Addis Abeba — The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) now functions as a cornerstone of Ethiopian national infrastructure, actively generating power and transforming the socio-economic landscape. Its operational presence on the Blue Nile marks an irreversible shift from speculative dispute to a concrete reality that demands governance through cooperation and law. This imperative, however, is being systematically undermined by a persistent and corrosive dynamic: the intervention of external actors whose profound partiality is misleadingly presented as neutral mediation.
This issue is crystallized in the continued involvement of President Donald Trump, whose renewed offer to broker a resolution following discussions with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Davos represents not a diplomatic opening but a form of coercive diplomacy. When the sitting president of the United States repeatedly employs one nation's confrontational narrative, publicly labeling the GERD as an act of 'stopping the Nile' and having previously suggested Egypt should 'blow up the dam,' he conclusively forfeits any claim to impartiality.
This commentary contends that, for Ethiopia, engagement in such a mediated process is tantamount to surrendering sovereign legal rights to a predetermined and unjust outcome. It further argues that the only legitimate and sustainable path forward requires the unequivocal rejection of biased external interference and the collective adoption of the basin's own legal instrument, the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), which is firmly grounded in the established international law principle of equitable and reasonable utilization.
Anatomy of biased mediation
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The efficacy of any international mediation is wholly contingent upon the impartiality of the mediator. This is a foundational tenet, requiring not merely the absence of overt bias but also the demonstrable perception of neutrality, a balanced engagement with all parties' core interests, and a commitment to solutions derived from objective legal standards rather than political pressure. It is this impartiality that grants a mediator legitimacy and trust. President Trump's documented record on the GERD issue constitutes a comprehensive disqualification from this role through a pattern of unambiguous partisanship.
The efficacy of any international mediation is wholly contingent upon the impartiality of the mediator."
Firstly, his repeated rhetorical framing of the dam as 'arresting or blocking the Nile' is a deliberate and inflammatory mischaracterization. This phrase is not a neutral descriptor but a purposeful securitization of a hydroelectric project. It falsely equates the non-consumptive use of water for energy generation, 'where water continues its flow downstream,' with an act of theft or capture. This language, consistently echoed in his public remarks, uncritically adopts and amplifies Egypt's most confrontational propaganda, thereby casting Ethiopia's sovereign exercise of a developmental right as a malicious transgression from the very outset of any hypothetical discussion.
Secondly, and more egregiously, is his recorded suggestion that 'Egypt should end blowing up the dam.' This statement is not a diplomatic hypothesis but an implicit endorsement of an illegal act of armed aggression against the critical infrastructure of a sovereign state. For a sitting U.S. president to muse publicly about the destruction of an allied nation's flagship project is unprecedented. It irrevocably transforms his perceived role from a potential honest broker into that of an advocate sympathetic to one party's most extreme and belligerent options.
Consequently, the strategic function of mediation led by such a figure becomes clear. Its purpose is not to facilitate a compromise based on the mutual application of international law. Rather, it is to orchestrate a diplomatic process wherein Ethiopia is pressured to concede its established legal rights. The mediator's predetermined starting position is that 'the GERD is an inherently harmful and problematic project' dictates the conclusion that Ethiopia must unilaterally mitigate so-called 'harm' and compromise on rights it fully possesses. This renders the process not a search for equity, but a tool to legitimize downstream hydro-hegemony and external political influence.
Ethiopia's unassailable right to equitable utilization of Nile River
Turning from the flaws of the proposed mediator to the substance of the dispute, Ethiopia's position rests upon the solid bedrock of modern international water law, which unequivocally supersedes the anachronistic claims invoked by downstream states.
The primary downstream argument, which President Trump's bias effectively reinforces, relies on the doctrine of 'historical rights' stemming from colonial-era instruments like the 1902, 1929, and 1959 agreements. This legal position is fundamentally invalid. It is nullified by the peremptory norm of 'pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt,' enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which holds that a treaty cannot impose obligations on a third state without its consent. Ethiopia was never a signatory to these colonial pacts. Their continued invocation is, therefore, an attempt to perpetuate a jurisprudence of subjugation, directly contradicting the principle of sovereign equality that defines the post-colonial international order.
In contrast, the governing legal framework for the Nile is explicitly provided by the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention, which codifies the customary international law principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. This principle mandates a holistic and weighted analysis of all relevant factors. These factors include, firstly, the geographic and hydrographic contribution of each basin state, of which Ethiopia contributes approximately 86% of the Nile's flow. Secondly, the social and economic needs of the riparian states must be considered; Ethiopia faces profound energy poverty, with a significant portion of its population lacking access to electricity. Thirdly, the effects of the use on other watercourse states and the existing and potential uses of the watercourse are also vital considerations.
