Part 2: Post World Wars, Self-Determination and the effects on the Geopolitical Order of the River Nile.

Continuing from the previous blogposts, we move forward in time to a different era, one where decolonisation was rife and states in Africa in particular were vying for their right towards self-determination. This results in a shift in the power struggles with respect to vying for the rights over the River Nile as well as puts plenty of the previous negotiations and treaties set by previous Colonial Rulers in shade due to aspects of "misrepresentation" (Mekonnen, 2010). I will take into considerations the 1929 Nile Waters Agreement, followed by the 1959 Agreement between Egypt and Sudan. We must also keep in mind the importance of the time frame and the changing dynamics of the global order due to certain events such as World War I, World War II, the Cold War etc.

With the end of the first world war, it resulted in the breakdown of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. The conflicts between the 'Imperialists' also resulted in a level of distaste and questioning of the Colonial Powers' right to rule over other countries. Furthermore, the huge military losses in Europe led to a shift in the military presence in African colonies, can we therefore assume a stronger resolve on the part of the previously-oppressed such as Ethiopia in vying for rights over the use of the Blue Nile? In addition, events such as the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the stance of Woodrow Wilson (then American President) encouraged a new altered form of international framework. Taking into account the 1929 Nile Waters Agreement, we try to find parallels that can be drawn towards the attitudes towards self-determination from that of water use and rights, and vice-versa.

It is also of great importance that we understand the primary uses of the Nile Water in Egypt and Sudan at that time (Swain, 1997). With increasing population numbers, coupled with the encouragement and promotion in cotton cultivation in Egypt, with considerations to the seasonalities involved in the cultivation of cotton, there was a need to shift from seasonal flooding methods to one of artificial irrigation. This led to a series of debates and negotiations over the claims to the rights of water use from upper and lower riparian countries. The 1929 Nile Water Agreement is important to note for it undermined weaker nations' actual claim of its own natural resource within its territories, causing an imbalance within the political sphere of the River Nile. Theoretically speaking, upper riparian states should and do hold sovereignty and control of not only their own rights to use the water within part of the river but are also hence in control of the downstream water quality/quantity etc. The 1929 Nile Water Agreement shows otherwise, as it was predominantly a negotiation deal between Egypt and the British Empire, over the use of the Nile Waters in Egypt and Sudan. Not only does it not take into account that of the interests of upper riparian states like Ethiopia along the Blue Nile and the Central East African nations along the White Nile, the agreement favoured Egypt tremendously (Howell and Allan, 1994). Despite allowing Sudan the right to construct along the River Nile for the benefit and development of the country, it had to go through the screening by that of the Egyptian Nile water commission of that time. Hence, this agreement highlights the then dominance of Egypt due to its military and strong links to the British Empire in control over the Nile, regardless that it supposedly should have the least power in terms of rights to the Nile based on geography. Could we hence also perceive a potential growing resistance of sorts against the rule and power of Colonial Powers and their "more important Nile Colonies". 

Post-World War II, there was yet another reshuffle in the geopolitical order and redefinition of the international framework particularly with relation to Colonies. The Atlantic Charter in 1941 somewhat set the stage for Colonies' right to self-determination. We hence consider the changes towards agreements and treaties set prior to nation's self-determination, and debunk the previous claims to water use of the Nile based on the misrepresentation of the nation's previous Colonial rulers or influences. However, the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement may prove otherwise. This agreement was held between that of the previously mentioned two lower riparian states of Egypt and Sudan in the 1929 agreement, not taking into consideration the quantity/quality or right of use of water in the upper riparian states. In addition, it could be somewhat seen as a leftover effect of previous colonial era decisions, retaining Egypt's dominance over the control and delegation of the Nile Waters (Abdalla, 1971). Furthermore, it could be argued that the 1959 agreement was one of the key stepping stones for Egypt, above all the previous treaties and decisions made by that of the British Empire in their interests, for the construction of the Aswan High dam, which evolved to be a major point of contestation with respect to the right and use of the Nile Waters. 

Hence, despite self-determination being encouraged and nations along the Nile starting to gain independence, we are able to perceive a form of retention of previous Imperialist interests' in the claims of the River Nile, with Egypt remaining as the major powerhouse in terms of negotiations and agreements over the waters. With this conclusion, we will therefore investigate Egypt's power to this matter, whether it was due to a better developed framework and commission in understanding the needs of the people over the Water, or was it due to sheer military and previous colonial bias that elevated them to a higher geopolitical standing in the region in question.


References:
Abdalla, I. H. (1971). The 1959 Nile Waters Agreement in Sudanese‐Egyptian relations. Middle Eastern Studies, 7(3), 329-341.

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.

Mekonnen, D. Z. (2010). The Nile basin cooperative framework agreement negotiations and the adoption of a ‘Water Security’paradigm: Flight into obscurity or a logical cul-de-sac?. European Journal of International Law, 21(2), 421-440.

Swain, A. (1997). Ethiopia, the Sudan, and Egypt: The Nile River Dispute. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 35(04), 675-694.