A few days after sending a letter to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi regarding the dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he would like to convene a meeting between the leaders of Egypt and Ethiopia to reach an agreement to resolve the ongoing dispute over the dam.
The remarks were made during a meeting between the two presidents on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
In Cairo, the Egyptian presidency issued a statement saying that el-Sisi “welcomed President Trump’s interest in the Nile water issue as an existential and central matter for Egypt,” adding that U.S. sponsorship of efforts to resolve this protracted crisis “would open new horizons toward a long-awaited breakthrough.”
In the letter sent to el-Sisi last week, Trump expressed the United States’ readiness to reactivate its role as a mediator in the Ethiopian dam crisis, with the aim of reaching a solution that regulates the sharing of Nile waters among Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan. He also voiced hope that the continuing dispute over the dam would not lead to a potential military confrontation, stressing that no country should unilaterally control shared water resources.
For his part, Sudan’s Sovereign Council Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan announced his country’s support for Trump’s initiative, describing it as a genuine opportunity to find fair and sustainable solutions to the issue.
Commenting on the developments, Dr. Mohamed Mehran, a professor of international law and secretary-general of the Committee for the Defense of Water Resources, said the timing of Trump’s letter was not random but reflected precise strategic calculations by the U.S. administration. He explained that the dispute over the GERD has moved from the phase of preventing construction to one focused on regulating operations, making negotiations more realistic and potentially solvable.
Mehran noted that the completion of the dam does not mark the end of the dispute, but rather the beginning of a more sensitive phase centered on three core issues: the volumes of water Ethiopia would release annually during drought periods; mechanisms for joint coordination and monitoring; and legally binding commitments should Ethiopia decide to build additional dams.
Trump’s statements and his letter have brought the GERD issue back to the forefront and renewed Washington’s willingness to pursue a diplomatic solution—though reaching one remains far from guaranteed.
Previous Attempts
The United States formally entered GERD negotiations in 2019 through a meeting in Washington hosted by the U.S. Treasury Department, attended by the foreign ministers of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan, with the World Bank present. The talks produced a roadmap that included understandings on a phased schedule for filling the dam, coordination mechanisms during filling in cases of prolonged drought, and frameworks for annual and long-term operation under similar conditions.
The three countries were scheduled to sign the final text in Washington in late February 2020, but Ethiopia did not attend the closing meeting. Egypt, however, initialed the draft prepared by the U.S. Treasury with technical input from the World Bank.
Against this backdrop, Dr. Ahmed Al-Mufti, a member of Sudan’s delegation and its former legal adviser, argues that Trump’s recent comments on mediation do not represent a new shift in the crisis trajectory. Rather, he says, they come as part of a series of previous U.S. attempts that failed to yield results. He contends that “the core of the crisis lies in Ethiopia’s steadfast position since negotiations began in 2011, based on the belief that it has an absolute right to unilaterally dispose of Blue Nile waters, considering them Ethiopian waters and the GERD a sovereign project financed from its own resources.”
Between Egypt and Ethiopia
Ethiopia continues to refuse to sign a permanent agreement governing future use of Nile waters, preferring instead to negotiate partial agreements in successive stages. Addis Ababa argues that the draft proposed by Egypt and Sudan contains provisions that reduce its legitimate share of Nile waters and that proposed allocations during drought periods could hinder development projects in the upstream region.
Assessing U.S. mediation, Ethiopian journalist Anwar Ibrahim says American moves are not new and have yet to produce tangible results, arguing that relocating negotiations to Washington complicated matters and exposed deeper disagreements among the parties. He notes that the current disputes remain largely technical, with no final consensus formulas in place.
Last week, el-Sisi met with Massad Boulos, senior adviser to the U.S. president for Arab and African affairs, with water issues discussed during the meeting. El-Sisi underscored that water security is an existential matter and a top priority for Egypt, given its direct link to national security.
This comes as Ethiopia’s Foreign Ministry accused Egypt last month of “seeking to monopolize Nile waters,” citing agreements dating back to the “colonial era,” and claimed that Cairo is attempting to destabilize the Horn of Africa over the dam dispute.
Escalation Scenarios
Trump’s letter to el-Sisi opens the door to the possibility of renewed U.S. diplomatic engagement aimed at defusing any potential escalation.
For now, however, the risk of escalation remains.
In this context, Mehran emphasizes that U.S. warnings about escalation are realistic rather than exaggerated, stressing that “international law recognizes the right of states to defend themselves against existential threats.” He explained that for Egypt, water is not a luxury but a matter of survival, and that any serious threat to water security could push Cairo toward exceptional measures.
Nevertheless, he insisted that the military option must remain a last resort after all peaceful avenues have been exhausted, warning that any war in the Nile Basin would be catastrophic for the entire region.
By contrast, Anwar Ibrahim argues that threats of force will not yield real solutions, calling for “a more balanced and flexible U.S. approach toward the three parties,” and warning that the absence of such balance would reflect bias in favor of one side at the expense of another.
This article is a translation of the original Arabic.
