primary use and reliance on the River. The balance between Imperialist and PostColonial thought results in the practice of Identity Politics as the interests and opinions of which people local to the area identify themselves to changes from being a subject of British Imperialism to developing their own local identities possibly influenced by their traditional use of the River Nile. In addition, the 

Hence, with many possible and varying perspectives (be it historical or contextual) of the creation of the power differentials along the River Nile, it is undoubtedly increasing in importance as a source of power within the region which translates to a possible conflict of a varied scale. With the abolishment of the Colonial imperialist mindset, the local people who differ vastly based on native tribal religious cultures may imply differing claims to rights of the River Nile. We will also have to keep in mind the countries' histories and the henceforth differing natures of the peoples living along the Nile which may have an effect on the politics that ensues. 

References:
Biltcliffe, P. (2005). Walter Crane and the imperial federation map showing the extent of the British Empire (1886). Imago Mundi, 57(1), 63-69.

Harley, J. B. (2009). Maps, knowledge, and power. Geographic Thought-A praxis perspective.

Howell, P. P., & Allan, J. A. (1994). The Nile: Sharing a Scarce Resource: A Historical and Technical Review of Water Management and of Economical and Legal Issues. Cambridge University Press.

Thiong'o, N. W., & Iweala, U. (2015). The river between. Penguin.

Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. Vintage.