Published online: 08 Nov 2024
Abstract
GERD has been a source of tension and a diplomatic deadlock between Egypt and Ethiopia. Diplomacy and cooperation are the only means to resolve these issues. The inability to recognize the current reality that emanates from contradictory narration leads Ethiopia and Egypt relations on the GERD into full mistrust and misconception, and even moving toward confrontation. Accordingly, this study was intended to examine how public diplomacy enhances mutual understanding between Ethiopia and Egypt on the GERD. This study employed a qualitative research approach with in-depth literature review. The findings of the research reveal that securitization, counter-securitization narration, and over-politicization are dominant in the GERD at the cost of the objective reality that muddies Nile water utilization. Hence, the study identified strong popular narratives based on ultra-nationalism and political rhetoric on the GERD that were built by successive government officials, and media, scholars based on past and current events deepened the mistrust. The researcher recommends that Ethiopia and Egypt should widen diplomatic efforts in addition to conventional diplomacy by implementing public diplomacy elements to understand their vice-versa genuine concern and build confidence in GERD, which ultimately fosters effective cooperation.
1. Introduction
Relations on the Nile River have been characterized and have served as a source of deep distrust, suspicion, hostile perceptions, misunderstanding, and even political confrontations between Ethiopia and Egypt throughout history (Ibrahim, Citation2010). The Nile River could potentially create opportunities for cooperation and conflict. Cooperation between these countries is crucial in addressing the diverging stands, needs, and demands of both Ethiopia and Egypt by jointly exploring opportunities and trade-offs that maximize sustainable development.
In recent times, due to the alarming population growth, agricultural and industrial developments, and climate change in upper riparian countries, the claim of fair and equitable Nile waters has grown. At the forefront, Ethiopia appears to be challenging Egypt’s firm position to unilaterally enjoy and administer the river (Chekol, Citation2018). Conversely, historical Egypt’s fear of changes in the Nile River course has become a reality as a result of the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) construction (Salman, Citation2016, Citation2020).
Since its announcement, securitization and counter-securitization narratives have been ongoing between Egypt and Ethiopia, based on historical rights and environmental justice, respectively, as well as on water nationalism in both countries. In every transboundary river development, including the Nile Basin, the narration of government officials and political elites, common popular culture, media, etc., are key in shaping the conditions of water conflict and cooperation. According to Ethiopian officials, the project is a flagship initiative that benefits everyone involved, making it a win-win situation. The security discourse in Ethiopia surrounding the development of large-scale water infrastructure such as the GERD is not only linked to the portrayal of poverty as an existential threat but is also seen as a necessary step in easing political tension (Assefa & Gedifew, Citation2021; Gebresenbet, Citation2014; Verhoeven, Citation2021).
In contrast, the Egyptian ruling elites and media considered GERD an existential threat and adopted a variety of coercive and bargaining power tactics to curb the project. Some Egyptian politicians and newspapers reportedly bombed the GERD or arming insurgent groups to pressurize the government of Ethiopia (Chekol, Citation2018). Furthermore, the prominent Egyptian religious leader and politician, Sheikh Abdel-Akher Hammad, argued that the construction of the project was tantamount to ‘a declaration of war by Ethiopia on Egypt’ (Chekol, Citation2018).
Mistrust and misunderstanding of the project between Ethiopia and Egypt and persistent failures of Track-1 diplomacy initiatives have led to an absence of mutually binding agreements over the sticking points of the dam. Track one diplomacy is a diplomatic activity carried out at State level that involves official dialogue between political and military leaders (Hussein et al., Citation2023). Apart from exchanging diplomatic delegations, efforts are being made to resolve these differences through tripartite negotiations, including Sudan and third-party involvement at the government level. Despite these dialogues and diplomatic efforts between Ethiopia and Egypt regarding dams, they have not yet addressed their mutual concerns about the project. As time passes, the slow and daunting cooperative dialogue and diplomacy, which did not keep up with energy and water insecurity, growing population, and internal political pressures, would lead to undesirable water conflicts between Ethiopia and Egypt (Abtew & Dessu, Citation2019).
Hence, the inadequate representation of multiple-level actors can worsen transboundary disputes and create a deadlock in the management of shared resources (Panikkar et al., Citation2019). The Nile water utilization issues between Ethiopia and Egypt, specifically the GERD, are affected by historical and political contexts. Since its inception, GERD, considered a national flagship project, has occupied a central place in Ethiopian public spaces and debates built on a highly symbolic river of the Nile (Belay et al., Citation2020). On the other hand, Egyptians fear that the GERD will harm the country’s water security, which provides almost all of Egypt’s water needs (Mbaku, Citation2020). In addition, the popular narrative on the dam is created not only by political elites but also by media organizations that disseminate unbalanced information to their respective audiences, whereby such narration fuels nationalist sentiment and mutual distrust between the two countries (Woldemaryam, Citation2020)
The construction of a significant project such as the GERD may lead to misunderstandings and conflicts due to unclear information, self-interest narration, and lack of dialogue. To move forward, it is important not only for political authorities at the state level, but also for non-state actors and ordinary individuals to be involved in the process (Chekol & Workneh, Citation2018; Panikkar et al., Citation2019).
Public diplomacy is an effective means of changing the misconceptions people have about the other through participation of all actors of international relations aiming to achieve convergence between states through techniques of advocacy, listening, citizen exchange, international broadcasting, cultural exchange, etc., (Cull, Citation2008). Concurrently, mega hydraulic construction influences social and political relations; it is also shaped by political, social, and cultural conditions (Swyngedouw, Citation2009). Through the following actor-inclusive approach, facilitating direct contact and dialogue between different cultural, political, scientific, media, and business communities has great relevance for widening diplomatic efforts, and inter-community interaction and solidarity alike can establish trust and water cooperation (Hussein et al, Citation2023).
Research has indicated the potential for water diplomacy to solve Ethiopian-Egyptian contention over GERD (Abtew & Dessu, Citation2019; Woldemaryam, Citation2020; Yimer & Subasi, Citation2021). Woldemaryam (Citation2020) analyzed the significance of water diplomacy in solving the Nile water conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt in his paper titled ‘Making River a Point of Cooperation between Ethiopia and Egypt: Building Confidence through Water Diplomacy’.
However, little has been done to resolve misunderstandings and mistrust over the GERD from the perspective of public diplomacy. Among recent notable works, Workneh (Citation2018) explored how public diplomacy enhances trust in Ethio-Egyptian relations regarding the Nile water. Another work by Dereje (Citation2018), studied ‘Cultural diplomacy as an instrument of Communication in image building’, specifically taking the case of Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the above studies fail to address how public diplomacy improves the narration that causes misrepresentation, misconceptions, and mistrust, which serves as a rationale for using public diplomacy regarding GERD. Therefore, it is essential to conduct an academic study to analyze how public diplomacy can improve mutual understanding between Ethiopia and Egypt regarding the GERD issue.
