It is funny how the arguments always tend to involve Israel, biblical insinuations, nationalistic flares when it comes to Egypt the Middle East in general. The issue at hand is not something the sprung overnight. It has been proposed since the 1980s or even before. One thing precisely accurate in the article is the value of water. Along with many riches that the African continent promises clean water and fertile land is principal. Israeli intervention is a fact not fiction, they would be so stupid not to do so, go to the map and ascertain for yourself the important location of Ethiopia to the red sea.
I am Egyptian too, and for sure I love my country and love water, but what Sabahi is suggesting is utter nonsense. He has no political weight on the ground, nor he has any knowledge about a crisis like the one at hand. Unless China is in direct military conflict with Egypt, Egypt cannot deny passage. The argument that no one signed for Ethiopia but the colonial powers is also flawed, it is a ratified treaty not a handshake in a coffee shop after last call for liquor. Many donot also know, that Egypt doesnot deny the right of Ethiopia or any other country to develop their land, after all the Electricity coming out of the dam has to be sold somehow, and I believe there are plans to link Electrical networks. The main problem comes after completing the dam, in the period where you start filling the artificial lake, you have to stack water for five consecutive years to have a level suitable for power generation. That means that you are going to block water from users downstream.
Then also you have to consider the nature of the land at this part of the world which is prone to Earthquakes especially with all the new concentration of pressure, in case of a breakdown Khartoum will disappear. That is to be taken into consideration.
So what is the solution, first all countries have to recognize that treaties exist for a reason. Second, the ultimate solution is to cut deals that benefit all countries on the nile. The issue is not an Egyptian veto, the issue is precedent, just because I don't like the way you look in the morning I can claim I didn't sign any treaty. Ethiopia also is paying the price of neglecting it is own people for the benefit of Cold war adventurers. This prevented any serious attempts to develop all the Nile basin as an integrated economic unit.
For those who like history what you may not know is that a treaty between Egypt and Ethiopia exists since 1979 when part of Ethiopia was colonized by Ismael, this treaty gave back the land to Ethiopia (trying to unite at the time) in return that Egypt pays a certain amount of money and NO dam or Water work wold take place. The land that the dam is on is part of this treaty. Ye again, the solution is not in war or international law. It is in recognizing that the destiny of neighbours is linked like it or not.
What is happening in Egypt now is far complex than meets the eyes. There are may be three competing factors: Generals among the MC who want to oust Tantawy indirectly based on "popular demand", this started a while ago when an "obsecure" group floated roomers about nominating him for presidency. All the while he was dismissing this as a roomer and insisting on elections on time.
Then you have your "liberals" who are calling for a national government just to oust the Islamist or to be exact to circumvent possible parliamentary wins by Islamists.
Finally you have your average Egyptian who is just fed up with all this nonsense and is trying his best to better his life and future.
The battle now is to have free elections and this last round of violence was planned carefully to cast doubt on the results of any elections, which will thro wthe country again in a spin. This act definitely stands to benefit a dictator "in whatever form" civilian or in Uniform who may be currently seeking the green light from some international powers to be.
The silmi declaration was just an enabling event.
Interesting "western" analysis. Facts, army soldiers MPs had no ammunition, their tanks were left open so was their armored vehicles, in military terms:there were no per-notions to strike at innocent "protesters". No one is addressing the synchronized marches in major cities in Egypt by the Copts and their alliances to protest the Church incident. Regardless, I argue that the "church" incident was just an enabling event. Again, regardless of who started what, the demands that surfaced after the incident were very revealing. For example talk about "securing" a quota in the would be elected parliament for the copts, appointing a christian general in the Military council. However, more curious was the organization of two conferences, public mind you, by ex-national party members to decry the intended law that prohibits their participation in future political life.
In your post there were indications about salafis and fundamentalists and their role, one has to remember that fundamentalism and fanaticism is also practiced by the Church in many contexts. After all, the Coptic church at one time laid its cards on the would be heir, the now jailed Gamal Mubarak. This is the real fear of the clergy that they will lose power post the elections. In the past, similar to the Mubarak regime, the church also has married into big money.
Finally, the army in Egypt is not like that in Pakistan, it doesnot have a grip on the economy as an institution.
