The JWST has an extremely sensitive IR camera. And it is going to cool down to near absolute zero so that the IR sensors don't get flooded with radiation from the rest of the telescope. Because it will get so cold, it is not going to be emitting much IR (I think this is what the GP said when they said "generating"). Your typical deployment observation IR camera's won't be of much help in that case.
That makes sense, and I got thrown off (by maybe misreading the comment) thinking they meant the camera or something else would generate additional IR to illuminate the telescope, which I got confused by. It makes sense now that the comment was meaning that the cool down was to reduce as much telescope generated IR noise as possible.
The last time around, Nuclear weapons were not available to complicate the equation. This time, the response will need to be painful enough to punish the aggressor but not too painful that you would risk a strike on major cities. It won't be pretty.
To provide the HN audience with a single data-point from Ethiopia.
* More than half of Ethiopia's 110 million people have no electric power.
* Almost all of Ethiopia is under some level of food stress.
* The Nile basin contains some 11 countries
* More than 80% of the Nile waters come out of Ethiopia
* Some 70% of the rivers in Ethiopia are parts of the Nile basin
* Out of these countries, only Egypt and Sudan use the Nile river for irrigation and power generation.
* This happened due to Colonial era agreements in which great Britain (Then ruling Egypt) brokered agreements which "gave" Egypt usage and veto rights. Most of the Nile basin countries were colonies of GB and they had no say in the matter (that I can find recorded in history). Ethiopia was an exception as it was not colonized, 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.
* 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....
* Egypt is unfortunately threatening us with war if there is a drop in their water share. I can basically paraphrase their UNSC statement as saying "Peace and security will be impacted in the horn of Africa because we will start war on Ethiopia".
* 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.
Again, unfortunately, Egypt is signing military deals with Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda in what is perceived here as an intimidation campaign. My two cents, there is 0 chance these countries will ever stand against Ethiopia regarding the Nile water usage.
=I am perplexed that they are making an enemy out of Ethiopia when 80% of the Nile comes from here. That's no way to secure your future.
As a lover of ancient history, I am fascinated by Egypt and their reach history. I think the way to secure Egypt's future is by cooperation with all Nile basin countries to protect and further develop the Nile river basin such that the we raise the total water contained in the basin.
I didn't realize that the number of people without power in Ethiopia was quite so high, my impression was that it was more developed. I also have 0% belief that Kenya, Uganda, and Djibouti would take military action against Ethiopia. They all have their own internal problems and I doubt they would want to get mixed up in a war in which they have little to benefit from (what would the Egyptians give them?).
Random question since you're from the country - what are the feelings in Ethiopia with the elections, Tigray, etc.? I'm headed there in 1.5 weeks for my first time.
We're all happy the election (most of it anyways) concluded peacefully. There was a fear of violence that didn't materialize. The results indicate a massive win for the PM's party. Given how popular he is, I was expecting his party to win, but not by this margin.
As for Tigray, people here are really pessimistic. Over the past 8 months, the Ethiopian government narrative was that the people of Tigray and the political party that rules them (the TPLF) were two different entities and that the former needs to be free from the latter (TPLF has ruled there probably for more than 4 decades, they had their shot).
And the TPLF narrative was that it, and the people of Tigray are one and the same. That TPLF was the only power that can protect/save Tigray. And that if it doesn't get its way it will take Tigray out of the Ethiopian Federation.
After 8 month of conflict, the only reason TPLF still exists is because it has popular support of the Tigrayan public. And the PM basically acknowledged as much.
TPLF has been a bad actor in Ethiopian life. I personally will not be okay with 70 year old TPLF cadres and generals continuing the game they played for 30 years. And I believe the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians will not accept them.
So, if Tigray accepts TPLF, and the rest of Ethiopia rejects it completely, then we're stuck.
Just like there are people in Tigray that want to break away, there are people in the rest of Ethiopia that want them to break away (paraphrasing, "nothing comes out of Tigray, their ambition and their actual population size is not matching up and they're not worth the trouble". This is really dangerous for Tigray because, despite their bravado, it's one of the poorest area in Ethiopia. It has food security issues even in the best of times. TPLF seems to be wanting to leverage the threat of breaking away to get concessions. I don't think they realize just how bad public opinion has soured against Tigray.
