The long-anticipated completion of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) marks a new and highly precarious chapter in the already strained relationship between Ethiopia and Egypt. With Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announcing the dam’s full completion on Thursday and its official inauguration slated for sometime in September, the next few months are indeed critical, fraught with regional and international dynamics that could push the Nile Basin to the brink.
For years, the GERD has been a flashpoint, with Ethiopia viewing it as a symbol of national development and a crucial step towards electrifying its vast population, while Egypt considers it an existential threat to its water security, heavily reliant as it is on the Nile’s waters. Now, with the dam physically complete, the abstract concerns have materialized, raising the specter of direct confrontation.
One of the underlying forces exacerbating this tension is the growing normalization of preemptive action in global affairs. Increasingly, states have justified military interventions on the grounds of perceived threats or national interest, often bypassing international norms and legal frameworks. In such a climate, Egypt—long vocal about its “existential” concerns—may feel emboldened to contemplate actions it once considered beyond the pale.
This drift toward confrontation is further intensified by a securitization and survival narrative. Both Egypt and Ethiopia frame the GERD as a matter of national survival. For Addis Ababa, the project is more than a dam—it symbolizes sovereignty, economic emancipation, and the right to harness natural resources. For Cairo, any disruption in Nile flow threatens the very foundation of its agricultural and industrial life. When both sides equate compromise with existential risk, the space for diplomatic solutions narrows dramatically.
Adding to the volatility is a growing sense of distraction and fatigue among global powers. With the world’s attention fragmented by wars, inflation, climate crises, and ideological polarization, the bandwidth to monitor, mediate, or de-escalate regional disputes has shrunk. This erosion of international oversight—what might be called “global fatigue”—creates a dangerous vacuum. In such an environment, the risk of miscalculation or escalation by Nile Basin states increases significantly.
Paradoxically, this is compounded by a kind of regional war fatigue. Years of conflict across the Horn of Africa and the broader Middle East may have numbed decision-makers to the dangers of yet another confrontation. Worse, it may foster the belief that one more flash of violence will not provoke serious international backlash. If policymakers perceive a muted global reaction as likely, the threshold for initiating hostilities could lower.
Lastly, there is a psychological dimension to consider—one rooted in the symbolism of the GERD itself. Ethiopia has invested not just resources but national pride in the dam. Egypt might calculate that a limited military strike, timed to disrupt or damage the GERD now that it is operational, could deliver a psychological blow. Such an act could be intended less to disable the dam than to send a chilling message: large projects on the Nile will be met with force. In essence, it would be a bid to break morale and discourage similar ambitions in the future.
International Law and the Red Line
It is crucial to remember that attacking dams is heavily restricted under international humanitarian law. Article 56 of the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions classifies dams as “installations containing dangerous forces” and prohibits attacks on them if such actions “may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.” Any such attack would constitute a grave breach of international law, inviting severe condemnation and potential repercussions.
The Path Forward
Despite the completion of the GERD, diplomatic channels remain essential. Ethiopia has extended an invitation to Egypt and Sudan for the inauguration, reiterating that the dam is a “shared opportunity” and not a threat. Egypt, however, has expressed strong rejection of what it deems “unilateral” moves by Ethiopia. The current impasse, coupled with the aforementioned regional and international dynamics, demands urgent and sincere engagement.
The coming months will test the resolve and wisdom of leaders in Cairo and Addis Ababa. The choice is stark. Continuing on a path of escalation that risks catastrophic conflict, or finding a mutually agreeable framework for cooperation that respects the developmental aspirations of all Nile Basin countries while safeguarding the water security needs of downstream nations. The world watches anxiously.
Kassahun Addis is a long-time observer of Horn of Africa and Northeast African politics, geopolitics, and society.
Contributed by Kassahun Addis