It is funny how the arguments always tend to involve Israel, biblical insinuations, nationalistic flares when it comes to Egypt the Middle East in general. The issue at hand is not something the sprung overnight. It has been proposed since the 1980s or even before. One thing precisely accurate in the article is the value of water. Along with many riches that the African continent promises clean water and fertile land is principal. Israeli intervention is a fact not fiction, they would be so stupid not to do so, go to the map and ascertain for yourself the important location of Ethiopia to the red sea.
I am Egyptian too, and for sure I love my country and love water, but what Sabahi is suggesting is utter nonsense. He has no political weight on the ground, nor he has any knowledge about a crisis like the one at hand. Unless China is in direct military conflict with Egypt, Egypt cannot deny passage. The argument that no one signed for Ethiopia but the colonial powers is also flawed, it is a ratified treaty not a handshake in a coffee shop after last call for liquor. Many donot also know, that Egypt doesnot deny the right of Ethiopia or any other country to develop their land, after all the Electricity coming out of the dam has to be sold somehow, and I believe there are plans to link Electrical networks. The main problem comes after completing the dam, in the period where you start filling the artificial lake, you have to stack water for five consecutive years to have a level suitable for power generation. That means that you are going to block water from users downstream.
Then also you have to consider the nature of the land at this part of the world which is prone to Earthquakes especially with all the new concentration of pressure, in case of a breakdown Khartoum will disappear. That is to be taken into consideration.
So what is the solution, first all countries have to recognize that treaties exist for a reason. Second, the ultimate solution is to cut deals that benefit all countries on the nile. The issue is not an Egyptian veto, the issue is precedent, just because I don't like the way you look in the morning I can claim I didn't sign any treaty. Ethiopia also is paying the price of neglecting it is own people for the benefit of Cold war adventurers. This prevented any serious attempts to develop all the Nile basin as an integrated economic unit.
For those who like history what you may not know is that a treaty between Egypt and Ethiopia exists since 1979 when part of Ethiopia was colonized by Ismael, this treaty gave back the land to Ethiopia (trying to unite at the time) in return that Egypt pays a certain amount of money and NO dam or Water work wold take place. The land that the dam is on is part of this treaty. Ye again, the solution is not in war or international law. It is in recognizing that the destiny of neighbours is linked like it or not.
What is happening in Egypt now is far complex than meets the eyes. There are may be three competing factors: Generals among the MC who want to oust Tantawy indirectly based on "popular demand", this started a while ago when an "obsecure" group floated roomers about nominating him for presidency. All the while he was dismissing this as a roomer and insisting on elections on time.
Then you have your "liberals" who are calling for a national government just to oust the Islamist or to be exact to circumvent possible parliamentary wins by Islamists.
Finally you have your average Egyptian who is just fed up with all this nonsense and is trying his best to better his life and future.
The battle now is to have free elections and this last round of violence was planned carefully to cast doubt on the results of any elections, which will thro wthe country again in a spin. This act definitely stands to benefit a dictator "in whatever form" civilian or in Uniform who may be currently seeking the green light from some international powers to be.
The silmi declaration was just an enabling event.
Interesting "western" analysis. Facts, army soldiers MPs had no ammunition, their tanks were left open so was their armored vehicles, in military terms:there were no per-notions to strike at innocent "protesters". No one is addressing the synchronized marches in major cities in Egypt by the Copts and their alliances to protest the Church incident. Regardless, I argue that the "church" incident was just an enabling event. Again, regardless of who started what, the demands that surfaced after the incident were very revealing. For example talk about "securing" a quota in the would be elected parliament for the copts, appointing a christian general in the Military council. However, more curious was the organization of two conferences, public mind you, by ex-national party members to decry the intended law that prohibits their participation in future political life.
In your post there were indications about salafis and fundamentalists and their role, one has to remember that fundamentalism and fanaticism is also practiced by the Church in many contexts. After all, the Coptic church at one time laid its cards on the would be heir, the now jailed Gamal Mubarak. This is the real fear of the clergy that they will lose power post the elections. In the past, similar to the Mubarak regime, the church also has married into big money.
Finally, the army in Egypt is not like that in Pakistan, it doesnot have a grip on the economy as an institution.