For decades, the Nile River basin has been marred with conflicts over the usage of Africa’s longest river. The conflicts have pitted the two lower stream countries of Egypt and Sudan against the upstream Nile Basin countries.

The conflicts began with the signing of the 1929 and 1959 colonial water agreements which gave Egypt and Sudan a lion’s share of Nile waters at the expense of the upstream Nile Basin countries. As per the above agreements, Egypt receives 55.5 billion of the estimated total 84 billion cubic metres of Nile water annually with Sudan receiving 18.5 billion cubic metres.

However, in May 2010, five upstream Nile Basin countries signed the Comprehensive Framework Agreement in Entebbe, Uganda, which calls for the re-division of the Nile water quotas, and cancelling of the previous, colonial era agreements. The new deal was rejected by Egypt and Sudan on grounds that it undermined Egypt’s majority share in the Nile River water. Before that chapter was closed, a proposal to construct the $4.2 billion Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile River came up, a project that caused regional tensions after Cairo fiercely opposed the move.

However, last week, Heads of State of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia signed a deal that allows the latter to proceed with the works.

The tripartite agreement was witnessed by Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya at the Presidential Palace in Khartoum, Sudan.

The tripartite agreement gave a green light for the completion of a hydroelectric power plant expected to generate up to 6,000 megawatts of electricity.

The New Times’ Athan Tashobya, in Khartoum Sudan, caught up with Dr Ahmed Bilal Osman, 66, the Sudanese Minister for Culture and Information and the head of the oldest opposition political party in Sudan, the Democratic Unionist Party, who shared his views on the water wrangles and the way forward. He also gave an insight on Sudan’s forthcoming Presidential and parliamentary elections next month.

Excerpts:

Now that Sudan, Ethiopia and Egypt have signed the tripartite agreement, what does this mean to the Nile Basin Initiative?

Due to the global warming and climate change going on around the world, every country has got the right to have patent rights over the water sources they have within their boundaries. You can, therefore, not say that Egypt and Sudan should have bigger share of the River Nile waters, that would be unfair.

Ethiopia, for example, does not have enough arable land and, therefore, power generation is the most viable project that can stabilise the country’s economy.

We, therefore, need to cooperate as the Nile basin countries and work closely to manage shared water resources, rather than wasting time in conflicts.

The Nile basin countries should continue to seek amicable solutions and the political will to develop a new legal framework for managing the Nile waters.

Do you see the dispute coming to an end?

Of course, yes, I am sure we are getting closer to ending the challenges facing our region. In principle, the countries of the Nile River basin agree that the situation should change. This is something everyone talked about during the signing of the tripartite agreement. We can say that the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) formed in 1999 is now bearing fruit.

Do you think the matter can be resolved?

The only way for us is to stand together and get to know that we are Africans and what we own is for the interest of Africans. We, Africans, we have to put our hands together, put our differences aside and work for the sustainable development of the region and the continent.

It is only by cooperation that the issues will be solved, not by force. By coming together to jointly manage their shared water resources, countries build trust and prevent conflict. For instance, countries in the upstream have a different climate favouring cultivation of crops different from that in the downstream nations, may be the two sections can decide to share products that are not locally produced in the other neighbours. Through such consensus, there will be shared responsibilities and benefits on River Nile.

With the conflict in Darfur and now economic sanctions, do you think the forthcoming presidential elections will be free and fair?

I can assure you that all the constituencies in Darfur region as well as the entire country. Nothing in this country will affect the national elections. Sudan is peaceful.

Recently the national electoral commission toured the region and found that it is stabilising, and we are sure, the place will realise sustainable peace.

But reports show a different picture; there are also allegations that Sudan is supplying arms to rebels in CAR...

This is not true; we don’t supply arms to anybody. We have good relations with Central African Republic and Chad.

Our biggest problem is negative branding. Reports say different things for different reasons; some of these reporters are connected to some people interested in negative information and accusations against Sudan.

I can swear that no one of Sudanese origin is interfering with peace and security of our neighbours… instead we want to contribute toward peacekeeping and building missions if called upon.

What’s your take on your current relationship with South Sudan?

Whatever happened in the past happened. We have since cultivated a good relationship with South Sudan. We respected the referendum for separation of the two countries, and now that South Sudan is experiencing conflict we receive many people returning to Sudan; we don’t treat them as refugees we treat them as citizens, they can go everywhere they want with no interference.

We want to live at peace with everyone but the problem is false reports that distort facts. We wish them well now and to get over the conflict they are experiencing.

editorial@newtimes.co.rw