4 ms·

It is amazing seeing how many lies can a single comment have > More than half of Ethiopia's 110 million people have no electric power Might be true but it is

by NmAmDa 5y ago

It is amazing seeing how many lies can a single comment have > More than half of Ethiopia's 110 million people have no electric power Might be true but it is a wide problem and have a root causes that not all belong to the current issue, maybe you forget you are currently in a civil war with army have actions that are war crimes. >More than 80% of the Nile waters come out of Ethiopia Nile river is historically and from legal perspective an international river not an Ethiopian property. Violating this always comes with consequences. >* Out of these countries, only Egypt and Sudan use the Nile river for irrigation and power generation. This a complete bold lie usually spread by people who try to misrepresent the problem. Here is a Wikipedia page the list all of Ethiopian dams for various function like irrigation and hydropower generation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dams_and_reservoirs_in_Ethiopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dams_and_reservoirs_in_Ethiopi... >This happened due to Colonial era agreements in which great Britain (Then ruling Egypt) brokered agreements which "gave" Egypt usage and veto rights. but it was not consulted by the British and is not signatory to the agreements. And It was fighting to maintain its independence against Europe so it had little power to spare for water politics at the time. There are two points not just one. But these Colonial era agreements are the same which gave Ethiopia benishangul-gumuz (which belonged to Sudan at this time) was between British and Ethiopian emperor also. Also, all treaties was with Ethiopia being independent and took even land from Sudan. The other point if you are just saying we were forced to do so. Okay lets go back to revise all this era agreement and give benishangul-gumuz back to Sudan (it is the area where the dam built) and let's revise everything. This is literary what international laws' violation means. If you just rely on the fact the can ignore it doesn't expect people who will get hurt to act and even attack you. When US get an existential problem with USSR have nuclear missiles nearby in CUBA didn't buy the argument that cuba can do whatever it wants. >* In 1959, The Sudanese and Egyptians governments met and awarded each other 18.5 billion cubic meter of water and 55 billion cubic meters of water respectively. Again ignoring the other Nile basin countries, including Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia.... This is an agreement about how they share their mutual share, notice that this agreement didn't violate the previous agreements from the colonial era. > Egypt is unfortunately threatening us with war if there is a drop in their water share Maybe because 10 years of negotiating that they provided Ethiopia with time it kept wasting until they do whatever they want and putting existential treat to its people. Ethiopian actions are the root cause of the instability. Bold lies that Ethiopian keep pushing publicly is one reason of escalations, a couple of months ago the Ethiopian PM claimed that there are no soldiers from Eritrea joining the attack on tigray area then when the truth comes he was forced to say it. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-conflict/ethiopian-pm-confirms-eritrean-troops-entered-tigray-during-conflict-idUSKBN2BF1NT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-conflict/ethiopi... >I am an Ethiopian, and I realize that Egypt relies on the Nile. As far as I can see, public opinion here (to the extent I see it) is not about depriving Egypt of water and life, it's about living a life of dignity. It's about a fair and equitable use of the water The problem was never that Egypt opposing to building the dam which almost get built. It is how long does it take for fill the dam and make it longer so that it reduce its negative effect and have enforceable agreement about the dam which Ethiopia spent 10 years of negotiation denying. Don't talk on "not about depriving Egypt of water and life" >Again, unfortunately, Egypt is signing military deals with Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda in what is perceived here as an intimidation campaign What is the problem of doing this? Ethiopia have troops from Eritrea helping them to attack innocent people and troops in Somalia which used to intervene in their domestic affairs. Can you call this a hostile action in the region? Last thing I want to add is to please read the "Treaties affecting Nile water use" section of the Wikipedia article you linked because it will tell you about the misinformation in the parent comment.