Of course, take everything with a grain of salt --- I'm not in politics. My sources are just people here (Like my taxi driver from Tigray who was upset and concerned about a youtuber calling for Tigray to break away).
That's super interesting, thanks for sharing! I admit to being pretty confused by all of the politics and fighting; my impression is that the power of the TPLF came from 1) their military capacity and 2) the fact they had previously held a disproportionate number of senior positions and could give favors to Tigrayans. But given their main demand seemed to be succession and they could have demanded that as per the constitution, it didn't make a lot of sense to me to pursue it by military means.
What do you make of the recent ceasefire? Do you think people have negative opinions of the fact that Eritreans were in country and consider it a violation of sovereignty? I'm not sure if you're in tech or not but you're on HN so I'm curious what the tech scene is like & what you make of the new safaricom deal?
The TPLF led Ethiopia for 27 years. They are a tiny minority so the perception here is they used a divided and conquer strategy to govern. They were basically pitting the two large ethnic groups against each other and playing the peace-maker. The most common rhetoric on national television was about how they liberated the Oromo from the Amhara. That resulted in the Amhara developing a lot of animosity towards TPLF because, I'm paraphrasing, "Why should I, a poor person, be blamed for something someone did 200 years ago". In addition, TPLF took some lands away from the Amhara region when they came to power (What you hear in the media as "Western Tigray") and that has caused major anger.
TPLF had Marxist origin, and they had to give names to their "ideological enemies". So Amhara were "Chauvinists" and the Oromo were "Narrow minded". This also rubs people the wrong way. I'm cringing as I write this, the whole thing is insane.
When it comes to Eritrea, They, for a long time were not in good terms with Tigrayans. This animosity actually predates the current conflict or the border war. There are a lot of nuances involved but generally speaking, it wouldn't be wrong to say those two are not friends. Of course the current conflict multiplied the hate a thousand fold.
The reason I'm writing this down is to give you a sense of the broader picture. In this scenario, an Independent Tigray will be a small and mostly very poor population in a dry area, with unfriendly neighbors. And the area has little natural resources to speak of, so it's not like USA or China would care to invest long term in it. The people of Tigray are hardy and disciplined but TPLF is a tyrannical organization, it's not the kind of government in which free thought and enterprise can thrive. In such a scenario, breaking away from Ethiopia don't make much sense. I suspect it would be disastrous. I think they know this.
* In my opinion, they started the war not to break away from Ethiopia but to topple the current Ethiopian government which they hate for breaking their near 3 decade rule of Ethiopia <-- I can unpack this statement a lot more. In the decades they were in power, they had morphed into a kleptocratic regime which enjoyed its life by wasting public money (like a billion USD on a fertilizer plant spent, with nothing completed, around 4 billion usd spent to build a series of sugar plantations and factories with nothing completed after 10 years of development... the list is long). The leaders were sending their kids for a vacation in Europe on public money while more than a million people in Tigray required food assistance to survive.
I think they started the war to topple the government and retain at least some of these benefits they lost under PM Abiy and perhaps more importantly, work to create a more opportune environment that would allow Tigray to break away.
* About the ceasefire, it's good and absolutely essential. THey have to farm this rainy season or the food insecurity will be 10x worse. But there is a problem, TPLF and most of Tigrayans *that I have talked to* thinks they won a military victory and they want to use the momentum to "liberate" western Tigray. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if fighting resumed in those areas.
* As for Eritrea, they were probably invited in at a time of great danger for the Ethiopian military and they helped. People are grateful here, not angry. Of course some of the senseless atrocities have caused the enthusiasm to die down a bit but there seems to be a consensus (right or wrong) that most coverage of the war has a bit of propaganda in it.. a bit of manufactured consent, when people hear about atrocities, they're immediately wondering about who wrote it, what their motive is... this reduces the impact the news would have.
* I am really excited for the Safaricom deal. But I and a lot of people are expecting the US governments to place some sanctions on us wrecking the deal. So not sure if it will go through.