2. Literature review
2.1 Conceptual Framework
Public diplomacy is one of the means to achieve foreign policy objectives and is the hottest topic under discussion in the world’s diplomatic arena (Melissen, Citation2005; Nye, Citation2004). Nevertheless, there is no consensus on how public diplomacy (PD) should be defined or contained. According to Gullion, public diplomacy involves managing public attitudes to shape and execute foreign policies (Cull, Citation2008). As stated by Fouts (cited in Taylor, Citation2008), its government attempts to reach the public to explain its culture, values, policies, and beliefs to improve its relationship, image, and reputation with that country. Cull (Citation2008) describes PD as a practice of conducting international relations by facilitating government communications with various non-governmental entities, including political parties, corporations, trade associations, educational institutions, religious organizations, media outlets, influential individuals, and cultural and scientific exchange programs for students, scholars, intellectuals, and artists, to promote mutual understanding and justification of the policies carried out by a nation.
According to Abebe (Citation2015), PD influences and creates positive attitudes and perceptions towards what you do. Fitzpatrick (Citation2017) defined PD as a means of developing and maintaining trust and positive relationships with other nations. This is achieved through the participation of non-governmental organizations, corporations, and individuals who work together towards shared goals and collaborate to address common challenges. By doing so, they contribute to outcomes that benefit the larger community rather than any one entity acting alone.
PD can promote mutual understanding, which has served as the foundation for long-term success in building sustainable relationships that advance both national and societal interests (Fitzpatrick, Citation2017). PD promotes the interest of a state not only through direct contact with different actors, such as influential elites of the host state, the media, academia, business, and cultural intellectuals, but also with the general public. For this reason, public diplomacy is commonly referred to as people diplomacy (Taylor, Citation2008).
Moreover, according to the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, 1961, under Article 3.1(e), public diplomacy promotes friendly relations and develops economic, cultural, and scientific ties between nations. Based on this study, PD can help facilitate and promote sustainable relationships among states.
To recap, based on the discussion above, the operational definition of the public diplomacy for the study is developed as follows: PD is refers to a double way communication that carried out either a government through reaching out to a public to explain its concern, values, beliefs, and justification of its policies to improve its relationship, image, and reputation with the targeted country (Government to Public); or the direct communication between peoples that affects their own thinking and life (people to people), which ultimately leads to mutual understanding of their governments to reach on the situation where both people mutually benefit.
2.2. Theoretical Framework for analyzation
To advance their respective agendas, states rely on their attraction and cooperation. However, the political sphere is now influenced by both the state and non-state actors. As a result, most research on public diplomacy today is aligned with neoliberalism, rather than with realism or neo-realism (Snow & Cull, Citation2020). In neoliberalism, states operate in multiple channels of cooperation, collaboration, and competition, resulting in a less hierarchical and networked international system that follows a multilateral pluralistic approach (Gilboa, Citation2008).
Focusing on transboundary conflict and cooperation through traditional realist or neo-realist approaches is insufficient for understanding transboundary water cooperation (Panikkar et al., Citation2019). Realism empowers state and power politics to achieve the intended interests and resolve disputes. In contrast, neoliberal paradigms are cooperative and focus on mitigating compliance problems and mistrust while seeing water management or mega water projects as the key to development, economic progress, and social benefits.
In addition, advocates of neoliberalism argue that the participation of various players can aid governments in establishing formal cooperation that results in peaceful resolutions between nations. It is imperative to involve non-state actors in trans-boundary cooperation to improve trust building, information sharing, collaboration, and capacity-building initiatives in large-scale water projects (Panikkar et al., Citation2019). This goes along with such a kind of diplomacy because PD requires a no-stakeholders-left-behind strategy with two-way communication, which includes multi-level interaction. Accordingly, this study is guided by this theory as a way to analyze how PD can enhance mutual understanding instruments in the GERD project between Ethiopia and Egypt.
3. Materials and methods
A qualitative research approach was used in this study to ensure a thorough analysis of the issue under investigation. This study utilized secondary sources of data collected from credible international institution reports, different legal agreements regarding the river and GERD, journal articles, research papers, books, legal documents, media outlets, international broadcasts, and Internet sources. Hence, this study analyzes and interprets the leader’s speech in both states regarding GERD. The reason for relying solely on secondary sources is that GERD issues extend beyond the boundaries of Ethiopia and involve other Eastern Nile Basin states and the rest of the upper riparian states.
Furthermore, relying on secondary sources ensures balanced and non-partisan findings from both states, avoiding a one-sided view. All the collected data were qualitatively analyzed. Hence, document review and discourse analysis were employed as the major methods to understand water discourse in Egypt and Ethiopia. To achieve the intended objective, Egyptian claims of historic and natural rights and Ethiopian claims of development and sovereignty rights along with speeches of both state officials were analyzed and interpreted. In relation to this point, the study employed the methodology developed by Nathan and Fischhendler (Citation2016), specifically focusing on the use of existential verbs to demonstrate—how securitized discourse are triggered by securitizing actors (hold a political power), creating a perception of immediate threat or the urgency for survival (Nathan and Fischhendler Citation2016). Hence, during the analysis, the researcher considered the three levels proposed by Balzacq (Citation2010): (1) the agent (actors), (2) the act (the discourse itself), and (3) socio-political and historical setting of the securitizing move to understand the securitization narration.
4. Ethiopia and Egypt water diplomacy on GERD
The tension between Ethiopia and Egypt escalated in 2011 G.C due to the launch of GERD by the Ethiopian Government. The GERD project is being constructed in the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia, which contributes approximately 60% of the Nile flow. Dam water storage is the largest water reservoir in Ethiopia, with a capacity of 74 billion cubic meters of water and generates 5150 megawatts of electricity. Only 54.2% of the population in Ethiopia has access to electricity (World Bank, Citation2021), and this project aims to address the country’s power needs by generating between 65% and 87% of its total power supply (GERDNMO, Citation2017). Conversely, Egypt is not comfortable with the construction of the dam, fearing that it reduces the amount of water that reaches its country and perpetuates one of its foreign policy strategies to block external loans and grants to Ethiopia, which further escalates the tension and mistrust between these countries (Henok, Citation2016).
