A new chapter in the history of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) began with its official inauguration on September 9, 2025. The outlines of the new landscape were clear when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed declared at the dam's inauguration ceremony that "To our brothers, Ethiopia built the dam to prosper, to electrify the entire region, and to change the history of black people". Addressing Egypt and Sudan, "It was certainly not built to harm our brothers". Egypt expressed grave concern about the dam's full operation without a binding agreement, asserting that this unilateral action threatens its water and food security. What is the significance of this historic milestone? We are currently confronted with a new geopolitical and economic reality, as the dam has materialized with an installed capacity of 5,150 megawatts. This development introduces novel challenges for Egypt and Sudan, necessitating a comprehensive re-evaluation of their strategic approaches to adapt to the altered circumstances.

Get E-International Relations delivered directly to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

The Ethiopian dam marks the beginning of a new phase in crisis management, where the conflict has shifted from preventing construction to dealing with the status quo. Here, new concepts prevail in post-crisis management, with attempts to minimize damage and maximize gains from the new situation.

The Globalization of the GERD Issue

The most prominent option for Egyptian diplomacy to address Ethiopian resistance over the GERD was to submit formal complaints to the UN Security Council, considering the crisis a threat to international peace and security, in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of Chapter VI of the UN Charter. It means Egypt preferred peaceful procedures for resolving international disputes, including negotiation and mediation, followed by referral to the Security Council. According to Chapter VII, the Council can investigate whether the problem threatens global peace and security. Under Chapter VII, the Council can ultimately impose peace and issue binding, enforceable resolutions.

Egyptian diplomacy may seek to leverage international legal forums by submitting formal objections to the African Union (AU), the United Nations (UN), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding violations of international river agreements. As discussed in my work 'Egypt's Water Policy', I asserted that the Entebbe Agreement violates fundamental principles of transboundary water law and disregards established treaties, a position likely to gain support from international bodies. The Entebbe Agreement, also known as the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework, was signed in 2010. However, it was rejected by Egypt and Sudan, leading to their suspension from the Nile Basin Initiative. It came into force in September 2024 following South Sudan's ratification. The primary objections centered on its provisions for redistributing water resources and allowing upstream states to implement water projects without the consent of downstream countries.

The suitability of the ICJ or other legal forums for resolving transboundary water disputes remains uncertain. First, these forums require the consent of both parties for their compulsory jurisdiction to apply. Second, while Article 94 of the UN Charter allows for recourse to the Security Council if a party ignores a final ruling, there is no similar procedure for provisional measures issued by the court.

What prompted Egypt to seek intervention from the Security Council again in September 2025? The underlying answer lies in the pronounced deadlock that has characterized negotiations among the three parties involved. Each party remains steadfast in its position, vehemently refusing to make even minimal concessions. This dynamic is underpinned by the dominant paradigms of zero-sum rivalry, red lines, and paramount national interests, which imbue the negotiation process with conflicting values and ideological considerations. These negotiations, including those convened under the auspices of the AU and during the first term of U.S. President Donald Trump, have repeatedly demonstrated fundamental disagreements over core principles, rendering them ostensibly futile or akin to a 'dialogue of the deaf'. From Egypt’s perspective, Ethiopia has disregarded previous agreements, notably the 2015 Declaration of Principles, asserting that its plans for the dam’s completion and operation remain unaffected. Such developments suggest that the situation can be effectively analyzed using game theory, specifically the Chicken Dilemma, a conceptual framework that offers valuable insights into the strategic stalemate and potential avenues for resolution.

Numerous scholars and policymaking institutions have endeavored to apply the Chicken Dilemma, sometimes referred to as the Falcon and Dove model, to the Nile water crisis, particularly focusing on the GERD. A critical question thus emerges: have we truly reached the worst-case scenario within this strategic framework? This may lead to a violent confrontation over the water.

With diplomatic efforts exhausted and considering that the water issue is a matter of life or death for Egypt, the military option may become a possibility that cannot be ruled out. President Donald........

© E-International