I do indeed work in tech. And I have been working remotely for the past year and half. Bad and expensive internet connection is extremely frustrating. And it's hard for collogues abroad to understand the level of difficulty. Imagine trying to communicate a weird bug in the codebase that you don't even fully understand to collogues in Europe (with broken English) only find out you were disconnected minutes ago. It's painful. The safaricom deal promises 8 billion USD investment in telecom. I am absolutely excited for that and will switch if it's better.
The tech scene is unfortunately NOT as developed as it should be. Internet connectivity, power issues are factors, government procedures and policy over the decades. I think they feared tech and their policies directly and indirectly affected the industry.
An instance of government indirectly stifling growth: There is a government body called Information Network Security Agency (INSA). It was actually founded by the current PM. He was removed and over time, the agency started to moonlight as a the preferred tech company that government agencies work with. They had tens of thousands of employees and can win contracts due to political connections. In the past decade it dominated most government contracts for making software. They thought they were saving money but it was those kinds of contracts that would have allowed the private sector to develop. And to no ones surprised, the stuff they did was often of low quality and over budget.
And 5 or 6 years ago the government wanted to ban VOIP tech (prison time for using). In a separate instance, I very vaguely remember the then director of the agency, a military general (From TPLF ofc) talking about how local developers should consider working on security products rather than communication apps.
That said, there are a few interesting tech companies. We have the local clones of Uber. And they're pretty good (The Tigrayan taxi I mentioned earlier was actually driving for one of these). Food delivery startups. There are lots of companies developing health care logistic related software (lots of funding from USA on that area). A major payment platform in Nigeria (PAGA) is developed here also. There are labs that work on ML, I think the robot the Saudi's gave citizenship to was partially developed here. Right now, one of the current PM's initiative is to digitize Ethiopia. A focus area within the initiative are mobile payment solutions. This will breath new life on both business and tech.
> My two cents, there is 0 chance these countries will ever stand against Ethiopia regarding the Nile water usage. =I am perplexed that they are making an enemy out of Ethiopia when 80% of the Nile comes from here. That's no way to secure your future.
The Egyptian government is not exactly a candy.
It's led by a caricature character military putschist, whose mental faculties have long left him.
> * More than half of Ethiopia's 110 million people have no electric power.
> * Almost all of Ethiopia is under some level of food stress.
Where is a country like Ethiopia getting all the money for such a mega-project?
> * This happened due to Colonial era agreements in which great Britain
Typical, colonial forces left a mess everywhere they went. India-Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, pretty much all of Africa, my history on South America and Asia are rusty but I bet they right messed up things there too.
What's crazy is how things still are in such disarray so long after they retreated.
>Where is a country like Ethiopia getting all the money for such a mega-project?
The cost is $4.2 billion according to the article, and Ethiopia's GDP is $272 billion. It's not a mystery to see the project get financing, though I imagine the risk of war warped the deal somewhat.
Well that just makes me even more curious. How does a nation of 110 million, 70% of whom don’t even have access to electricity, have a GDP of $272 billion? $2700 GDP per capita would put Ethiopia in the ranks of the middle-income countries.
> Where is a country like Ethiopia getting all the money for such a mega-project?
The major source:
For most of the decade, for each bank loan, 27% of it goes to the construction of the dam. And then, most employees have given at least 1 month of their salary to the dam.
> What's crazy is how things still are in such disarray so long after they retreated.
I think it's adorable that you think they "retreated".
Perhaps in another forum I can give you a "low-down" on why the African former colonies are an economic mess, why France and England left physically but not politically or economically, and ofcourse why African leaders visit European powers as one of the first things they do after elections. I may also wax on and wax off about China in Africa. Maybe Libya and the crisis there too.
> things still are in such disarray so long after they retreated
What is “so long”? Reading online, I see that Ethiopia was not fully colonized, but Europe/UK were attacking and meddling in its affairs even in the 1930s.
What most of the West doesn’t realize, is that colonization is majorly impactful and leads to disarray for decades, if not centuries. Countries need time to stabilize, after being systematically dismantled and robbed by colonizers.
This seems to take the view that pre-colonisation these countries were modern functioning states; and that it was the coloniser which "destabilised them".
However this seems to be rarely, if ever, the case. Colonised countries were extremely pre-modern compared to coloniser-states, and as far as I'm aware, routinely the purpose of colonisation was to establish such thing as a functioning state -- for the sake of enabling trade and commerce to be conducted reliably.
