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.
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.
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.
This article explains the recent tensions between Iran and the United States, and presents it as a case of the ‘Security Dilemma’ theory in practice.
The Persian Gulf Crisis 2019-20
To understand the current crisis in Persian Gulf, we must look at the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015, also called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The JCPOA was signed between The E3/EU+3 (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, and the United States, China, with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, to permit nuclear capabilities for Iran exclusively for peaceful purposes, in exchange for the lifting of crippling sanctions.
JCPOA terms:
International Atomic Energy Agency representative in Tehran, Iran for talks on JCPOA implementation | Source: Tasnim News Agency
Under this accord, Iran had to reduce its Uranium stockpile by 98% to 300kg, maintain its level of enrichment at 3.67%, reduce the number of centrifuges, and only keep one of its Uranium enrichment plants active. It also had to redesign its reactor at Arak, so it could not produce weapon’s grade Plutonium. Until 2031, Iran is not permitted to make heavy-water reactors.
Further, it was to permit itself to regular inspection of their nuclear site by the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In return, Iran gained over $100bn of frozen assets overseas, and was permitted to allow trading in oil in international markets and use the global financial system for trade.
Trump Administration’s Revoking of the JCPOA
In 2018, the Trump administration reimposed some of the sanctions in Iran, despite Trump's election promise to reduce involvement in the Middle East. Countering the re-impositions, Iran threatens to resume Uranium enrichment. In May 2019, Iran suspends nuclear deal commitments, and gives other signatories a 60-day deadline to protect it from US sanctions, before resuming Uranium enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had already increased Uranium production, but is unclear by how much.
President Trump signing executive orders, imposing sanctions on Iran | Source: Shealah Craighead via White House
In May 2019, the US increased military deployment in the Persian Gulf, reportedly to prevent what the termed was a “campaign” between Iran and its proxies to threaten US oil shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Tanker Crisis
In June 2019, two tankers were set ablaze in the Gulf of Oman, using mines. The US blamed Iran for these blasts, but Iran denied the charges.
In the same month, Iran Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down a US surveillance drone, escalating tensions and causing the US to name the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
In July 2019, the British Royal Marine Commandos seized an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar, as it was suspected to be en route to Syria, in violation of EU sanctions. The US declared that anyone assisting the ship would be considered an accomplice of terrorist groups, namely the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
In retaliation, Iran seized British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Iranian tanker was released six weeks later, on the condition that they do not unload their cargo of 2.1million barrels of oil in Syria.
December Air Strikes
In December 2019, the K-1 Air Base in Iraq was attacked by an unconfirmed party, killing one American contractor. This base hosts Americans (amongst other nationalities) who are responsible for training Iraqi troops in counter-terrorism. The Americans alleged that the attack was carried out by Kataib Hezbollah, which denies it. Kataib Hezbollah is a rebel group (recognized as a terrorist group by the US) backed by Iran. The Iraqi’s alleged that ISIL was responsible.
In retaliation for the killing of the American Contractor, the US launched air strikes on the weapons depot and command centres of Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria in the same month, reportedly killing 25 militiamen.
Iraq and Iran condemned the attack, and on 31 December, 2019, Iraqi militia attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad. In response, the US conducted airstrikes at the Baghdad International Airport in January 2020, killing the Commander of Iranian Quds Force, General Qasem Suleimani, the second most powerful man in Iran.
These escalations, placed within the context of US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, provide a good example of the Security Dilemma theory and how it plays out in practice.
What is the Security Dilemma?
Before delving into the theoretical definitions it is worth reminding ourselves that States do not behave as they do because a theoretical model demands them to. Rather, most theoretical models are based on observations of real-world behaviour of states, and seek to explain said behaviour. The Classical Realist theory, of which the Security Dilemma is a part, is amongst one of these, and I endeavour to highlight some of the key points of this theory.
The Classical Realist theory holds that States (or State-actors) are the basic unit of any international system. They are the most important actors, as there is no authority higher than them. The international system is fundamentally anarchic, with every actor left to their own devices with no supranational oversight. Each State finds it in their own self-interest to provide their own means for security. Security comes with the ability of the State to exercise its power, and thus Power Hegemony and Security are inextricably linked. In other words, since no State can rely on a supranational authority to provide security (an every-man-for-himself scenario), it is in each State’s best interest to understand the power distribution across all state-actors and maximize power for themselves, as the ultimate security. This results in a zero-sum game, with one actor’s loss being another’s gain. In providing absolute security for one’s own State, one leaves others insecure. The resulting power imbalance manifests in conflict, and for the Realist it follows, therefore, that Conflict is the natural state of affairs.
This, in essence, is the Security Dilemma: Striving for absolute security leaves others absolutely insecure, thus providing powerful incentives for an arms race, leading to further conflicts. It is little wonder that this is also called the Spiral Model, for in the very process of striving for security, one gives birth to escalating conflict.
How does this relate to the Persian Gulf Crisis?
The US has long followed the Realist model, believing that in a state of fundamental anarchy, it is justifiable to have nuclear capabilities and have intense militarization, as a means of gaining absolute security (justified by ‘offense is the best defence’). However, the US is also known for disallowing Weapons of Mass Destruction and nuclear capabilities in other countries, despite having such resources by itself. Here we see the Security Dilemma: to maintain absolute security, the US cannot allow others to be similarly armed. This is seen clearly in the signing of the JCPOA.
Consider the case from Iran’s point of view. As a result of the US war against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrow of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, there has been constant American presence in both the countries bordering Iran since almost two decades. That this poses a threat to Iran is obvious: the US caused fundamental regime changes in Iraq after the war; with its manpower and firepower, alongside its strategic placement on both sides of the Iranian border, the US is at a vantage point to attack Iran – placements that are, paradoxically, intended to guarantee American security.
The American show of strength and the impending danger of conflict leave Iran with two choices: Forge alliances with US adversaries, such as China or Russia, to deter Iran-US conflict, or be nuclear-armed. Iran managed both, causing, in effect, a nuclear arms race that culminated in the JCPOA. In retrospect, the JCPOA seems like the perfect solution to the Security Dilemma in US-Iran conflicts: not only does it allow Iran to benefit from its suspensions of nuclear capabilities, it also ceases the arms race and de-escalates the conflict. In short, it is the Diplomat’s way out of the Security Dilemma, guaranteeing security without arms.
The Trump administration’s call to reimpose sanctions on Iran only serves to re-ignite security concerns for both countries. With Iran having ousted its JCPOA commitments as of January 2020, we can only hope that de-escalations will soon follow to prevent the otherwise inevitable spiralling into arms race and false absolute security.
.jpg){kind=link}