The Nile Water Agreement is an old document; there is no doubt. Unless trust prevails among the Nile riparian states, no new agreement can be reached. And who can trust the tyrannical despots, the Tigray and Amhara butchers? In a recent article under title ‘The Nile, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Abyssinia, Somalia, and Somaliland’ (republished in 2021 here: https://www.academia.edu/54525765/The_Nile_Egypt_Abyssinia_Somalia_and_Somaliland_2008_), I re-published a response to my earlier article on the impossibility of an equation between Kosovo and Somaliland; the response was authored by of (a supposedly Somali of the breakaway and unrecognized state of Somaliland) Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse. I then commented on, and refuted, his argumentation. In fact, the extraneous response is not only unsubstantiated but also multi-assumptive. In the present article, I will complete the refutation of the unsubstantiated link made between my rejection of possible parallels between Kosova and Somaliland and the assumption that I, personally, express positions of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I will also refute the theory as per which there is a possible link between the Egyptian Nile policy and the Egyptian – Arab League opposition to Somaliland’s failed attempt to obtain formal recognition. ------------- First published on 9th April 2008 in American Chronicle, AfroArticles and Buzzle

1. Nile Politics, Egypt, Sudan,
Abyssinia, and the Horn of Africa
The Nile Water Agreement is an old document; there is no doubt. Unless trust
prevails among the Nile riparian states, no new agreement can be reached.
And who can trust the tyrannical despots, the Tigray and Amhara butchers?
In a recent article under title ‘The Nile, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Abyssinia,
Somalia, and Somaliland’ (republished in 2021 here:
https://www.academia.edu/54525765/The_Nile_Egypt_Abyssinia_Somalia_
and_Somaliland_2008_), I re-published a response to my earlier article on the
impossibility of an equation between Kosovo and Somaliland; the response
was authored by of (a supposedly Somali of the breakaway and unrecognized
state of Somaliland) Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse. I then commented on,
and refuted, his argumentation. In fact, the extraneous response is not only
unsubstantiated but also multi-assumptive.
In the present article, I will complete the refutation of the unsubstantiated link
made between my rejection of possible parallels between Kosova and
Somaliland and the assumption that I, personally, express positions of the
Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I will also refute the theory as per which
there is a possible link between the Egyptian Nile policy and the Egyptian –
Arab League opposition to Somaliland’s failed attempt to obtain formal
recognition.

2. I first republish the uncommented part of Mr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse's
response, and then I present my refutation and comments. Numbers
encrusted in the text refer to the subsequent comments. Mr. Ahmed Ali
Ibrahim Sabeyse's diatribe was published in several portals, e.g.
http://www.somalilandtalk.com/node/3181, and
http://radiohadhwanaag.com/index.php?news=426.
Kosovo and Somaliland: the Impossible Equation – The Egyptian Position
………………………………………………………………………………………
The River Nile is Egypt 16 and Egypt is the Nile. 17 The livelihood of 100
million Egyptians 18 takes precedence over the very existence of over 180
million inhabitants in the River Nile Basin. 19 The population of the riparian
states is expected to double in the coming twenty years. The imbalance
between a diminishing natural resource coupled with the consumption
demands of exploding populations, is a sure recipe for an armed conflict in
the region.
The Nile Water Agreement of 1929 guarantees Egypt about 56 Billion cubic
meters out of about 74 Billion cubic meters of the total water flow- that is
roughly 76% of the total water volume. 20 This outdated formula gives the
Egyptian government almost exclusive monopoly and right of usage of the
River Nile waters. For example, one of the clauses of the agreement states:
"Without the consent of the Egyptian Government, no irrigation or
hydroelectric works can be established on the tributaries of the Nile or their
lakes if such works can cause a drop in water level harmful to Egypt". 21
Times have changed 22 and the littoral states [Kenya, Uganda, Sudan,
Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, and Ethiopia are under tremendous
pressure 23 to renegotiate the terms of water allocation and usage. The
Egyptian demands on the waters of the River Nile are simply unsustainable.
Sooner or later, the needs of other nations should be addressed. However, the
Egyptian regime is not even prepared to address the issue, let alone
renegotiate the terms of the old agreement. The Egyptian foreign ministry
views any diversion of the Nile water as an act of war. 24 With exploding
populations of their own, the countries at the source of the Nile are vying to
tap this resource within their boundaries for their domestic agricultural and
industrial development needs. Ignoring the belligerent stand of Egypt, the
Tanzanian government embarked on 170 mile long pipe-line to deliver water
to about 400,000 people at an estimated total cost of US$85.10 million. The rest
of the East African nations question the legitimacy of this eighty year old
agreement and it is a matter of time before they follow the Tanzanian
example. 25