Here we should also distinguish the activities of a coloniser-state (eg., the UK) vs., eg., that of an individual eg., Leopold.
>routinely the purpose of colonisation was to establish such thing as a functioning state -- for the sake of enabling trade and commerce to be conducted reliably.
That's just a polite way to describe looting a colony.
Consider the situation here, where the British got together with... a British colony... to claim near-exclusive water rights to the Nile. This is important enough almost 100 years later that Egypt is threatening war over it.
I don't understand how you interpreted the comment you replied to as taking a stance of "they were modern functioning states". The negation of causing disarray is not causing disarray. Relax with the strawmen.
Our idea of a "modern functioning state" relies on concepts of sovereignty that didn't begin to gain wide purchase in Europe before the Peace of Westphalia—at least 150 years after European colonial efforts had begun.
The colonial project in Europe was concomitant with the development of western concepts of national sovereignty and the emergence of the modern bureaucratic state. In fact, many features of modern governments emerged specifically as mechanisms to implement colonial policies, and the material resources that were used to build up the institutions of many Western states were largely extracted from the colonies. In light of that, it seems strange for you to critique colonized polities for being "pre-modern" prior to colonization when European colonizers were themselves largely pre-modern before colonization efforts began, and themselves modernized—both in material terms, and in terms of the sophistication of their institutions—at the expense of their colonies.
That "the purpose of colonization was to establish such a thing as a functioning state" is only true in a technical sense. The ultimate purpose of colonization was extraction, and in order to implement extractive policies, modern bureaucratic institutions needed to be established, both at home and in the colonies. Many colonizers, when they departed, may have left their colonies with governing institutions that resembled the institutions that the colonizers had created at home—but only in the way that franchisee businesses resemble the businesses of their franchisors. Colonial governments depended entirely on their metropole for essential aspects of governance, and could not serve any meaningful function without tight integration with their home country governments. This even remains true of some post-colonial governments today.
Even if colonial institutions had been established "for the sake of enabling trade and commerce" those institutions would have been insufficient to govern independent states.
But the terms "trade and commerce" presume the existence of peer counter-parties who are able to negotiate at an arms length to arrive at arrangements that benefit all parties. Colonial institutions were not at all established for that purpose—they were established for the purpose of resource extraction at the expense of a subjugated population. A governmental orientation towards trade and commerce could have given former colonies at least a starting point on the road towards economic development, but in actuality the governing institutions that former colonies inherited were entirely oriented towards giving the industries of their former colonizers uninterrupted and privileged access to cheap labor and cheap resources.
European colonial governments employed many different tactics to deliberately destabilize colonized polities—destroying, subjugating or co-opting pre-colonial (and post-colonial!) governing institutions; intentionally pitting rival ethnic, class and religious groups against each other; creating borders within the contiguous territory of cohesive ethnic & linguistic groups, while forcing groups with disparate languages and cultures to share the same government [1]; denying indigenous people equal (or, in many cases, any) opportunities for social, economic, and political advancement; suppressing (and often stamping out) indigenous languages, cultures and religions; suppressing independent local industries that might compete with industries in the metropole; and suppressing independent political thought and local political institutions—all of which had the effect of preventing the development of institutions within the colonies that could keep pace with the development of modern institutions in Europe.
The underlying objective of the colonial project itself, however, was perhaps the most destabilizing. The system as a whole was designed and implemented to maximize the flow of economic value out of the colonies and into the metropole. Every institution was optimized for that purpose, and any element of local politics or culture that did not contribute in some way to that effort was discouraged, suppressed, or eliminated, through the (often violent) application of state power.
GP is entirely correct to write that "colonization is majorly impactful and leads to disarray for decades, if not centuries," and that "countries need time to stabilize, after being systematically dismantled and robbed by colonizers."
I read that as the British left a mess by allocating 70% of Ethiopia's water to Egypt even though the British had no legitimate claim or control over Ethiopia.
Though even if the British had been in control of Ethiopia, I would argue it was still problematic to allocate 70% of their water to Egypt. It was just a fundamentally bad arrangement. So fundamentally bad that I can only assume the British, at the time, had no idea how the Nile actually worked. Maybe the field of hydrology was not quite so well developed, and the Nile was not quite so well studied? I try not to attribute to malice what can reasonably be explained by ineptitude.
