Who's mediating in the Nile region? The dispute on GERD between diplomacy of powers and multilateralism

Translated by Martina Ravasi

Some recent declarations of the American President Donald Trump in Evian (France) at the G7 summit draw the attention of the world to one of the longest and more complex controversies in the African continent – the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). This a dam built by Ethiopia on the Blue Nile which has been the issue of high tensions with Egypt and Sudan for more than a decade.

During the G7, Trump met the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and said he was available to manage this dossier again personally. According to Egyptian media, the American President defined GERD as a priority, affirming that this dam has created “lots of problems” to Egypt. Under this point of view, Trump said he wants to contribute to come up with a shared solution between all parties involved.

These declarations reopened global debates on GERD immediately. Apart from Trump’s intervention and a possible return of the United States as a mediator, this matter offers the opportunity to reflect on an issue that is often ignored. And this issue is: who should deal with international controversies linked to natural resources? Big powers such as the US or multilateral organizations?

A dispute going beyond the Nile

Perhaps GERD is one of the most ambitious infrastructural projects ever realized in Africa. Indeed, for Ethiopia the dam is a symbol of economic development, energy independence and national modernization. On the contrary, for Egypt the Nile keeps being a vital resource since agriculture, water supplies and a significant part of its national security depend on the Nile. That’s the reason why Cairo is concerned about the Blue Nile water management, since they’re worried about that a potential water reduction may affect the economy of the country, as well as their environment and society significantly.

Against these sometimes-opposed interests, negotiations didn’t succeed in reaching a definitive agreement on water management and above all they didn’t find any solutions to adopt in case of prolonged drought. And it’s precisely this difficulty that has progressively turned GERD from a regional issue into an international one.

Disputes on GERD go far beyond the mere building of a dam, since they underline some typical challenges of the current international scenario. In particular, we’re referring to how to manage natural resources shared between several countries, how to get adapted to the effects of climate change and how to balance the right of economic development with security concerns of neighbour countries. This combination of factors makes the Nile question something going beyond regional borders.

The return of the diplomacy of big powers

Trump’s declarations have something to do with a dynamic that occurred in the past. Indeed, during his first mandate, the United States tried to facilitate talks between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan by holding several negotiation meetings in Washington.

The basic idea is a mediation led by a big power having the political relevance necessary to put pressure on the parties involved and facilitate compromises. The ability to mobilize diplomatic staff, international visibility and political influence can contribute to gather the parties to the negotiation table, especially in a situation of impasse.

At the same time, a direct involvement of big powers raises a point going beyond GERD: where does the authority of an international mediator come from? On one hand, some actors such as the US can count on a level of political relevance capable of promoting dialogue between parties. On the other hand, their initiative risks being interpretated as an expression of geopolitical interests rather than an exclusive conciliatory willing. Therefore, international mediation must face a recurring tension. Indeed, the most influent actors have all the tools necessary to influence negotiations. However, this influence can jeopardize their perception of neutrality.

The role of the African Union

For all these reasons, the African Union has become the main negotiation forum over the last few years. The organisation has taken over the coordination of talks between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan trying to promote an African solution to an African controversy. The increasingly common idea behind this choice is that regional organizations should play a key role in the management of those crises affecting a specific geographic area.

Therefore, for the African Union GERD has become a test to demonstrate its capabilities as a credible diplomatic actor and a dialogue facilitator between member states having opposed interests. Although negotiations still haven’t come up with a definitive agreement, the involvement of the African Union has contributed to keep diplomatic channels open and reduce the risks of a dangerous escalation.

What about the European Union?

Against this background, the position of the European Union seems to be more discreet. Unlike the US, Brussels didn't try to have a direct role in the mediation process. On the contrary, the European approach mainly focused on supporting multilateralism as well as the initiatives promoted by the African Union, thus avoiding overlapping to the already existing regional mechanisms.

This choice reflects a recurring pattern in European external actions. Rather than proposing itself as a protagonist of negotiations, the EU often tends to prioritize its support to multilateral institutions and regional organisations, which are considered as essential tools for conflict prevention and management.

However, Brussels moderation towards this issue doesn’t imply a lack of interests in the region. The Horn of Africa, the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean are strictly linked to EU strategic interests. Indeed, if we take into consideration the security of those sea routes passing through the Suez Canal and the stability of energy and trade supply chains, any evolvement of the situation in these regions has increasingly direct consequences even in Europe. Furthermore, water disputes are likely to play a more relevant role in a world increasingly marked by the effects of climate change.

The comparison of a two mediation models

The GERD issue highlights two different approaches to international controversy management. On one hand, there’s the diplomacy of big powers, based on the capability of single influent actors to facilitate dialogue and lead negotiates. On the other hand, we have the multilateral model, where regional organizations play a central role in the consensus building between parties.

The question doesn’t simply concern who is available to negotiate, but which typology of negotiation is more efficient and long-lasting. The diplomacy of big powers can contribute to release situations of impasse thanks to their own political influence. On the contrary, regional organizations' actions are based on their knowledge of the context and their legitimacy coming from the fact that they belong to that specific area. The Nile dispute is at the crossroads between these two models, thus making the GERD dossier an interesting testbed for the future of multilateral governance.

Conclusions

The GERD controversy shows that in the 21st century a single actor can’t deal with current challenges easily. Water, climate change and food security go beyond borders and regions, thus requiring more and more articulated forms of cooperation. For this reason, the future of the Nile dispute won’t only depend on the balance between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, but also on the capability of regional organizations to establish credible and long-lasting platforms of dialogue.

In an area where natural resources have an increasing geopolitical relevance, GERD may be one of the very first tests of water diplomacy in the 21st century.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2026