The recent EU-Egypt summit celebrated a new “strategic and comprehensive partnership.” However, buried within the declarations on migration, security, and energy is a joint statement on the Nile River. This statement’s wording is so one-sided and legally selective that it calls into question the EU’s role as an impartial observer in one of the world’s most sensitive transboundary water disputes.

The statement in question reads: “Recognizing Egypt’s heavy reliance on the Nile River in a context of its water scarcity, the EU reiterates its support to Egypt’s water security and the compliance with international law, including concerning the Ethiopian Dam.” It goes on to encourage cooperation based on “prior notification, cooperation and ‘do no harm’.”

This language, rather than being a simple plea for regional harmony, strongly echoes Egypt’s established position. It is a statement that is noteworthy for what it says, but perhaps even more so for what it omits.

A Deliberately One-Sided “Recognition”

The statement opens by “Recognizing Egypt’s heavy reliance on the Nile.” This is an undisputed fact. But it is a carefully selected fact.

The statement does not, for example, also “recognize” Ethiopia’s reliance on the very same river, which originates on its territory, to provide basic electricity to over 60 million of its citizens. There is no “recognition” of Ethiopia’s sovereign right to development, or that the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is a hydropower project designed to generate electricity, not to consume or divert water.

By framing the issue exclusively through the lens of Egyptian “scarcity,” the EU adopts a narrative that casts the Nile as a zero-sum game. It overlooks the reality that for Ethiopia, the dam represents a critical engine for development and poverty alleviation. This approach does not reflect full impartiality, as it appears to privilege one nation’s “historical” use over another nation’s future development needs.

A Selective Interpretation of “International Law”

The statement’s most problematic element is its selective invocation of “international law.” By linking “support to Egypt’s water security” with “compliance with international law, including concerning the Ethiopian Dam,” the EU implies that Ethiopia and its dam may not be in compliance.

This reflects a deeply contentious Egyptian talking point. The “law” Egypt frequently cites is the 1959 agreement, a treaty between Egypt and Sudan that allocated the Nile’s water between themselves, granting no water to Ethiopia (the source of 86% of the water) or other upstream riparian states. This agreement is not universally accepted as “international law”; it is a document that Ethiopia and other upstream nations have consistently rejected.

The cornerstone of modern international water law, as codified in the UN Watercourses Convention, is not the “do no harm” principle in isolation. The primary, guiding principle is “equitable and reasonable utilization.” This principle exists to balance the needs of all riparian states, ensuring that downstream countries are protected from significant harm while simultaneously guaranteeing that upstream countries can develop their own resources.

The EU’s statement conspicuously omits any mention of “equitable and reasonable utilization.” Instead, it cherry-picks the “do no harm” principle, which Egypt has long used to argue against upstream development. This is not a balanced endorsement of international law; it is a notable distortion of it.

Undermining African-Led Solutions

For years, the primary forum for this dispute has been the tripartite negotiations between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan, mediated by the African Union (AU). The EU has, until now, been an observer to this process.

With this statement, the EU has unfortunately compromised its credibility as a mediator and weakened the AU-led process. It becomes more difficult for Egypt to negotiate or compromise in good faith within the African-led framework when it has just received a bilateral endorsement of its position from a global partner like the EU.

This move risks disincentivizing Cairo from making concessions, pushing a fragile regional diplomatic process, the only one that has shown a path forward, closer to a stalemate.

An Unscrupulous Quid Pro Quo

One must ask why the EU would make such a one-sided declaration. The answer may lie in the rest of the “strategic partnership” agreement. The EU is providing billions of euros to Egypt in a package widely understood to be linked to Cairo’s cooperation on stemming migration to Europe.

If this is the case, the EU may be engaging in short-sighted foreign policy. It appears to have traded its neutrality on the Nile, an issue of existential importance for the future development and stability of half a billion people across 11 African nations, for domestic political gains on migration.

A Path Beyond Colonial Water Law

This statement represents a significant diplomatic misstep. It aligns the EU with a one-sided interpretation of water rights rooted in colonial-era agreements and overlooks the legitimate development aspirations of Ethiopia and other upstream states. If the EU is serious about stability in the Horn of Africa, it should reconsider this partisan language. Instead of appearing to give effect to outdated colonial treaties, the EU should encourage its new strategic partner, Egypt, to engage constructively with its neighbours by signing and ratifying the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), a viable and modern legal instrument for governing the river. The EU should reaffirm its commitment to all principles of international water law, starting with “equitable and reasonable utilization”, and lend its full, impartial support to the African Union-led process. True partnership is built on bridging divides, not widening them.

Yonas Tesfa Sisay (PhD) is an attorney-at-law and legal consultant

Contributed by Yonas Tesfa Sisay (PhD)