1929 Agreement on Nile River

3.C therefore, the Egyptian Government accepts the conclusions of the Nile Commission of 1925, the report of which is annexed and which is considered to form an integral part of this Agreement. However, in view of the delay in the construction of the Gebel Aulia dam which, according to paragraph 40 of the Nile Commission report, is considered to be the counterpart of the Gezira project, the Egyptian Government proposes that the timing and quantities of the progressive sampling of Nile waters carried out by the Sudanese during the flooding months in accordance with Article 57 of the Commission`s report be as provided for in Article 57 of the report. of the Commission, so that Sudan may not withdraw more than 126 cubic metres per second before 1936, provided that the periods provided for in the preceding Article remain unchanged until the specified figure of 126 cubic metres per second is reached. These quantities are based on the Nile Commission report and can therefore cover the examinations specified in the report. Here are facts and agreements governing the use of Nile water: The letters exchanged on May 7, 1929 reserve for England and Egypt “full freedom in all negotiations that might precede an agreement on Sudan and similar matters.” Egyptian statesmen can therefore reopen the Nile water issue and be able to discuss it without the sworn enemy of hunger looking them in the face. The 1929 and 1959 agreements both sparked resentment and demands for changes to the pact among the other Nile states, which Egypt resisted. While Egypt is heavily dependent on the Nile, there are factors that can lead to conflict over the distribution of the Nile`s water supply. For example, Egypt has an economy so dependent on agriculture. In addition, Egypt is already dependent on virtual water imports, a strategy that could push the country to attempt future water-related conflicts. [4] Ethiopia`s tributaries provide about 86% of the Nile`s water. Egypt has historically threatened Ethiopia and Tanzania with war on the Nile. Egypt has armed Somali separatist rebels in Ethiopia during and since the Somali invasion of Ethiopia in the 1970s. [5] Over the years, the states concerned have concluded agreements and treaties to control conflicts.

The Nile water treaties were agreements between the British (on behalf of their colonies, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) and Egypt. They effectively prevent upstream countries from using the waters of the Nile without the consent of those downstream. This led to a strong Egyptian bias, and Egypt is still trying to implement the treaties today. 5. This agreement can in no way be considered as concerning the control of the river – it is an issue that will involve free discussions between the two governments in the context of the negotiations on Sudan. During the race to Africa, control of the source of the Nile was an important colonial objective for the British. To this end, various agreements, including the Nile Treaties, have been concluded. The Egyptian prime minister`s letter indicates how much water Sudan can be allowed to remove.

It also determines how and where this quantity is recorded. Criticism of the Wafd tackles these last details. He argues that they go against the spirit of the agreement. No attempt is made here to convey the controversy presented in this way. Its practical solution will depend largely on the good faith with which the agreement enters into force. In the light of current knowledge, this good faith should be presumed. Since we recently celebrated Earth Day, it is important that we reflect on the importance of natural resources such as the Nile and understand why they are so important, especially for Africa and its long-term development. In fact, 160 million people depend on water from this important river for their livelihoods. Therefore, the conservation, conservation and use of the Nile`s waters and resources is an effective and sustainable goal shared by all.

To this day, Egypt maintains that the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1929 and its amended version, the 1959 Agreement, are still valid. The 1959 agreement, signed by Egypt and an independent Sudan, increased Egypt`s share to 55.5 billion cubic meters and Sudan`s to 18.5 billion. In a speech delivered in the House of Commons on July 10, 1924, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, then prime minister, even went so far as to say, “The Egyptian farmer can be quite convinced that Sudan`s independence because of the agreement we are ready to make does not mean that he will enjoy less than a single pint of water than if he had it and processed it himself.” The letters exchanged on 7 May 1929 must be interpreted in the sense of this proclamation. They certainly record a net gain for Egypt. They do so on the basis of a neutral and impartial expert opinion that has not stated that Egypt, legally or effectively, in justice or custom, has an arrest warrant to claim all the “inappropriate” water that might be needed to give its 1,900,000 unreabited hectares of fertility as property. During the colonial period, Britain effectively controlled the Nile through its military presence in Africa. Since Sudan`s independence, Sudan has negotiated with Egypt over the use of Nile water. The 1959 agreement between Sudan and Egypt had the total average annual Nile at 18.5 and 55.5 billion cubic meters, respectively, but ignored the water rights of the other eight Nile countries.

Ethiopia contributes 80 per cent to the entire Nile, but is not entitled to any of its resources under the 1959 agreement. This region had been reconquered jointly by Britain and Egypt during the campaigns of 1896/8. It is governed by a condominium. The flags of England and Egypt fly side by side. The Egyptians claim that Sudan belongs to them and should be incorporated into their kingdom. The English deny this. Since the war, Downing Street has fluctuated somewhat in terms of Egyptian politics. However, it has remained intransigent and consistent on one point: England will not abandon Sudan. That intention has not changed.

Britain`s willingness to adjust the Nile water issue before Sudan`s fate is resolved underscores the fact. So it is clear that while the world as a whole will applaud the state spirit that assured the Egyptian Fellah that the Nile will remain its river in the first place and that this stream will be primarily intended to make its fields productive, the colony in no way sets a precedent for Colorado or other problems. .