Most recently, Egypt and Sudan have engaged in tripartite negotiations with Ethiopia to review the impact of GERD (Ksimbazi & Bamwine, Citation2021). The Ethiopian government invited the two downstream countries of Sudan and Egypt in 2011 to inaugurate the International Panel of Experts (IPOE) on the dam. This panel incorporates two national expert representatives from each of the three nations and four from outside the Nile Basin counties.
The primary objective of the IPOE was to review the design documents of the dam, share information, and solicit an understanding of the costs and benefits of the three countries and the impact of the dam on Egypt and Sudan, building trust and confidence among all parties.
In its last report, the panel concluded that the GERD fulfilled international dam construction standards, codes, guidelines, and engineering practices. Hence, the report also recommends conducting further impact studies on water supply to downstream states, and this should be done through appropriate arrangements agreed upon by all three countries and by employing renowned international consultants using an international bidding process (International Panel of Experts [IPOE], 2013).
In 2015, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan signed a Declaration of Principles (DoP) on the construction of the GERD, which includes different international law principles. This is the first convention in which Egypt recognizes the construction of the GERD over the Blue Nile in a legal document. This agreement was considered a step forward in enhancing cooperation and demonstrated that cooperation is the only way to solve deadlock and enhance confidence and trust among countries (Henok, Citation2016; Motlagh, Citation2018). The IPOE report and DoP have played a significant role in reducing distrust and tension on GERD among the three countries. Meanwhile, different local media coverage and agenda framing have been inflammatory, biased news coverage, and often undesirable responses towards these efforts (Elsoufy, Citation2024). Additionally, Egyptian farmers expressed their fear of water shortages in the Nile as a result of the agreement over the dam (Abtew & Dessu, Citation2019).
After the DoP, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan continued to undertake technical negotiations on filling and operation of the GERD. In September 2018, these three states formed a joint research group known as the National Independent Scientific Research Group (NISRG). However, Egypt refused to sign the report of a joint research group that focused on dam filling and operation. Subsequently, the next negotiation efforts also failed, which took place in Washington DC, where the delegates of the three states met with the president of the World Bank (WB) and the United States of America (USA) Secretary of the Treasury, with the WB and USA serving as observers. The issues that failed to reach an agreement during this negotiation were drought mitigation protocols, long-term operation of GERD, and dispute resolution mechanisms (Ksimbazi & Bamwine, Citation2021).
Egypt wants to assert that the filling and operation of a dam will not affect its existing use and rights. Regarding the drought mitigation protocol, Egypt demanded that if drought occurs, the GERD reservoir should be used to provide water to maintain the Aswan High Dam (AHD) at 165 m above sea level. However, Ethiopia refused to sign the agreement document stating that it hinders the right to use the Blue Nile water for irrigation purposes and the power- generating capacity of the GERD (Melesse et al., Citation2021). According to Tekuya (Citation2021), the proposal of Egypt’s long-term operation of the dam and the drought mechanism proposal of Egypt directly or indirectly is an attempt to impose colonial Nile water treaties on Ethiopia. Hence, the proposal goes against the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, which all member states have agreed to, whereby Article 24 of the charter states that ‘All people shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development.’
In addition, dispute resolution is at the center of impediments between these three states. Ethiopia insisted on settling future disputes within its respective states through negotiations based on Article 10 of the DoP, whereas Egypt and Sudan have been in favor of binding international arbitration. Ethiopia rejects arbitration because of the absence of a Nile Basin Agreement (NBA) that could be used by international arbitrators to settle water allocation disputes (Ksimbazi & Bamwine, Citation2021).
Finally, Egypt formally requested and took the GERD issues to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 2020. Ethiopia denounced the action by arguing that the UNSC is not an appropriate place and does not have a mandate to consider such a developmental issue to the UNSC. Instead, the council has a mandate of seeing political and security issues. According to Ethiopian statement to UNSC, the involvement of UNSC makes compromise on GERD more difficult, and the council should not allow itself to politicize the issue (Ethiopian Embassy, Citation2020). Subsequently, the UNSC held an open session to address the dispute over GERD. They recommended that the issue be resolved through the African Union (AU).
However, negotiations under the auspices of the AU came to halt due to a deadlock in water utilization of the Nile water and the construction of the dam. In 2023, tripartite negotiations between Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt restarted and agreed to finalize the agreement on the first filling and annual operation of the GERD within four months. However, the negotiation did not attain its objectives; rather, it ended with Egypt withdrawing from the GERD negotiations (Biyenssa & Beyene, Citation2024).
4.1. Why mutual understanding on GERD
Creating mutual understanding and fostering feelings of friendship with other countries are basic preconditions for lasting peace. Mutual understanding is a two-way communication or comprehension between nations and their stakeholders, which is created by aiding the foreign public to better understand the policies and concerns of others over the issues. According to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the dual aim of mutual understanding is ‘to make the world aware of our society and policies, and to make ourselves aware of the world so as to reduce the degree to which misrepresentation and misunderstanding complicate relations between the USA and other nations’. Accordingly, the basic element behind this idea is increased mutual understanding between the public diplomacy actors of Egypt and Ethiopia. Enhancing the understanding of the policies and concerns over the GERD would help de securitization and resolve mistrust and misconception, ultimately leading to cooperation. Several factors can be attributed to their impact on trust in other countries, such as media coverage, historical links including colonial ties, previous conflicts related to military interventions, violations of local expectations, and unequal status (Mogensen, Citation2015).
There is an ongoing debate and securitization by government officials of Ethiopia and Egypt regarding the utilization of Nile water resources in general, and GERD in particular. These debates have been framed as a security concern, which gives government officials a pretext to exercise wider state powers and mobilize resources aggressively to combat what they perceive as an existential threat (Gebresenbet, Citation2014). Securitization is the process whereby an issue is constructed and framed as a matter of security, thereby moving it outside the realm of normal political action or the construction of a particular referent object through linguistic indictors as an existential threat to a certain audience or narratives justifying military involvement (Buzan et al., Citation1998; Fröhlich, Citation2020). Usually, securitizing actors (i.e., political elites, military leaders, government) securitize a certain matter by portraying and framing it as an existential threat to a referent object (Yimer & Subasi, Citation2021). De-securitization can be seen as the reverse process in which high-profile issues de-escalate into the normal sphere of politics (Fröhlich, Citation2020).