Didnt egypt take on loads of debt, invade Ethiopa, get absolutely defeated, and then have their government collapse, which was the event that allowed the British to take over?
I'm no fan of colonialism, but does Egypt really count when they were basically already a modern western power?
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for—therefore we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which ideology they're battling for or against.
Please don't create accounts to do this on HN. It will eventually get your main account banned as well.
Nothing about your first quote shows Egypt in any kind of mess. Your second quote ends over a century before the British protectorate, and at best pushes the blame onto Portugal or the Ottomans.
You seem to be condensing centuries of history into only the worst parts. Yes, bad things happened before colonialism. Colonialism was still horrible.
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.
>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/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.
Please make your substantive points without crossing into flamewar. The topics is obviously sensitive; most of us here don't know anything about it, and are here to learn. I understand what it's like to feel provoked by another comment that you consider misleading, but you hurt your case when you attack the other like this.
In particular, the word "lie" implies not just being wrong, but intentional deceit. Since we can't know others' intent via internet comments, that's rarely a fair word to use and it mostly just escalates flamewars.
> 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.
No one said that building the dam is not their rights but devil is always in details. The problem lies with two things
1- An agreement about the dam and how it operates because when it is in full operation and something happen this will be catastrophic to sudan and Egypt
2- Reduce the impact of water shortage to egypt ans sudan by extending the timeline for fulfillment
Again these two points is always the core of negotiations not the idea of dam existence itself. So saying this is not even something for a discussion.
* the agreement between sudan and Egypt is about how to share their percentage or what drainage countries get. Do you say that all other countries get 0 drops of water from the Nile?
* In 2015 Egypt had agreed that Ethiopia can build the dam and continue negotiations about the reducing impact and agreement about the dam which Ethiopia evaded this for 6 years? What can you say about that? People who wants a military actions will not negotiate for a 10 years. Take isreal and their indirect and direct attacks on Iranian nuclear program because they see it as a potential existential threat ( which is something doable that they will have). If Ethiopia is refusing all the diplomatic solution to cooperate and wants to do what it wants only, what do you think a US will do if it was in Egypt place. Taking US history into consideration I doubt they will negotiate before paralyzing Ethiopian army at least.
* regarding treaties, Ethiopia took the land from sudan with an agreement with British against Sudanese will, it is a colonial era agreement that Ethiopian ignore when they talk about their rights and how these treaty about nile was forced on them. So extend the logic and get the land back and then negotiate a fair deal with all nile countries.
Hint: Until a couple of months ago, Ethiopians were occupying large area from Sudanese land ( even without an colonial treaty) and they said they will act by military if sudan didn't withraw from their lands.
https://www.reuters.com/article/sudan-ethiopia-int-idUSKBN29...
> 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.
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.)
I’m not sure about that “totally solvable to mutual satisfaction.” Even if it there is enough water now and they can reach agreement on sharing the water’s advantages (which means Egypt has to give up something), looking at population growth (about 2% a year for Egypt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Egypt), 2.9% for Ethiopia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ethiopia), that can change rapidly.
If those growth rates continue the per capita amount of Nile water will halve in 25-30 years.
Is per-capita water a relevant metric? I doubt human consumption is a significant portion of water demand - I mean, doesn't farming typically use the vast
majority?
One of the main problems is the Ethiopian PM is using this issue to his benefit to try and unify all people around him and make them ignore all things that he is doing in other issues like what happens in Tigary. That makes something like making compromises which is needed for any serious negotiations is a bad PR and making him looks weak.
The dam is actually the one issue that Ethiopians agree upon regardless of who the head of government is. The stance of Ethiopian government has not changed between EPRDF and the current ruling party.
Ethiopians have always been united when it comes to the GERD because it's not just a political stunt. It's a matter of development and survival just as it is for the Egyptian people. That's why it's best for Egypt's government refrain from making threats and negotiate in good faith.
> Nile river is historically and from legal perspective an international river not an Ethiopian property. Violating this always comes with consequences.