The GERD is a quintessential application of this right. It is a non-consumptive use designed to address a vital socio-economic need. It represents the practical implementation of distributive justice, enabling Ethiopia to derive essential benefits from a transboundary resource that originates within its territory, without depriving downstream nations of the water itself.
Furthermore, the frequent downstream invocation of the 'no significant harm rule' as an absolute veto is a deliberate misrepresentation of international law. As clarified by the International Law Commission and leading scholars, this rule is subordinate to and must be applied within the overarching framework of equitable utilization. It prohibits only unjustified significant harm. The GERD's engineering and proposed operational guidelines, which include phased filling and managed flow releases, are specifically designed to prevent unjustified harm. Moreover, the dam offers tangible downstream benefits, including flood control, reduction of sediment that cripples downstream reservoirs, and the potential to augment dry-season flows. Thus, the persistent claim of 'existential harm' is exposed as a political instrument wielded to subvert a subordinate legal principle into a weapon against a paramount right.
Ethiopia's sovereign imperative
Having established the mediator's disqualifying bias and the robust legal basis for the GERD, the strategic imperative for Ethiopia becomes clear--it must reject any mediation where the outcome is prejudiced by the mediator's partiality, as such a process constitutes intimidation, not diplomacy.
Engaging under these conditions would impose severe sovereign costs on Ethiopia. Firstly, it would legitimize a false and damaging narrative. By participating in a forum orchestrated by a mediator who speaks of 'arrested Nile,' Ethiopia would implicitly concede that the foundational premise of the talks is one of Ethiopian transgression, rather than the lawful exercise of a right.
Secondly, it would dangerously transform clear legal entitlements into mere bargaining chips. Ethiopia's right to equitable utilization, codified in the UN Convention, is not a concession to be traded away; it is an established principle to be implemented. A mediation process that starts from the assumption that this right inherently causes harm requiring mitigation inherently undermines the principle itself, reducing law to a subject of political barter.
Diplomatic energy and political capital diverted into a flawed external process directly undermines the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA)."
Thirdly, and most critically, it would sabotage the basin's own authentic solution. Diplomatic energy and political capital diverted into a flawed external process directly undermines the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA). The CFA is the product of over a decade of riparian negotiation and embodies the precise principles of equitable utilization, no significant harm, and prior notification. It establishes a permanent, institutional framework for cooperative management. Accepting external mediation signals that a resolution can be achieved outside this inclusive, legally sound framework, thereby relieving pressure on Egypt and Sudan to finally ratify it and engage in good-faith regional cooperation.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Therefore, the rejection of mediation led by President Trump is not an act of intransigence but a principled defense of sovereignty and the rule of law. It is an insistence that any resolution must be rooted in the impartial application of international law and achieved through the basin's own negotiated mechanism. The CFA presents this precise path, offering a future of shared security governed by agreed rules, not the unpredictable whims of a biased external power.
Conclusion
The GERD, now operational, stands as a testament to Ethiopian sovereignty and a definitive challenge to an antiquated hydro-political order. President Trump's offers of mediation, illuminated by his explicit and documented partiality, represent a form of diplomatic intimidation that seeks to substitute power politics for legal principle. For Ethiopia to accept such a process would be an act of capitulation, trading inviolable rights secured under international law for the precarious and unjust terms of a predetermined arrangement.
Ethiopia's stance must remain steadfast and clear that genuine mediation requires a neutral mediator and an unwavering foundation in international law conditions profoundly absent in this case. The future of the Nile Basin cannot be held hostage to the political inclinations of a foreign leader. It must be forged by the riparian nations themselves through the Cooperative Framework Agreement. For Egypt and Sudan, true and lasting water security lies not in seeking external patrons to uphold unjust historical privileges, but in joining their upstream neighbor at the basin's own table of cooperation, governed by law and mutual benefit.
The choice is unambiguous--a cooperative, prosperous future under the CFA, or a perpetuation of conflict under the shadow of partial and coercive mediation. Ethiopia, in defending its sovereignty and the rule of law, must and should choose the former. AS
Editor's Note: Hassen Mama Muse is a lawyer based in Addis Abeba. He can be contacted at hassenmama@gmail.com