Securitization of GERD by Egypt is mainly based on the narration of historical rights acquired through prior usage based on colonial treaties. Over the years, successive Egyptian governments and political leaders not only had negative perceptions of Ethiopia and engaged in diplomatic battles but also threatened to go to war to secure a historical share of the Nile’s water. The utilization of Nile water by other countries is viewed as a threat to Egypt’s existence, and it is considered a matter of national security by Egyptian leaders. Similarly, the GERD project is regarded as a national security concern by the Egyptian government officials and political elite. For instance, if we see speeches of key governmental officials on GERD: President Mohamed Morsi said: ‘ If our share of Nile diminishes by one drop, then our blood is the alternative’ (El-Behairy, Citation2013). Minister of Water and Resource and Irrigation Hani Sewilam warned Ethiopia and said GERD poses an ‘Existential threat’ to more than 1000 million people in Egypt (Al-Ahram online, Citation2023). Over the years, successive Egyptian governments and political leaders not only had negative perceptions of Ethiopia and engaged in diplomatic battles but also threatened to go to war to secure a historical share of the Nile’s water.
Conversely, a counter securitization narration of Ethiopia based on the discourse of environmental justice and nationalism perpetuates the deadlock between Egypt and Ethiopia on GERD (Verhoeven, Citation2021). The development discourse of Ethiopia securitizes mega infrastructural development projects, such as GERD, as a means to alleviate poverty, which is framed as an existential threat to Ethiopia (Gebresenbet, Citation2014). For instance, late Prime Minster Zenawi, ‘We convinced of with role of our hydropower projects in eliminating projects’ (Mukhtar, Citation2010). Hence, Ethiopia’s UN ambassador Taye Astke-Selassie stated, ‘For Ethiopia, accessing and utilizing its water resources is not a matter of choice, but of existential necessity’ (Damain, Citation2020). Successive Ethiopian governments have been using the dam in a discourse of environmental justice and national pride: a flagship project and rectification of historical injustice and geographical ills to which Ethiopia and its impoverished masses were subjected (Verhoeven, Citation2021). Ethiopia rejects the 1902, 1929, and 1959 colonial agreements (Tekuya, Citation2021) – and asserts that it will not negotiate any agreements that hinder the right to use the potential utilization of the future Nile water for different purposes.
Concurrently, Ethiopia’s governments have insisted on the importance of electricity production to address its power needs and have claimed to reserve the right to engage in other water-related projects on the Nile. For instance, Deputy Prime Minister Temesgen Truneh stated,’ GERD is the national flagship project has currently reached 95.8 percent’ (Fana TV, Citation2024). Hence, effective securitization also occurs through the Securitization Speech Act to convince the targeted audience (Yimer & Subasi, Citation2021). The securitization speech of both countries’ government officials against the GERD added fuel to the already complicated diplomatic deadlock of the two countries. For instance, in the Middle Eastern Media, the current president of Egypt Al-Sisi warned Ethiopia by stating, ‘I say once again no one can take a drop from Egypt water’ (Aljazeera, Citation2022).
On the Ethiopian side, some voices strongly believe that nothing can discourage or halt the finalization of the GERD. For instance, the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, was quoted as saying ‘No force could stop Ethiopia from building the dam’ (BBC, 2020) and ‘If there is a need to go to war, we could get millions ready’ (Aljazeera, Citation2019). However, such securitization speech creates fear and deepens mistrust and misconceptions among the public in both states involved in the GERD.
The securitization and counter-securitization of this project’s narrative has helped officials in Egypt and Ethiopia gain support for their political programs from their respective citizens. Mega infrastructure projects such as GERD used to impress both domestic and external audiences and give political and bureaucratic elites relative autonomy to redraw relations between the incumbent government and ordinary citizens (Verhoeven, Citation2021). For successive ruling parties in Ethiopia, from the EPRDF to the Prosperity Party, the GERD is seen as a means of increasing economic performance and generating popular support.
GERD has also been exploited to gain political advantage and legitimize their political leadership (Abtew & Dessu, Citation2019). For example, in the run-up to the August 2020 elections, some prominent politicians and political parties (i.e., Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice) denounced what they perceived as foreign interference in the GERD negotiations due to the perception that the US was backing Egypt (International Crisis Group, Citation2020). This helped to bolster the incumbent government. As the linkages between the market and state tighten, competing alternative actors are gradually excluded from the state-building process.
Egyptian government officials have also used the GERD to divert public attention from growing domestic discontent with their incumbent government. For instance, Sisi faced criticism from nationalists and his domestic popularity was shaken by protests in September 2019, calling for him to step down. To divert this criticism, he has been using GERD for his political advantage by portraying himself as a strong leader who is protecting Egypt’s share of Nile waters (International Crisis Group, Citation2020).
During negotiations between Ethiopia and Egypt regarding the dam, both sides anticipated domestic reactions because the dam was considered a flagship project and a cherished symbol. As a result, even minor concessions on technical issues related to filling the dam reservoir and its operation could be perceived as a political defeat in the eyes of the public, potentially delegitimizing the ruling leadership of both countries (Belay et al., Citation2020). Without common legal agreements and institutional frameworks to manage and share resources, water conflict may be inevitable because of social pressure and the political desire to take advantage of public hysteria and fear (Abtew & Dessu, Citation2019). This can lead to the escalation of securitization, counter-securitization, and over-politicization of GERD issues, based on political rhetoric and allegations. Such actions can create grounds for misunderstandings and trust deficits, ultimately leading to potential conflicts and hindering the progress of dialogue and negotiations.
Moreover, apart from the government elites, a strong popular narrative on GERD has been built by history, current events, and social and political contexts in both Ethiopia and Egypt (Olesker, Citation2014; Yimer & Subasi, Citation2021). Ethiopians have expressed their lingering grievances and bitterness over the fact that Nile water and its land have been unable to feed its people. The idea of storing Nile waters in the Blue Nile gorge has been in the minds of Ethiopia for centuries. Unfortunately, Ethiopia has benefitted little from the water of the Nile water for a long time (Ejigu, Citation2016; Tekuya, Citation2021). The Nile related narratives in Ethiopia represented as a mixture of anger and sorrow emotion such as Homeless River, traitor etc. A popular saying in Ethiopia reflects this fact: ‘Oh! The daughter of Abbay suffered in thirst!’ This reflects the resentment of Ethiopians towards the unfair utilization of the Nile water by external forces, particularly Egypt. Hence, Nile in most Ethiopian music is represented not only as a powerful and beautiful but also as a sign of regret, Deaf River, leaving Ethiopians dies of thirst and failing to contribute to economic development Ethiopia (Ayenalem et al., Citation2023).
Ethiopians consider the Nile not only a symbol of identity, pride, and prestige but also hold ritual practices in honor. However, they believe that they have been deprived of their rights to development due to the actions of external forces that have always wanted to see weak and divided Ethiopia. Many Ethiopians blame Egypt for capturing the Blue Nile waters and using them to establish ancient civilization and present development, leaving them in poverty and deprivation (Damtew, Citation2016; El-Din Allam, Citation2020).
