Friday, August 21, 2020

Ethiopia's Proposed Dam on the Nile: Will it bring shared benefits or cause war among Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan?

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Charvi Trivedi

Article Title

Ethiopia's Proposed Dam on the Nile: Will it bring shared benefits or cause war among Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan?

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 21, 2020

URL

Nile River View Cairo, Egypt

Nile River View Cairo, Egypt | Source: Sherif Moharram via Unsplash

The longest river in the world, the Nile,  spans a distance of over 4000 miles, passing through large parts of Africa including Tanzania, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt, to name a few, and finally emptying into the Mediterranean Sea.

The Nile is a lifeline for Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, whose mutual relation took a beating when Ethiopia proposed to build the Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam (GERD). The proposed dam would make Ethiopia the biggest exporter of electricity in Africa and give a boost to its growing economy.

However, this project invited furious responses from Egypt as Nile is deeply connected to the history of the country since ancient times. Also about 95% of Egyptian population resides along the banks of the Nile and are heavily dependent on the river for sustaining their livelihood. Building the large reservoir will deplete the water resources of Egypt which will threaten their livelihood.

The Nile is experiencing pernicious effects of escalating population and climate change and the United Nations has projected that it is expected to cause immense water scarcity by 2025. “We’re worried. Egypt wouldn’t exist without the Nile. Our livelihood is being destroyed. God help us” says Hamed Jarallah, an Egyptian farmer.

This 5 billion-dollar project was initiated in 2011, is capable of producing a whopping 6000 megawatts of hydro power and has a reservoir capacity of 74 billion cubic metres. This dam is projected to annually contribute over a billion dollars to the Ethiopian economy. It is alleged that Ethiopia has already started filling the reservoir despite the protests from other countries.

In 2015, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan signed a ‘Declaration of Principles’ which called for the equal water distribution. Despite more than five years of negotiations, these countries are still not able to reach mutually acceptable agreements. Earlier, Sudan supported Ethiopia’s dam proposal as it was promised adequate electricity at a cheaper cost. However, the failure to reach a conclusive agreement led it to oppose Ethiopian dam. Sudan has already gone ahead and notified the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the dangers its people will face via a letter advocating them to step in.

Al-Sisi meeting President Trump | Source: The White House via Wikimedia

When Egypt made a demand for GERD to release around 40 billion cubic metres of water every year, Ethiopia denied this suggestion while Sileshi Bekele, minister for water, irrigation and energy, called the volume of water ‘inappropriate’. Finally, in 2019, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi turned towards U.S President Donald Trump to settle this long dispute. “The Ethiopian side does not want an agreement and has not offered an alternative” says Egyptian minister Mohamed Abdel-Ati as Ethiopia retracted from the US-led conciliation over GERD.

Secretary Pompeo Meets with Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedu | Source: U.S. Department of State via Wikimedia

Ethiopia further provoked Egypt when Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedu Andargachew tweeted that Ethiopia will have “all the development it wants” from the river and that the Nile is theirs. This was a strong posturing which sparked whispers of an apparent war between Egypt and Ethiopia. If it escalates into a war involving the military then Ethiopia might succumb to the powers of the Egyptian army. However, according to Sisi, military intervention is unlikely to take place as he believes negotiation is the best way to arrive at a viable agreement.

As these three countries march ahead in their task to find a middle ground, they should focus on ideas which would include potential for a ‘shared economic advantage’ and also include organizations like the World Bank which can provide financial backing for improvement purposes in such regions.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:57 PM

India’s Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act: Why the activists are opposing it?

On July 13, 2020 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of India notified the release of draft Rules for the much-disputed Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, and has given citizens 30 days to submit suggestions and objections.

The Ministry first published the draft Rules on April 18, 2020 and asked for comments by April 30, later extended to May 18. Based on the central government’s consideration of the submitted feedback, the updated Rules were once again opened to critique.