The Nile is an international river. All of us accept that. But you should reconsider if you think Ethiopia will accept any treaties that Egypt signed with its colonial master (without Ethiopia being present).
As for consequences, We've been facing the consequences of this for all our lives in the form of food insecurity, famine, rolling blackouts. I will trade food and power for Egyptian military threats or American sanctions. So your consequences are not really that scary considering what's at stake.
* There are 11 countries in the basin. Of the 11, only Egypt and Sudan are using it for any development project.
* Since it's an international resource, we should all be using it.
* Since Egypt and Sudan gets 100% of the benefit, they will likely see a decrease. That's the physical reality
* Right now, Ethiopia gets 0%. We'll increase it.
The gotcha comments don't do much to address the reality on the ground. And it's not particularly merit-worthy for me to bother going point by point "debunking" you. And we're already deep in flame-war territory which is strongly discouraged on HN.
There are fundamental problems with international laws; whoever has the power, enforces its version of law. In fact, the state is founded in Law, whose enforcement depends on the monopoly on violence. That's why the State has monopoly on violence; and it takes different forms, through prosecutions, through imprisonments, etc.
Instead of talking about legal perspectives or of interests of Ethiopia or of Egypt, one can talk in terms of 'reasonableness'.
It is reasonable to use the water that drains off Ethiopian watershed; here, Egypt can't use some colonial era treaties unless it wants to colonize Ethiopia. No reasonable person will accept the claim that 95% of Nile water should go to Sudan and Egypt.
You also raise another reasonable point: "It is how long does it take for fill the dam and make it longer so that it reduce its negative effect". This is something many people agree with. However, this can't be solved using the historical outflows to the Nile. Just because 95 percent of the water went downstream to Sudan and Egypt for the last 900 years, one can't expect Ethiopia to release 95% of the water this year. This is where the real dispute lies, and that dispute manifests in terms of "how slow one has to fill up the dam". Maybe, both Egypt and Ethiopia can put percentages: Egypt can say "just release 80% this year, decrease 5% every year until it reaches 50%", or Ethiopia can say "we will release 10% every year until the dam is full". That way, one can see where both parties stand.
Law without violence(enforcement) is useless. Colonial powers had that power when they assigned most of the water to Egypt and Sudan. One can't expect this now.
Hey, 60% of Ethiopians don't have powers. Take a look at "earth at night" satellite images. Ethiopia is dark. I'm an Ethiopian national and this affects me deeply.
I am tired of desensitizing myself away from the plight of 4 foot 10 women carrying a load of firewood heavier than them.
There are a couple of reasons this is unlikely to happen.
A. The dam already contains more than 4.9 billion cubic meters of water. That along with the wet season rain will mean breaching it will result in catastrophic flooding of Sudan which will result in death and loss of arable land.
Each day that goes on, the water level is increasing, after a some time, Egypt itself will face flooding.
B. Egypt has powerful military but it seems it was designed to fight Israel, not Ethiopia. The distances are just too great. Not many nations in the world have that kind of power projection in the world. That's an exclusive club of great powers like Russia, France, and superpowers like the USA and China. Most Egyptian fighter/bomber aircraft don't have the range to reach Ethiopia. And Sudan seem to be against war so they're unlikely to grant them passage as they will be the ones that suffer the consequences of a breached dam.
The Egyptian airforce is getting new jets from France and Russia. Last I checked, which was months ago, only a few of those jets were delivered. It's unclear that the air crew have the resources, time, training to accomplish the difficult task of dam busting.
C. The renaissance dam is a gravity dam. Giant concrete structure. It's not going to be easy to destroy. And attempts could just make it collapse on the water spillways. Which might end up even more disastrous.
D. Dam or no dam, the water still flows from Ethiopia. And the Nile is not like the Amazon river in that it doesn't contain as much water. If Egyptian leadership plays a zero-sum game, where only they use the Nile then Ethiopia has zero incentive to protect and develop the water. In the age of climate change, this is a huge factor. Diverting some of the smaller tributaries would at most require a single grader and a few days of work. Diverting some 10 or 20% of the water would not be difficult. And that is far more disastrous to the stated objective of Egypt (Which is to maintain the colonial era agreement that allows them and Sudan 100% of the water).