Egypt has been actively involved in destabilizing Ethiopia by taking advantage of its unstable domestic politics and ethnic diversity (Yimer & Subasi, Citation2021). This has led many Ethiopians to believe that Egypt will support conflicts in Ethiopia. For example, many Ethiopians believe that Egypt had a hand in the Eritrean war for independence and the bloody Ethio-Eritrean war, which were framed as proxy interventions aimed at weakening Ethiopia, emanating from the fear that Ethiopia would deny Egypt access to the Nile waters (Balehegn, Citation2017).
Consequently, the perception of historical events and battles between Ethiopians and the Khedive of Egypt has led people to write and converse about them as ways to boost national morale and tools for psychological warfare. Trust between nations greatly depends on whether they are perceived as friends or enemies (Mogensen, Citation2015). In Ethiopia, there is a widespread feeling of resentment and the Nile dispute with Egypt is often portrayed in moralistic terms of justice, which justifies the construction of the dam (Verhoeven, Citation2021).
Above all, the GERD issue is not only a high-level political matter, but is also closely linked to the daily lives of the people of both Egypt and Ethiopia. For Egyptians, who are heavily reliant on the Nile for water, the prospect of what could happen in Ethiopia makes them nervous. Similarly, for Ethiopians, dams represent a symbol of national pride, as they strive for energy independence in the longest-standing independent country in Africa (Mokaddem & El Mquirmi, Citation2020). The construction of GERD was portrayed as the Nile River returning home to listen to and support the Ethiopian people, lifting them out of poverty (Ayenalem et al., Citation2023). Hence, despite political differences, the GERD project has become a topic of consensus among Ethiopians, who are funding and constructing projects without international assistance.
For a large number of ordinary people, including civil society, religious leaders, diaspora activists, and scholars of Ethiopia, the Egyptian people’s Nile quest about the GERD was perceived as a continuation of the centuries-old veto claim efforts and deceptions by Egyptian rulers to make Ethiopians unable to use the water (Balehegn, Citation2017). Sometimes, the over-politicization of the GERD by the party-state of Ethiopia has been spread by civil society, diaspora activities, scholars, and ordinary people, based on a narration of historical injustice (Verhoeven, Citation2021). These historical backgrounds and contrived public narratives in turn lead to the perception of Egypt as a natural enemy in the minds of everyday Ethiopians; however, these negative perceptions can lead to misunderstandings and disregard of the legitimate concerns and fears of Egyptians regarding Nile waters. It’s important to recognize that over 90% of Egypt’s fresh water supply comes from the Nile, and any disregard for this fact could have serious consequences (Ghunaim, Citation2020).
On the other end, Egyptians have long viewed their country as a natural gift bestowed by the Nile and have even worshipped the river as a god (BBC, 2018). They firmly believe that they have the sole right to use Nile water over any other country (Mokaddem & El Mquirmi, Citation2020).
Although GERD is being constructed based on international standards (IPOE, Citation2013), a large number of Egyptians fear and suspect the quality of the dam. More than anything, a considerable number of Egyptian individuals still have misconceptions and manifest extreme nationalism with the need to maintain the status quo (Bayeh, Citation2015). This popular narration deepened the level of mistrust between Ethiopia and Egypt, especially as time went on with the existing climate variability and change.
Furthermore, strong popular narratives on GERD have been built by the media and scholars in both Ethiopia and Egypt. When governments invest in international broadcasting or other forms of news media for targeted foreign audiences, they ey are expected to adhere to the norms of professional journalism (Mogensen, Citation2015). Since the official announcement of the GERD construction plan, the Egyptian and Ethiopian media have expressed differing opinions about the project based on their national interests (Elsoufy, Citation2024).
In Ethiopia, the media sold stories and analyzed Egyptian opposition to the dam based on historical grievances in the minds of Ethiopians as a historical enemy in the utilization of Nile water. Conversely, the prevailing narrative in the Egyptian media portrays Ethiopia’s intentions towards Nile waters, including the GERD project, as a threat to Egypt’s water security, calling for unilateral solutions or military action. As a result, a sizable portion of the Egyptian population continues to distrust Ethiopia (Ejigu, Citation2016). However, this approach is based on misinformation, and goes against efforts to find a cooperative solution. Due to such media content, a sizable portion of the people of Egypt continue to distrust Ethiopia’s concern over the GERD.
It is worth noting that, in certain countries, media outlets are subject to high levels of government intervention, which discourages them from reporting the truth and instead requires them to support the government’s stance. Even though there is a consensus on most issues related to the GERD between Ethiopia and Egypt, the Egyptian media has been siding with the government in negotiations over the dam, accusing Ethiopia of being uncooperative until the final round of talks (Damian, Citation2021).
The Ethiopian government is grappling with the challenges posed by the GERD local media outlets, which seem to be more focused on broadcasting news of alleged Egyptian conspiracies and interventions aimed at undermining Ethiopia’s stability and development. This media environment provides an opportunity for the government to manipulate public opinion and gain support for dam construction while avoiding dissent. Instead of searching for solutions to the sticking points over the dam, the media seems to be using GERD as a tool to legitimize itself.
In addition, online technologies have initiated an exponential rise in the ability to distribute information, view age globally, give citizens and different actors significant access to political information than ever before, and serve as magnifying glasses that enhance or diminish public concerns and shape the viewpoints of the public.
The nationalistic discourse on social media in Ethiopia and Egypt is notably less diplomatic and muscularly patriotic. For example, Ethiopian blogs, social media posts, and hashtags such as #ItsMyDam suggest that the media is vulnerable to attacks from Egypt (Damian, Citation2021). Such actions increase fear, suspicion, and misunderstandings among the public, which could potentially hinder genuine diplomatic dialogue over the dam.
Finally, due to its strong socio–economic benefits and geopolitical implications, GERD has received significant attention from regional and international scientific communities. Several scientific publications on GERD that use scientific facts are increasing from time to time, which hints at how to use the dam as a means to facilitate cooperation between Ethiopia and Egypt to address the respective concerns based on the objective reality of the basin. The strategy of transparent and trustworthy inter-state cooperation has significant value in addressing transboundary river crises, such as the Nile (Yimer & Subasi, Citation2021). Negotiations related to energy security concerns using reliable data are paramount and essential in mobilizing the people of both states.