As summarised in this analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Rules lay out the detailed process regarding issuance of Certificate of Identity, and welfare measures, medical facilities and such for transgender people. It also specifies that the National Institute of Social Defence will act as secretariat for the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Analysis

  1. The Act is infamous for claiming to confer the right to self-perceived gender identity, which is also enshrined in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India judgement, but continuously neglecting this right thereby going against both a Supreme Court judgement and its own statement.
  2. This manifested once again in Rule 4 of the first draft of Rules which required a psychologist’s report— while paradoxically insisting that it requires “no medical examination”— as part of the application process. This requirement was removed from the recent draft of the Rules after backlash.
  3. Also, as stated in the Act, it is the District Magistrate who will determine the final “correctness” of the application, essentially stripping transgender people of any supposed right to self determination. It is worth noting that this places the District Magistrate, an executive figure, in a judicial position, one of ‘judging’ the ‘authenticity’ of a person’s gender identity.
  4. The above mentioned application will only provide a Certificate of Identity that states a person’s gender identity as transgender. To be able to apply for a revised Certificate of Identity to change one’s gender to male/female as per Rule 6, a person must undergo gender reassignment surgery and on top of that provide a certificate stating this from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer from the medical institution which facilitates the surgery.
  5. This is problematic for a large multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: many transgender people not feeling the need for medical or surgical intervention, the policing of transgender people’s identity as only being ‘valid’ if they undergo surgery, and the sky-high costs of surgery contrasted with large numbers of transgender people living in unsupportive environments and/or being unable to finance their surgery.
  6. The right to self-identification continues to be blatantly violated in Rule 8, under which a District Magistrate can reject an application, following which the applicant has a right to appeal the rejection only within 60 days of intimation of the same, as stated in Rule 9.
  7. The right to self-determination was also thrown out the window when the first draft Rules imposed a penalty on “false” applications, once again referring to the arbitrary power of the District Magistrate. This has also been removed following strongly negative reactions.

It is important to compare the two versions of the Rules despite the second one being arguably better and cognizant of some of the demands made by the citizens and other stakeholders.

The first version of the Rules quite clearly depicted the narrowly cisnormative perspective through which transgender lives are seen by the people in power. Despite the many changes as a result of relentless protests, the Act is nowhere near to truly respecting and empowering transgender people.

The decision to give the final say to the District Magistrate- which some argue made the process harder than it used to be before the Act- and the refusal to provide affirmative action or reservations to ensure representation in positions of authority that transgender people have historically been denied access to.

It also does little to counter discrimination, as is seen most clearly in the punishment of sexual assault and rape being much less than for the rape of a cisgender woman. It advocates for plenty of measures but does pitifully little to ensure or enable these changes.  

History of the Act

The history of the Act is a turbulent one. The 2016 Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, was almost immediately slammed by activists, NGOs, other human rights organisations, and citizens, for multiple reasons.

The most derided was the provision to set up a ‘District Screening Committee’ which included the District Magistrate, a chief medical officer and a psychiatrist among others, for the sole purpose of scrutinising a transgender person’s body and identity. It also criminalised organised begging, an activity specifically common among the Hijra community.

The Lower House of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha, rejected all the proposed changes by the parliamentary standing committee along with the demands of the transgender community, and passed the bill with some amendments in 2018. A short-lived victory came in the form of the lapse of the bill due to the 2019 general elections.

However, as soon as the NDA government was re-elected, the bill was reintroduced in the Parliament with some more changes, particularly the removal of the section on District Screening Committees, but was still unsatisfactory.

The full text of this bill was not released when it was approved by the Union Cabinet on July 10, 2019, but on the morning that it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, garnering another consecutive year of protest since it was first introduced.

This is the bill as it exists today, having been passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2019. When the motion to refer it to a select committee failed in the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on November 26, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 5, 2019. Recent developments include a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act.

Despite it becoming the law of the land, transgender citizens and activists such as Esvi Anbu Kothazam and Kanmani Ray continue to criticse it and the insidious transphobic thinking that has always guided it.

Read More