E. Ethiopia is currently a divided country. But when it comes to the dam, its people are 100% on the same page. Most western lenders don't finance any project on the Nile due to Egyptian lobbying. So Ethiopian populace paid for it out of pocket. Most salaried people payed for it out of pocket. WHat that usually means is giving up a month of your salary for the dam. And When Ethiopia is united, it is capable of putting up a good fight.
As for the PRC, who do you think loaned to Ethiopia the money for buying the generators?
And also, PRC has dams on similar rivers. It unlikely to positively accept such an act.
> C. The renaissance dam is a gravity dam. Giant concrete structure. It's not going to be easy to destroy.
To put this into concrete terms: the Renaissance dam is 476ft tall. According to Wikipedia[0], non-nuclear bunker buster bombs are limited to a penetration depth of ~20ft of reinforced concrete, which would barely dent a dam this size. Even the USAF would have a hard time destroying this dam from the air.
What if erosion were the driving force? A smaller attack could be devastating if one or several targeted strikes caused a spill and damaged directive devises such that it began an active process of erosion. It's a failure mode I greatly fear for all mega-projects.
> E. Ethiopia is currently a divided country. But when it comes to the dam, its people are 100% on the same page.
If I was an unpopular regime, I would see this, and feel pretty good about my chances of exploiting it. A war you can probably win against a much more powerful enemy, over an issue you have broad support for, is like a golden goose for an unstable government.
You can be as obnoxious and intransigent as you like, because the negotiations will be behind closed doors, and you'll still seem like you're representing the national interest.
On the other hand, if you're Egypt, a war you will probably lose is also very valuable. It's a good way to rally people around the flag when it looks like it might happen, then if it does come down to it, often 'probably losing' a war is way better than definitely losing a leadership challenge.
So again, the incentives are to be obnoxious and intransigent. You don't want this issue to go away - it's a really good option to have in your back pocket if you get into trouble.
While they have similar length[1][2], roughly 6500-7000 km, the discharge from the Amazon is roughly two orders of magnitude greater, 4200 m^3/s vs 209000 m^3/s average.
There's also a lot more Amazon river to hold water.
This claim loses significance when you consider 70% of Ethiopia's water resource is in the Nile basin. There is no development without using that water.
Except the percentages max out at 100% design capacity. So in flood years (defined as exceeding this capacity) the surplus water isn't governed by the allocation.
This has been Egypt's excuse for syphoning water beyond the design elevation to their New Valley Project.
They just don't like that reasoning being used against them.
I have talked with a few Egyptians on the subject. Unfortunately most think a military solution would be simple and straightforward. "Egypt has hundreds of fighter jets. Ethiopia has 20, We can turn the dam into dust".
They probably can. But then what? History is not over yet.
Egypt thinks of Ethiopia as enemy state. A lot of Ethiopians believe Egypt supports every rebel group in Ethiopia. But Ethiopians still don't view Egypt as an enemy, more like a thorn on the side. For thousands of years the Nile has been flowing toward Egypt without much objection. Bombing the dam will change that. It is the equivalent to creating a monster at your water source. Ethiopia will not try to block the water or anything like that. But it can and probably will start small irrigation projects everywhere. And it will stop consulting with Egypt. In the end, this will be much more devastating to Egypt than a hydro-electric dam which isn't even used for irrigation.
What baffles me about the Egyptian stance is, climate change is coming. Projections for fresh water in Africa in the coming decades don't look rosy. Mitigation for this is, fresh water sources should be developed and protected from environmental degradation. And you need the cooperation of upstream countries to do that. Being source of 85% of the Nile, Ethiopia's support is needed to do that.
Even if Ethiopia stops constructing the dam right now, in 50 years, at a time Egypt is sporting 200 million souls, there is potential that water levels on the Nile are probably going to decrease purely from climate change.
The talk of war is stupid. Playing zero sum game of "Only Egypt" is a bad idea.
| I have talked with a few Egyptians on the subject. Unfortunately most think a military solution would be simple and straightforward
Egyptian here .. i dont think most of Egyptian believe in the military solution and even our government Led by a military Experienced person doesn't believe in that
we have been in negotiations for multiple years and eventually will involve European Union or the US to make sure agreement is fair to both parties
Glad to hear that.