Nevertheless, there are several scholarly reports and publications on GERD that are replete with politically motivated scientific misconduct at the cost of communicating scientific facts using suspected data (Abera et al., Citation2021). There are considerable reports and research that have concluded a possible failure of the GERD dam due to earthquakes and would risk flooding the capital city of Sudan and the White Nile water without properly evaluating the dam design and safety protocols (For reference see Abera et al., Citation2021). Such reports on the GERD will have the potential to deceive and result in misleading conclusions about the dam, not only creating a trust deficit in both the public of Ethiopia and Egypt but also undermining both scientific integrity and diplomatic efforts in GERD.
Therefore, it is clear that there is a misunderstanding among the people and the political elites concerning the Nile issues in general, and the GERD dam in particular. Public thinking and discourse dictate an alternative diplomatic approach and official policies from both Ethiopia and Egypt governments that are able to facilitate and build confidence between their ordinary citizens, political elites, scholars, etc., by listening to one another’s fears, plight, and aspirations, and to ensure their mutual concern with regard to the dam. Given the pronounced lack of trust between Ethiopia and Egypt, it is unlikely to find a way to reach mutual understanding merely based on conventional diplomacy. One should forth what can then be done to minimize misunderstanding and to avoid wrong narration of the GERD.
4.2. Diplomacy that works: creating conditions of mutual understanding and trust through public diplomacy on GERD between Egypt and Ethiopia
GERD is being constructed in Ethiopia along the Blue Nile, a major tributary of the northward-flowing Nile River in Egypt (Suter, Citation2016), highlighting the unitary and moving nature of the Nile River. Cooperation and interactions among the people of riparian countries are possible because Nile water is the lifeblood of the people who live around it (Hassan & Al Rasheedy, Citation2007). To enhance this understanding between Egypt and Ethiopia over the GERD, it is important to shape the public and securitizing actors’ narration to mitigate the misconception of the GERD. To solve the mistrust and misunderstanding of the GERD, it is important to support existing diplomatic efforts by following a diplomatic mechanism that concentrates on a bottom-up approach, which includes a range of non-governmental entities, political parties, educational institutions, religious organizations, and media, including influential individuals, to influence and shape the perception, politics, and actions of other securitizing actors and the ordinary public to find ways of cooperation and collaboration.
Public diplomacy is one of the ‘notion-maker’ elements that have the power to create new notions or public opinions and to change the patterns already made (Rostami, Citation2014). As a result, public diplomacy can serve as an alternative solution for enhancing mutual understanding and supporting regular diplomatic efforts on GERD between Egypt and Ethiopia.
Considering the current state of international affairs, securitizing and counter securitizing GERD should not be the answer. Rather, we can reduce misunderstandings and build trust by de-securitizing Nile water utilization and the GERD, and de-securitization occurs when the matter is no longer perceived as a threat (Yimer & Subasi, Citation2021). In other words, when GERD is not defined as an existential threat to both Egypt and Ethiopia, and relevant narratives are framed based on reliable empirical knowledge, a mutual understanding of the underlying common concerns of Ethiopia and Egypt can easily be fostered.
Nevertheless, in recent times, intense political rhetoric between Egypt and Ethiopia over the GERD has become the cause of the gridlock. As an illustration, Egyptian authorities did very little to inform the public about the true nature of the project. Instead, they focused on high-intensity diplomacy, which created fear among the people (Mokaddem & El Mquirmi, Citation2020). Simultaneously, the Ethiopian government views GERD as a means of gaining infrastructural power and legitimacy. Hence, as mentioned in Section 4.1, through the inflammatory rhetoric and securitization speech on the GERD, neither Egypt nor Ethiopia will get anything. Rather than feeding public uncensored facts and political rhetoric, it would be fruitful to implement public diplomacy that creates an opportunity for two historically tied people and governments to understand and listen to the other side’s fear and concern over the dam.
Conducting public diplomacy between Ethiopia and Egypt can help de-securitize the GERD matter based on the objective reality of the GERD. The Nile water comprises 72% of total surface water and 50% of Ethiopian surface water for energy generation but has not been satisfied by other rivers in the country. Conversely, for Egypt, it is about preventing the risks of flow reduction at Aswan to meet its national water demand, and any project in Nile water raises concerns about the expected impact on the water flow of the river. This is mainly because 98% of the Egyptian population lives on the banks of the Nile and the river provides 95% of the water consumed (Mokaddem & El Mquirmi, Citation2020).
As in Ethiopia and Egypt, water and energy insecurity is increasing. The energy consumption for water, agriculture, and land increased in both states. For instance, access to electricity is 100% in Egypt and 54.2% in Ethiopia. However, Egypt is the largest energy-consuming country (electrification rate) at 1743 kWh, which is higher than the energy usage of both Sudan and Ethiopia combined. It is important to establish a binary relationship and create awareness of objective reality in both states. The Nile is an existential lifeline for Egyptians.
Likewise, developing hydropower infrastructure, such as GERD, plays a crucial role in Ethiopia’s growth strategy by lifting millions of its citizens out of poverty. Cooperation, rather than political power plays and attempts at hegemony, is key to managing and sharing the utilization of the Nile water between the two countries. In this regard, public diplomacy can foster relationships and cultivate trust by seeking common ground (Fitzpatrick, Citation2017).
The escalation of tensions between Ethiopia and Egypt over the project is partly based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the risks of the GERD poses to Egypt (Whittington et al., Citation2014). Equally significant, it is appropriate to explain the decision made by Ethiopia to build water infrastructure based on technical reasoning rather than counter-securitizing the dam. One may further question and challenge whether it is appropriate to justify the construction of GERD in Ethiopia based solely on technical reasoning. This is beyond the scope of this topic but deserves further analysis.
To return to our discussion, creating awareness that water is life for Egyptians and just as electricity is for Ethiopians can reduce conflicts through public diplomacy (Chekol & Workneh, Citation2018). It has been previously suggested that GERD could cause a reduction in the water supply in Egypt, leading to concerns among the public. However, this is not the case, as the hydropower dam will not consume any water, and shortages will occur during the filling process. In reality GERD, may benefit Egypt by reducing evaporation losses from the Aswan High Dam reservoir, providing a greater amount of relatively cheaper electricity, and giving Egypt priority in purchasing, according to the DoP (Salman, Citation2020).
Establishing people-to-people diplomacy can help foster the understanding and justification of the policies implemented by Ethiopia and Egypt on GERD. If people in both countries are aware of the situation regarding GERD, they can help shape their respective governments’ approach towards it, avoiding unnecessary conflict. In the context of the securitization discourse, the audience plays a crucial role in permitting the occurrence of securitization to occur (Roe, Citation2008). Therefore, instead of framing the GERD as an existential threat, it can be presented to the Egyptian public as a project aimed at bridging the gap between the current installed capacity and national electricity generation potential, similar to other large-scale hydraulic projects in other Ethiopian rivers. Additionally, the potential benefits to Egyptians could reap because the dam can be emphasized.
