Rivers of Dispute: Colonial Borders and Modern Politics in the Nile Basin

Figure 1: Aerial view of Bahr Al-Jabal (Mountain Nile) and Juba, South Sudan

I am back! The dispute of the Nile Basin and its resources is a particularly striking example of bordering and of the intricate interplay of borders and territories. The Nile originates from two sources and traverses numerous state boundaries along its course (See Figure 2). Of the Nile’s 11 riparian countries many millions rely on the water from the Nile, especially as their exclusive access to freshwater. The ongoing dispute over the legitimacy of Nile Basin agreements highlights how historical and institutionalised borders continue to influence current international relations, and continue to act as relevant “institutions and symbols that are produced and reproduced in social practices and discourses”.

Figure 2: Map of the Nile Basin, key riparian states, their borders, and the GERD/Aswan Dam.

As you may have read from my previous blog posts, a series of treaties have come to define the contentious relationship between the Blue Nile's riparian states, particularly between Egypt and Ethiopia. I outlined the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) and its aim to prevent water conflicts between riparian states. However, over time the focus has shifted towards supporting African integration, with a vision of "One River-One People-One Vision". There is an inherent tension between the promotion of regional cooperation in the NBI and the entrenched disagreements, particularly between Egypt and Ethiopia. Sources such as The Conversation illustrate how these historical claims, coupled with modern geopolitical ambitions, create a complex situation that is difficult to resolve despite the push for broader African unity. It is evident that still, in 2024 “multiple diplomatic efforts to reach a binding deal have not succeeded”. 

Ethiopia’s construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) represents a significant development project intended to boost its energy production and economic development. The GERD was a plan proposed by Ethiopia along the Ethiopian-Sudanese border along the Blue Nile (Figure 2) and arguably physically manifests Ethiopia's assertion of sovereignty over its section of the Nile. The Nile Basin’s ecosystem is interdependent, with actions in one country affecting the ecological balance in others, illustrating the cross-border ramifications and inherent difficulties of governing borders and cross-border ecologies (Duffy, 2005). Differing environmental regulations and standards between the Nile Basin countries create further bordering issues. The dam has currently completed its fifth filling stage (Figure 3) and Egypt's concern is heightened, sending a letter to the UN Security Council "accusing Ethiopia of violating international law by continuing to fill the dam without agreement from downstream countries". Ultimately, the legitimacy of past, colonially influenced treaties has resulted in Ethiopia's disregard however, it is the legal basis for Egypt's attempts at quashing this project. This ongoing dispute only serves to complicate efforts to address the significant ecological implications of both the filling and operation of the GERD which are already impacting water availability downstream (Ahmed et al., 2024).

Figure 3: The Ethiopian authorities released this picture of the dam last week after the completion of the fifth phase of filling.

The differences between the BBC article and The Exchange Africa article reflect the broader editorial styles of each outlet. The Exchange often takes a regional perspective, considering Africa's development needs and regional stability. In contrast, the BBC, as an international outlet, reports on the issue with a focus on international diplomacy and geopolitical consequences. In contrast, the tone of the article: “Colonial-era treaties are to blame for the unresolved dispute over Ethiopia's dam” published by The Conversation is critical, scrutinising the long-term consequences of colonial-era treaties on current geopolitical conflicts. This article focuses more heavily on the historical injustices imposed by colonial powers and how these continue to shape the dispute. 

In conclusion, the concept of 'bordering' in the Nile Basin is multi-dimensional: it is shaped by the historical legacy of colonial borders, influenced by infrastructural developments that affect the region's socio-economic dynamics, and is further complicated by varying ecological management strategies. The sustained tension and efforts for cooperation within the Nile Basin illustrate how borders function as both institutions and symbols, continually produced and reproduced through social practices, discourses, and geopolitical actions. As such, I must again underscore how the resolution of conflicts and the pursuit of regional harmony requires a nuanced understanding of these multiple dimensions and a commitment to collaborative, sustainable governance of the Nile's precious resources.