Egyptian politicians have repeated the same familiar refrain for years that Ethiopia is acting unilaterally over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and threatening the water security of downstream countries.
From official statements and diplomatic forums to state-aligned media campaigns, the accusation of "unilateralism" has been repeatedly deployed to portray Ethiopia as a threat to the Abay (Nile) Basin and to international peace and security.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
But as the GERD has moved from a construction project to an operational reality, a fundamental question has become increasingly difficult to avoid.
Is Egypt's opposition to the dam truly about hydro-technical risks--or is it about the political consequences of Ethiopia's emergence as an independent and influential upstream power?
For a growing number of international experts, the answer is increasingly clear.
The dispute surrounding the GERD, they argue, has long been driven less by engineering realities than by political calculations, historical assumptions and a deep-seated reluctance to accept a new balance of power in the Nile Basin.
The Abay, the source of the Blue Nile--originates in the Ethiopian highlands and contributes the overwhelming majority of the water flowing into the Nile system.
Ethiopia contributes more than 86 percent of the water flowing through the Basin.
Yet, for generations, Egypt's political discourse has treated the river primarily through the lens of downstream control and inherited historical claims.
The GERD has fundamentally challenged that model.
Without consuming the river's water or diverting its natural downstream flow, Ethiopia has built Africa's largest hydroelectric dam, transforming the political and strategic realities of the Abay Basin. The project has demonstrated that an upstream country can pursue development, energy generation and economic transformation while remaining part of a shared river system.
For Professor Al Mariam, a renowned political analyst and attorney at law, Egypt's repeated accusations of Ethiopian "unilateralism" represent the continuation of an old political narrative.
Egypt, he argues, has repeatedly used the term not only in international media but also before the United Nations Security Council, seeking to portray Ethiopia's development project as a violation of international norms.
Yet the persistent repetition of the accusation, he suggests, reflects less a new legal reality than a lingering nostalgia for an era in which Egypt enjoyed disproportionate influence over the Abay.
Under international law, unilateralism generally refers to a state acting independently to pursue its interests or assert legal rights without meaningful cooperation, consultation or regard for the rights of other states. But Ethiopia has consistently maintained that the GERD is designed for electricity generation, not the permanent consumption or diversion of Abay (Nile) waters.
That distinction is central to the technical debate.
And according to energy expert Mikael Alemu, the Egyptians argument that the GERD will fundamentally reduce the flow of water to downstream countries does not withstand scientific scrutiny.
"The Grand Renaissance Dam doesn't have engineering problems. Its claim sounds much more like political," Mikael told the Ethiopian News Agency.
The expert argued that the repeated claim that the GERD will significantly reduce the flow of the Abay to Egypt is not technically rational.
After more than a decade of negotiations among Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, the three countries have still failed to reach a comprehensive agreement. Yet, Mikael said, the continuing impasse is not primarily the result of an unresolved engineering problem.
Rather, it reflects the absence of a genuine political willingness.
The negotiations have not failed because a workable agreement was beyond reach; they have failed because Egyptian negotiators have repeatedly lacked the political commitment to engage in good faith, compromise where necessary, and pursue a mutually acceptable outcome.
"I think the Grand Renaissance Dam doesn't have engineering problems. Its claim sounds much more like political," he said.
Mikael argued that the GERD is a complex and enormously expensive hydro-technical project, constructed at a cost of approximately 5 billion U.S. dollars, whose principal purpose is to generate electricity and support regional development.
The project, he noted, can also help regulate river flows and reduce the destructive impact of flooding, while providing major economic and energy benefits to Ethiopia and potentially to the wider region.
The idea that the GERD represents an unprecedented threat, he added, is also difficult to sustain.
Around the world, countries sharing transboundary rivers have developed dams, hydropower facilities and other infrastructure while negotiating mechanisms for cooperation and equitable utilization. Experiences from Southeast Asia, South America and the former Soviet Union demonstrate that shared rivers do not have to become permanent sources of geopolitical confrontation.
International law, he noted, recognizes the right of states to make reasonable and equitable use of shared water resources, provided they do not cause significant harm to other countries.
Ethiopia's position, Mikael argued, is therefore fundamentally consistent with a development model based on the reasonable use of its own natural resources.
He also questioned the logic behind Egypt's continued insistence that Ethiopia must accept restrictions on its development.
"It's a very conveniently hot issue for Egyptians," he said, arguing that domestic political conditions can encourage governments to maintain an external adversary.
"Frequently, the political situation of Egypt seeks an outside enemy. It's very nice to have an outside enemy when your politics is troubled," Mikael said.