Above all, a viable strategic option for both Egypt and Ethiopia regarding the GERD and Nile water is to pursue a win-win policy of cooperation for mutual benefits. Accordingly, to solve the diplomatic deadlock and to use GERD as a catalyst for cooperation Ethiopia and Egypt should enhance mutual understanding and trust, which is key to negotiations through PD. Trust is a basic element of building relationships (Mogensen, Citation2015). In line with this, PD plays an advisory role in advocating rationality and legitimacy. This facilitates a conducive environment for dialogue, discussion, and trust-building between Ethiopia and Egypt (Workneh, Citation2018).
In addition, the media play a crucial role in shaping public perception and managing the image of GERD. In both Egypt and Ethiopia, the media has become a central source of information and encourages states, non-state actors, communities, and individuals to share their thoughts and ideas about GERD-related issues, whereby media coverage can influence elite and public opinion positively or negatively towards GERD. At the cost of compromising the security of the issues, if the media acts as an instrument for fabricating false information about the dam, it will increase tension and mistrust over the dam between the public in the two states. Therefore, if the Egyptian media continues to perpetuate the narrative of the historical water rights of Egypt, which is far from recognizing the changing socio-economic and political reality of the basin and concerns of Ethiopia regarding the GERD, it will potentially escalate mistrust and conflict.
In relation to this point, the Egyptian media has also employed another strategy to securitize the GERD, which emphasizes the safety of the dam (as stated by Yimer & Subasi in Citation2021). This safety is confirmed by IPoE, which ensures that the dam project on the Blue Nile meets all international standards (IPOE, Citation2013). Owing to the fabrication of false information, many Egyptians have raised concerns about the potential collapse of GERD. However, PD can provide accurate information and technical solutions to temporary filling issues by being transparent and truthful for all concerned nations.
By disclosing fake news and promoting transparency, PD can help to restore public trust. Likewise, the media can be conscious of how the communication agenda is set and framed to play a constructive and responsible role in mobilizing public support and positively shaping public opinion and perception of GERD.
Furthermore, Egyptian media suggests that military intervention to stop the completion of GERD is not a viable solution. It is important to acknowledge that GERD is now a reality, with Ethiopia having completed its fourth filling on the Blue Nile (Fana TV, Citation2023). In the meantime, it is essential for Ethiopian media to not focus solely on the narrative of underdevelopment due to the historical injustice of water utilization by Egypt. This approach would only perpetuate mistrust between the public in both countries. Instead, implementing PD between the two nations on GERD would lead the media to concentrate on narratives of moving forward toward substantial progress. This approach would also promote news framing by acknowledging the existence of a variety of interests concerning the use of Nile water.
Furthermore, it suggests the need for mediation between different positions and claims while promoting the merits and demerits of the project. Because the goal of PD is to enhance mutual understanding through explanation, dialogue, and debate, this approach can, in turn, influence public attitudes and mobilize public pressure on their respective governments for better mutual benefit from the GERD.
In terms of social responsibility, journalists and media outlets play a significant role in building trust (Mogensen, Citation2015). If media outlets across various countries can grasp the popular psychology and narrative behind GERD, it would enable them to understand the concerns and legitimate fears surrounding the dam, leading to the establishment of trust between all parties involved. If both states engaged in managing the vice-versa environment through media and communication activity of PD to actively promote a concern or interest in the minds of a counterpart public, it would help to enhance mutual understanding of GERD. This is because if the Ethiopian and Egyptian people are aware of the reality of GERD in a clear manner, they will not only avoid mistrust and the one-sided role of the media, but also correct the wrong decisions of their respective governments on GERD, including externalizing some of the internal problems.
Therefore, PD plays a crucial role in providing information on the rights and duties of Egypt and Ethiopia concerning the Nile water by utilizing networking systems (Chekol & Workneh, Citation2018). It is essential to communicate with the public in both nations to familiarize themselves with each other’s perspectives. PD can leverage digital technologies, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to disseminate information and receive feedback on dams. This platform can enable both states to exchange ideas and concerns, facilitating access to accurate, reliable, and factual information on GERD.
Currently, social media is the preferred method for PD because of its accessibility and increasing use. Nowadays, social media has become more prevalent among different segments of society, particularly the younger generation, than in public gatherings. Therefore, it is a great opportunity for both Egypt and Ethiopia to use social media to express their concerns and receive public opinion regarding GERD, rectify any misunderstandings, and promote truth about the dam. Moreover, diplomats are not solely responsible for easing tensions, particularly when government officials and media outlets in both countries are attempting to escalate the conflict over GERD; all stakeholders must play their part in resolving the issue. Implementation of PD between Ethiopia and Egypt on GERD can help de-politicize these issues. De-politicization is deployed by emphasizing the need for technical (field-specific technical knowledge required for sectors such as natural resource management, development, interventions related to health, immigration, etc.) rather than political evaluations (Bilgen, Citation2019). Likewise, implementing a technical approach using professional knowledge could help reduce the political tensions surrounding the GERD between Ethiopia and Egypt.
After almost a decade of negotiations over the GERD, most of the disagreement between Ethiopia and Egypt now revolves around the technical details of filling the dam, when to do so, and how much water it should release (Damain, Citation2020). However, these issues remain unresolved. Such a question should be addressed not by securitization and counter-securitization attempts of the GERD by both governments but rather by focusing on technical deals with the dam. In this regard, cooperation between the scientific communities and institutions of both states plays a critical role in producing knowledge about the project. Studies should be conducted to understand the risks and benefits of the project for both states, as well as the impact of climate change on the river’s water flow, which can serve as an early warning system (EWS) (Panikkar et al., Citation2019).
Before pursuing political agreements, it is crucial for states to establish trust and cooperation through technical collaboration. Political agreements have only been successful after establishing trust and understanding at the technical level between competing groups of scientists and engineers. This technical cooperation could focus on areas such as drought management, filling periods, and other related areas. For instance, the US and Canada’s agreements on the Columbia River and the Mekong River are demonstrative. In the case of the latter, before agreeing on the calculation of downstream benefits to the lower riparian zone, competing groups of scientists and engineers had different assumptions about the dry season flows in an upstream project in China on the Mekong River. However, they reached an understanding of how to resolve this key stumbling block. Similarly, different assumptions between competing groups of scientists in Egypt and Ethiopia cannot be resolved solely by gathering more data but rather by identifying mutually beneficial technical solutions.