Zimzallabim 5y ago
> Nile river is historically and from legal perspective an international river not an Ethiopian property Ethiopia has never claimed the Nile is its sole property. It's seeking fair use of a dam on its own territory and equitable sharing of the waters in a manner that doesn't infringes on its sovereignty. >...a Wikipedia page the list all of Ethiopian dams I don't see a single dam aside from the GERD on the list that's on the Nile. So I don't see how you could say it's a lie. Are you suggesting a dam on any tributary river in Ethiopia is subject to Egypt's wishes? >But these Colonial era agreements are the same... No they are not. Ethiopia was NOT a party to the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian treaty unlike the 1902 Anglo-Ethiopian treaty regarding the border w/ Sudan. >This is an agreement about how they share their mutual share... According to you, mutual share means that Egypt gets 66% Sudan gets 22%, the rest is lost to evaporation and Ethiopia gets 0. Just as agreed upon by Egypt & the British in the colonial agreement. >10 years of negotiating that they provided Ethiopia... Curious that you characterize Egypt's approach as negotiation when 10 years ago when Ethiopia started building the Dam, Egypt's president "negotiated" by stating that "all options are on the table". Egypt has obstinately held on to the idea that it is entitled to a specific amount of water it has historically been afforded per year in perpetuity regardless of the conditions of the Nile or in Ethiopia. The fact of the matter is the Egyptian government is upset that it is no longer capable of holding a monopoly over the Nile.
- sgift 5y ago
  > I don't see a single dam aside from the GERD on the list that's on the Nile. So I don't see how you could say it's a lie. Are you suggesting a dam on any tributary river in Ethiopia is subject to Egypt's wishes? It sounds obvious to me that a dam on a tributary river to Nile is for the purpose of the problem here like a dam on Nile since it reduces the water available downwards in Nile.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    I just had a look at the list, and I feel that looking at 'dams' is pretty misleading. The point is to look at capacity, no? I mean, nobody in their right mind cares if somebody builds a dam that has a capacity of half a cubic kilometer. So it's a weird dialogue: on the one hand, the only relevant dam, capacity-wise, is the GERD. On the other, there are patently plenty of other damns in the Nile river basin. (Obviously, anybody who is more aware of the issues here should correct me - my feeling is that Ethiopia and Egypt are being weirdly bellicose over an issue that is totally solvable to mutual satisfaction.)

by NmAmDa 5y ago

Zimzallabim 5y ago

> Nile river is historically and from legal perspective an international river not an Ethiopian property Ethiopia has never claimed the Nile is its sole property. It's seeking fair use of a dam on its own territory and equitable sharing of the waters in a manner that doesn't infringes on its sovereignty. >...a Wikipedia page the list all of Ethiopian dams I don't see a single dam aside from the GERD on the list that's on the Nile. So I don't see how you could say it's a lie. Are you suggesting a dam on any tributary river in Ethiopia is subject to Egypt's wishes? >But these Colonial era agreements are the same... No they are not. Ethiopia was NOT a party to the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian treaty unlike the 1902 Anglo-Ethiopian treaty regarding the border w/ Sudan. >This is an agreement about how they share their mutual share... According to you, mutual share means that Egypt gets 66% Sudan gets 22%, the rest is lost to evaporation and Ethiopia gets 0. Just as agreed upon by Egypt & the British in the colonial agreement. >10 years of negotiating that they provided Ethiopia... Curious that you characterize Egypt's approach as negotiation when 10 years ago when Ethiopia started building the Dam, Egypt's president "negotiated" by stating that "all options are on the table". Egypt has obstinately held on to the idea that it is entitled to a specific amount of water it has historically been afforded per year in perpetuity regardless of the conditions of the Nile or in Ethiopia. The fact of the matter is the Egyptian government is upset that it is no longer capable of holding a monopoly over the Nile.

sgift 5y ago
> I don't see a single dam aside from the GERD on the list that's on the Nile. So I don't see how you could say it's a lie. Are you suggesting a dam on any tributary river in Ethiopia is subject to Egypt's wishes? It sounds obvious to me that a dam on a tributary river to Nile is for the purpose of the problem here like a dam on Nile since it reduces the water available downwards in Nile.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  I just had a look at the list, and I feel that looking at 'dams' is pretty misleading. The point is to look at capacity, no? I mean, nobody in their right mind cares if somebody builds a dam that has a capacity of half a cubic kilometer. So it's a weird dialogue: on the one hand, the only relevant dam, capacity-wise, is the GERD. On the other, there are patently plenty of other damns in the Nile river basin. (Obviously, anybody who is more aware of the issues here should correct me - my feeling is that Ethiopia and Egypt are being weirdly bellicose over an issue that is totally solvable to mutual satisfaction.)