3. To be continued
Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Sabeyse
Comments
16. This statement reflects only the historical background; it is absolutely
irrelevant to the present policies of the Republic, to say the least. In the
Antiquity, certainly Egypt was identified with the Nile Valley; the name of
the country, namely Kemet, applied exclusively to the non-desert territory.
Wherever the desert started, there was no Kemet anymore. The concept
prevailed until the Islamic Ages. In the second half of the 20th century, efforts
made to gain back surface, which was green in the Antiquity but had become
desert over the ages, involved the erection of the second Aswan dam, the
High Dam, thus triggering the gradual formation of a Second Valley (Wadi
Guedida), notably the huge Toshka project. On the other hand, the expansion
throughout the Red Sea and the Sinai coasts, and more recently in the
Northern Coast (between Alexandria and Sallum on the Libya border)
lessened the earlier quasi-total dependence of Egypt on the Nile. The
statement of the author, as absolute and unmitigated, does not reflect the
reality anymore.
17. Viewed otherwise, it would be extremely wrong to limit the importance of
the Nile in Egypt exclusively, as the author with his unconditional statement
attempts. One could even say that Sudan depends on the Nile more than
Egypt does, and that the Nile is first Sudan, then Egypt, and then all the rest.
Undisputedly, the major part of the river’s flow is to be found on the territory
of modern Sudan, which corresponds to the authentic, historical Ethiopia of
the Greco-Roman sources – at least for its northern parts. Plenty of critical
traits and aspects of the Nile are to be found in Sudan rather than in Egypt.
The merge of the two Niles, i.e. the White Nile (coming from Southern Sudan
and further beyond from the Great Lakes region - Kenya and Uganda), and
the Blue Nile (coming from Abyssinia), takes pace in Khartoum (the name of
the Sudanese capital means ‘tusk’ in Arabic).
The famous change of direction of the Nile’s water flow from NE to SW (in
the area of Abu Hamed) and then from SW to NE again (in the area of Debba)
is a geomorphological phenomenon that fascinated the Ancient Egyptians
and the Cushites of Sudan (who were named Ethiopians by the Ancient
Greeks and Romans); however, it all happens in Sudan.
Due to the central position of the Nile in the Weltanschauung, the philosophy
and the religion of the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Ethiopians (the
ancestors of the modern Oromos), this geomorphological phenomenon
became a matter of extensive interpretations and theories, during many long

4. millennia. Out of the six cataracts of the Nile (another physical phenomenon
that fascinated the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Ethiopians, provoking
many theoretical approaches and efforts of interpretations), five are located in
Sudan, and one in Egypt.
Due to the erection of the Khazan (Reservoir – the small dam of Aswan built
in 1899-1902) and the High Dam (Sad el Ali, built in the period 1960-1970), the
Nile's two northernmost cataracts (one at the southernmost confines of
Aswan, and another immediately south of Wadi Halfa) are by now entirely
submerged. So, currently, all four existing cataracts (rapids) of the Nile are
located in Sudan.
Needless to say it, Sudan’s potentialities in agriculture are far greater than
Egypt’s, due precisely to possibilities offered by the Nile.
As all this is already known and quite obvious, there would be perhaps no
need to mention it here, but the author's unbalanced statement obliged me to
clarify the situation.
If I now try to interpret the author’s maximalism in this statement, I can
simply say that it reflects the simplistic and fanatic approach of the racist
Amhara – Tigray Abyssinian elites, who –under monarchical, communist and
pseudo-republican regime– expressed always a complex of inferiority vis-à-
vis Egypt, because their anti-Egyptian passion blinded their otherwise
ignorant minds. When it comes to the criminal, cruel and evil rulers of the
Cenotaph of nations 'Ethiopia', this is not a matter of surprise. Their voracious
hatred and enmity towards Egypt led them to invade other nations during the
second half of the 19th century, as they imagined that, with a bigger country
under their control, they could match Egypt.
So foolish and paranoid the racist Amhara – Tigray Abyssinian elites have
been that they failed to realize that a larger / bigger country is not necessarily
stronger; a larger territory for an ignorant and incapable elite can easily be an
unbearable burden. The Abyssinian elites failed to understand that, with all
the subjugated nations, the Oromos, the Ogadenis, the Sidamas, the Afars, the
Kaffas, the Shekachos, the Agaws, the Anuak, the Kambatas, and the
Wolayitas, imprisoned in the state of Abyssinia, terrorized and made to ipso
facto loath and despise their barbaric Abyssinian rulers, Abyssinia –even
when fallaciously re-baptized as Ethiopia– remains an irreversibly weak,
impotent, and marginal state.
18. Egypt’s population totals 80, not 100, million people.
19. The sentence "The livelihood of 100 million Egyptians takes precedence
over the very existence of over 180 million inhabitants in the River Nile
Basin" consists in racist rhetoric that the ailing Abyssinian regime tries to