In this regard, PD can improve inter-institutional relations regarding Nile water use and GERD through knowledge construction and advocacy. Consequently, these measures can facilitate data exchange, transparency, knowledge sharing, and adaptive water governance, thereby incentivizing better dam management practices. The presence of cascade dams in both Ethiopia and Egypt has created the need for field scholars to coordinate and cooperate to ensure the provision of different services, such as hydropower generation, irrigation water supply, community or municipal water supply, and flood control. Cascade water storage dams are hydraulically connected, which means that the water released during the operation of one reservoir will negatively affect the water management of a dam located downstream in the absence of any coordination mechanism (ENTRO, Citation2018). Thus, collaboration among field-specific scholars can promote transparency, accuracy of information, and expected risks/benefits of incoming flows (Hassan et al., Citation2023)—while also identifying and addressing inaccurate information that could lead to a lack of trust among the public, who rely on the existing cascade dams in both states, including GERD.
Furthermore, direct contact between cultural and religious groups in Ethiopia and Egypt has a significant benefit in creating a mutual understanding of the dam. Cultural diplomacy is a part of public diplomacy that focuses on the exchange of ideas, information, art, religion, and other aspects of culture between or among nations and their people to foster mutual understanding (Schneider, Citation2003). Culture provides common ground for individuals to connect and foster mutual understanding.
Throughout history, there have been significant water-related myths and events in the Nile water Basin, spanning Ethiopia and Egypt (Oestigaard, Citation2016). Hence, Ethiopia and Egypt have had strong inter-religious institutional relations and spiritual interactions that date back to many centuries (Arsano, Citation2007; GERDNMO, Citation2017). In line with this, it is worth mentioning that Coptic Abuna (bishop) was appointed as the spiritual leader of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church until 1958.
Furthermore, Ethiopian Muslims are closely associated with Egypt’s Al-Azhar Institute, located in Cairo, where they have a column called the Al-Jabarta Column to study. Utilizing this long-standing historical and cultural relationship can help build mutual trust between the two communities, particularly regarding common concerns, such as GERD. According to Ambassador Dina Mufti (2019), the existence of a strong relationship between the two countries’ religious institutions will serve as a good foundation for enhancing mutual understanding between the two sisterly nations (Ethiopian Embassy in Cairo, 2019). This situation would put pressure on the respective governments of both states to sit and discuss GERD issues to solve the deadlock in a win-win manner. For instance, in 2015, Abune Mathias, the patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, visited Egypt to discuss the issue of GERD and strengthen the historical, cultural, and religious relations between the two countries. During his visit, he met his counterpart and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi (GERDNMO, Citation2017). In this sense, disseminating facts about GERD through mosques and churches in respective countries can prevent misperceptions.
Furthermore, in the context of the water dispute over the Nile water between Egypt and Ethiopia, proverbs, songs, and poetry hold a significant position. Cultural instruments, such as music, satirical verses, and sayings, are used to justify and establish bonds between Ethiopian societies and the Nile water (Damtew, Citation2016). In the same vein, music, poetry, and culture played a pivotal role among Egyptians in constructing and negotiating a national identity. According to Hussein, Conker, Grandi, and others cited in Fahmy (Citation2011), the Nile was often used as a symbol of the nation in songs and popular culture. Similarly, through the participation of artists and musicians and the creation of intercultural exchange platforms, it is possible to convey a message to the public that would facilitate trust and understanding of GERD.
Utilizing such communication activities as part of public diplomacy has the potential to improve fraternal relations between the people of Ethiopia and Egypt. This can be achieved by avoiding negative attitudes towards the dam and promoting positive attitudes and perceptions between the two countries in the ongoing Nile political process.
5. Conclusion and recommendation
The Nile water is a source of tension and mistrust between Ethiopia and Egypt. The tension between the two countries further increased when Ethiopia launched the GERD project. Although there have been attempts at bilateral and multilateral talks using conventional diplomacy, the GERD deadlock has not yet been resolved. Consequently, the lack of careful management of the GERD dispute is pushing Ethiopia and Egypt towards confrontation. To construct trust and mutual understanding in the need, interest, and concern over GERD, it is important to support conventional diplomacy through public diplomacy.
The role of securitizing actors such as government officials, the political elite, the media, and popular narration is key in shaping the contours and conditions of water conflict and cooperation over the dam. Accordingly, the reason behind misunderstanding and public mistrust and misconceptions between Ethiopia and Egypt on the GERD emanates from the securitization and counter-securitization of the dam as a remedy to historical injustice and environmental justice narration, historical right narration, and securitizing GERD for internal political objectives through over-politicizing and ultra-nationalism by government officials and political elites.
Aside from the government elites, there is a significant popular narrative surrounding the GERD, built upon past historical events, current political and social contexts, etc. in Ethiopia and Egypt, and partisan media narration leading them to a trust deficit. These narrations instill fear and suspicion, leading to distrust and misconceptions between the people of Egypt and Ethiopia regarding the dam’s true concerns. Instead of simply presenting these narratives to the public, the governments, political elites, media professionals, and scholars of the two states should implement public diplomacy to create awareness and understanding of GERD. This will help shape public opinion in a way that develops a positive attitude towards the project among their respective people, thereby securing their public interest and gaining popular support. Relevant PD involves building strong relationships, trust, and understanding of the fact that Nile water is vital to Egypt, while the GERD project aims to alleviate poverty for Ethiopians.
This is why Ethiopia and Egypt should extend their relationship and facilitate a different mechanism to build confidence and shape the narration in a cooperative manner through listening, advocacy, media, cultural exchange, and so on. By doing so, they will be able to better understand each other’s public fears, concerns, and aspirations (what do you feel if you wear my shoes) related to the dam issue. Through the participation of various scholars, media professionals, artists, institutions, and influential individuals, direct links can be established to help de-securitize dam issues. This can help to expose false information and wrong perceptions and promote data exchange, transparency, and knowledge sharing networks, ultimately leading to genuine negotiation and trust.
Moreover, to address the issues surrounding GERD, both Ethiopia and Egypt should arrange and encourage various events that will bring together their water professionals, policymakers, researchers, and media journalists. The objective of such events is to discuss the sticking points regarding GERD and to promote transboundary water cooperation on the Nile. According to the literature, attitudes are deeply ingrained and require further research to find ways to improve the role of public diplomacy in enhancing mutual understanding between Ethiopia and Egypt. This will help Ethiopia address negative attitudes that have existed for centuries. Finally, it is possible to reconcile Egypt’s and Ethiopia interest on the GERD with Ethiopia’s interests in GERD by adopting a win-win approach. Hence, GERD issues should be resolved through diplomacy and cooperation rather than securitization and politicization, and both Egypt and Ethiopia should exhaust all diplomatic means before time goes on.