But I am pessimistic about reaching a deal both sides would consider fair. Right now the basin water is divided by Egypt(85%) and Sudan(15%) with Ethiopia and the other 8 or 9 Nile basin countries allocated 0. Egyptian negotiation tactic over the past decade has been aimed at forcing Ethiopia to ratify this water share. The recent comments by your leader about war if "Egypt's water" is reduced is indicative of that.
For the Ethiopian side(and the rest of the Nile basin countries), this is outrageously unfair. Most people here recognize the water is a lifeline for Egypt and are against reducing Egypt's share by a consequential amount. But Egyptian intent of holding onto the 85/
This is stupid. If Ethiopia decides to hurt Egypt, it won't need to build a massive dam. Wasting water has never been too difficult. Egypt would do well to not create such an enemy at their water source.
Depressing. I'll call it like it is. This is an idiotic response that lacks common sense. It's so common in the pro Egypt camp.
Most of the inventory is filled with short range equipment. The only jets able to reach Ethiopia are the Rafales and the SU-35 which make up a minority. They're not enough. More importantly, wars are not won by equipment (though they help immensely).
I don't get why such reductive opinions are so common when this issue is discussed.
Egypt and Sudan have signed a defense pact, and they are aligned on this issue. If and when push comes to shove I bet Egypt would use Sudan's air fields, and that would be more than enough range to bomb half the country(the half that has the river/lake) into oblivion with their 200+ F-16s. Also I don't sympathize with any side -- just made an observation that Ethiopia is very weak comparatively, and considering water is an existential issue for Egypt, may be they should be more realistic in their water related actions.
The only variable here that could stop Egypt and Sudan from taking "drastic measures" is the international response.
>wars are not won by equipment
Are you implying that Egyptians lack something in the morale or skill department compared to Ethopia?
I have talked with a few Egyptians on the subject. Unfortunately most think a military solution would be simple and straightforward. "Egypt has hundreds of fighter jets. Ethiopia has 20, We can turn the dam into dust".
They probably can. But then what? History is not over yet.
Egypt thinks of Ethiopia as enemy state. A lot of Ethiopians believe Egypt supports every rebel group in Ethiopia. But Ethiopians still don't view Egypt as an enemy, more like a thorn on the side. For thousands of years the Nile has been flowing toward Egypt without much objection. Bombing the dam will change that. It is the equivalent to creating a monster at your water source. Ethiopia will not try to block the water or anything like that. But it can and probably will start small irrigation projects everywhere. And it will stop consulting with Egypt. In the end, this will be much more devastating to Egypt than a hydro-electric dam which isn't even used for irrigation.
What baffles me about the Egyptian stance is, climate change is coming. Projections for fresh water in Africa in the coming decades don't look rosy. Mitigation for this is, fresh water sources should be developed and protected from environmental degradation. And you need the cooperation of upstream countries to do that. Being source of 85% of the Nile, Ethiopia's support is needed to do that.
Even if Ethiopia stops constructing the dam right now, in 50 years, at a time Egypt is sporting 200 million souls, there is potential that water levels on the Nile are probably going to decrease purely from climate change.
The talk of war is stupid. Playing zero sum game of "Only Egypt" is a bad idea.
I called your opinion reductive because, it does not consider potential consequences and is oblivious to the various factors behind Sudanese change of position. I called your opinion idiotic because it contained this statement "Egypt can just occupy them, install a puppet regime and then move on. They definitely have that capability" which is an idiotic statement and because it will create more problems than it solves. I am sorry it sounds rude but some things need to be made clear.
Fyi, Egypt invaded Ethiopia twice already and were repulsed.
>The talk of war is stupid. Playing zero sum game of "Only Egypt" is a bad idea.
Well you have a strong pro-peace opinion, doesn't mean that people who don't have strong opinions either way and are just observing should be silenced.
>it does not consider potential consequences
I shouldn't express opinions on the possible Egyptian actions and their capabilities because Egyptian actions would cause consequences? Are you ok?
>opinion idiotic because it will create more problems than it solves.
A harmful opinion on HN? I promise you Al-Sisi or his entourage don't read HN. And yet you didn't provide any arguments on why Egypt wouldn't or couldn't do it, only that it shouldn't.