5. export to and diffuse among the unrepresentative and un-Somali, dictatorial
regime of Hargeysa.
First, I never insinuated anything of the sort, particularly in my article to
which this diatribe’s author supposedly tried to answer.
Second, the Egyptian government –with which I never had any contact and of
which I am totally irrelevant– never hinted at anything like that. All this
however matters less.
The statement itself, linguistically analyzed, contains all the characteristics of
semantic differentiation which stands always at the beginning of every racist,
discriminatory, fascist and Neo-Nazi discourse. This I will analyze here.
When you compare incomparable notions or items in order to purportedly
prove something, you evidently cheat.
Even worse, when you do so in order to promote political interests and draw
political conclusions, your semantic differentiation is the seed of Nazism
itself.
More specifically:
a. One can compare (the verbal expression ‘take precedence over’ clearly
signifies a comparison) the ‘livelihood’ of a people to the ‘livelihood’ of
another.
Similarly one can compare the ‘existence’ of a people to the ‘existence’ of
another.
But when you compare the ‘livelihood’ of a people to the ‘existence’ of
another, you deceive your reader, as you compare incomparable notions;
sheer ‘existence’ is far more critical than mere ‘livelihood’.
Within this semantic context, not only you deceive your reader, but you
promote a detrimental comparison that triggers in and by itself
differentiation.
And Nazism, fascism, every type of totalitarianism, and all inhuman theories
emanate from an original aberration - differentiation.
b. When an initial semantic differentiation creates in the reader’s mind a
certain predisposition in favour of the part, which is presented as victimized,
and a second element of differentiation is added, the technique is complete. In
the aforementioned stylistically Neo-Nazi text, the second differentiation is
focalized on the numbers given for the populations to compare ("100 million
Egyptians" and "180 million inhabitants in the River Nile Basin").

6. If the author made a sentence like the following "The livelihood of 100 million
Egyptians takes precedence over the livelihood of over 180 million inhabitants
in the River Nile Basin" or "The very existence of 100 million Egyptians takes
precedence over the very existence of over 180 million inhabitants in the River
Nile Basin", no one would accuse him of having taken Neo-Nazi Abyssinian
courses of rhetoric.
Of course, the statement is dismissed by all the Sudanese, many Kenyans and
Ugandans, and almost all the Somalis and the Eritreans. That's why this is the
correct moment to remind to the otherwise ignorant and unaware author that
Sudan is currently building a dam nearby Karima! This appears not to be a
problem for the biased author!
Even worse for the renegade Somalis of the limited Hargeysa circle, the
majority of the population of Abyssinia would reject the aforementioned
fallacious statement.
All the oppressed nations of the misfortunate realm, i.e. the Oromos, the
Ogadenis, the Sidamas, the Afars, the Kaffas, the Shekachos, the Agaws, the
Anuak, the Kambatas, the Wolayitas, and the Bertas and Shinashas of the
Benishangul region, after having suffered at the hands of the cruel and
inhuman Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians, would never miss the opportunity
to pressurize over the Egyptian diplomats and administration so that Egypt
never allows the criminal Amhara elite to build a God-damned dam in the
lake Tana or the Benishangul region.
So debilitated and demented the gangsters of the Abyssinian elites are that
they cannot understand that their action brings reaction, and that they will
inevitably pay, in the years ahead, a tremendous and extremely prejudicial
price for the serial genocides that they have incessantly perpetrated.
Only a punishment will be adjusted to the inhuman Abyssinian elites in the
future, if they do not repent in time, dissolve their repugnant tyranny by
themselves, limit their rule in the Amhara and Tigray provinces, and start
respecting the cultures and the religions of the neighboring nations.
20. The Nile Water Agreement is an old document; there is no doubt. Unless
trust prevails among the Nile riparian states, no new agreement can be
reached. And who can trust the tyrannical despots, the Tigray and Amhara
butchers?
21. This text highlights the permanent weakness and impotence of the tribal
colonial relic Abyssinia that expanded at the detriment of so many other
nations, without however managing to take any sort of international benefit.
Who would pay attention to diplomats of gangsters who pretend to be the

7. ‘representatives’ of the nations that they passionately and urgently want to
exterminate?
22. Times always change, and that’s why Abyssinia, fallaciously re-baptized
Ethiopia, will split to ten independent states; Africa's most loathed tyranny
will be shattered down, and cease to exist.
23. This is sheer lie; none of these states is 'under tremendous pressure to
renegotiate'; certainly the Abyssinian diplomacy tried but failed to mobilize
the Ugandan and the Kenyan diplomats to support the ridiculous claims of
the minority rulers of Abyssinia. In fact, only the Amhara-Tigray dictators,
who rule Abyssinia, representing 18% of the local population, are 'under
tremendous pressure to renegotiate'.
Why?
Because they know that their days are numbered, and they will be turned to
ashes, in the advent of the forthcoming rebellions of all the subjugated nations
of Abyssinia.
24. If this is so, it only highlights Abyssinia’s impotence and farcical existence.
25. The entire world, before 'questioning the legitimacy of this agreement',
definitely questions the 'legitimacy' of the Abyssinian state to ever exist. This
criminal and genocidal state proved only to be the cemetery of so many
Ancient and Noble African nations.
Even sooner, the world will question the legitimacy of the presence of
Abyssinian death squads (impersonating a supposed ‘national’ army) in
Somalia, and will be put a dead end to it.
The dissolution of the Abyssinian tyranny will come immediately after the
withdrawal of the Abyssinian thugs from Somalia. Somaliland will then cease
to exist too, and Ogaden will merge with Somalia.
Note
Picture: Elephantine Island in Aswan - where starts the First Cataract (which
is now mostly submerged in-between Aswan's two dams, the Khazzan and
the Sad al Ali, i.e. the High Dam)
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Published: 4/9/2008