My Personal Response to President Sisi’s Ninth Cairo Water Week Speech.

Full official English translation of President Sisi’s speech available here: 
https://shorturl.at/AbIVr

What Is Good for the Nile Is Good for the Red Sea: A Call from Cairo, my Answer from Addis Ababa

On October 25, 2026, at the opening of the Ninth Cairo Water Week, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi issued a “call from Cairo to make water a catalyst for peace and shared prosperity, and to move forward together from managing crises to crafting solutions, and from commitments to implementation.” He extended an olive branch to Nile Basin countries and assured them, “Egypt’s hand remains extended to its brothers for cooperation based on the rules of international law, consultation, coordination, good neighborliness, and do-no-harm.”
 
He said Nile Basin countries can create lasting partnerships that can “fulfill the needs and aspirations of all our peoples.” He expressed his wish for the Nile “to remain a river that unites rather than divides us,” a resource for peace, progress, stability and prosperity for all Basin countries. He said the challenge is “to move forward together from managing crises to crafting solutions, and from commitments to implementation.”

I welcome and applaud President Sisi’s remarks wholeheartedly.

It is said, “Reality is created by the mind. We can change our reality by changing our mind.”

A wise man once said, “Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

President Sisi has shown great statesmanship by changing his mind on the Nile from confrontation to cooperation, from bluster to dialogue, and from saber-rattling to diplomacy. Reality can be rough, but it is the best teacher. The reality upon which Egypt calculated its strategic planning in Ethiopia has changed. Forever.

The Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) has obliterated the TPLF terrorists-cum-proxy warriors. Invading Eritrean troops have become drone dinner. Eritrea’s weaponization of the TPLF and other riffraff bandits and thugs playing games of patriots has bitten the dust.

Weapons and war material supplied to the TPLF by the usual suspects, worth hundreds of millions of dollars and hidden underground, in warehouses, churches, and underground stockpiles, have been confiscated by the ENDF. The Megech Dam, located on the Megech River, a major tributary that flows into Lake Tana, has been completed. For Ethiopia, the Abbay River (“Blue Nile”) is open for business. The reality is, come hell or high water, Ethiopia will develop Nile waters for its development in full compliance with international law.

Indeed, the reality on the ground has changed like never before.

President Sisi’s change of mind is dramatic and game-changing. Until recently, he used to warn with unbridled audacity that “no one can take a drop of water from Egypt.” He declared uncompromisingly that Egypt’s Nile water share is an “established historical and non-negotiable legal right” that will never be compromised or infringed.

Of course, there are the hordes of cynics who are dismissive of President Sisi’s conciliatory remarks and apparent change of heart, mind and approach to Nile waters. They say we should take whatever he says about the Nile with a grain of salt. It is empty rhetoric prepared for media consumption and to capture headlines. His detractors say his foreign policy is pragmatic but he cannot be trusted because he is insincere, manipulative, deceptive and opportunistic.

Be that as it may, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and full credit. I believe he made those statements at the conference because, after decades of threats and confrontation with Ethiopia, he has arrived at an epiphany, as it were—an “Aha! Eureka!” moment.

His remarks are indicative of the fact that he now understands the futility of decades of confrontation and threats against Ethiopia. The only thing Egypt has gained by by defiantly and hubristically refusing to dialogue with Ethiopia and insisting on the legitimacy of its antiquated colonial-era treaties that gave it monopoly over Nile waters and its own fantasy of Nile as divine birthright is diplomatic heartache and the enmity and contempt of the Ethiopian people. His intransigence has also steeled the resolve of the Ethiopians to complete the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, the largest hydro dam in Africa.

President Sisi’s declaration that the Nile can be a resource for shared prosperity of the Basin countries is appropriate, pragmatic and realistic. What is ironic is the fact that Ethiopia and Egypt shared not only the Nile but also a deep and enduring history of friendship and spiritual brotherhood spanning millennia. The regrettable enmity of today is a sad reminder of the great historical relations between the peoples of the two nations, indeed, two great civilizations.

We have so much in common. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt share a deep historical relationship that spans over 16 centuries during which the Pope of Alexandria in Egypt appointed all the prelates and high-ranking ecclesiastical leaders of the Tewahedo Church.  

Both nations were founding members of the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity, sharing a commitment to anti-colonialism and regional security in the Horn of Africa. Egyptian business today have investments in Ethiopia in manufacturing, agriculture, livestock, and other sectors.

Ethiopia even passed a special law, Proclamation No. 897/2015, approving the Trade Agreement signed between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt. There is the Ethiopian-Egyptian Business Council as a platform for expanding trade, investment and economic cooperation.

In light of these facts, why we cannot seem to get along and work out our differences at the dialogue table is a question that endlessly gnaws at my mind!

Meeting of Minds

What is remarkable, and why I believe in President Sisi’s sincerity in his opening speech at the Water Conference, is the fact that PM Abiy Ahmed has been saying all of the things President Sisi said at the conference over the past eight years.
 
When PM Abiy visited Egypt on June 10, 2018, two months after he took office, he emphatically told the Egyptian people, “We, the People of Ethiopia, never, never, have any intention or interest to harm our brotherly people of Egypt.” PM Abiy vowed before man and God that Ethiopia will “never take away Egypt’s rightful share” of Nile waters, and declared, “We will take care of the Nile and we will preserve your share and we will work to increase this quota and President Sisi and I will work on this… I swear to God, we will never harm you.”

Ever since his first visit to Cairo, PM Abiy has been preaching the gospel of “shared prosperity” from the “gift of the Nile.” He argued that the “shared gift” should be a foundation for cooperation and not a flashpoint for conflict. He has emphasized time and again that Ethiopia’s use of the Nile for development “does not mean diminishing anyone’s share” and that Nile-driven “prosperity for one should mean prosperity for all.” He said all riparian countries “should manage Nile waters through mutual respect and cooperation to achieve shared prosperity and strengthen regional integration.”

On many occasions, PM Abiy has described the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) as “not a threat, but a shared opportunity.” He has steadfastly defended Ethiopia’s right to use the Nile waters fairly and reasonably for its development, consistent with international law. He has asserted that Ethiopia, in its use of the Nile River, is “not obliged to seek the permission or blessing of the other” countries, but must respect the longstanding international legal principles of “equitable use” and “no significant harm” to downstream neighbors.

True to his “Medemer” philosophy, he has consistently championed a multilateral approach in dealing with the dispute over Nile waters. He has repeatedly called for high levels of cooperation between the Nile Basin nations, and pooling resources for mutual development. He has completely rejected any notion of unilateral monopoly of Nile waters. He has publicly urged Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan to use the Nile and synergize their economies for shared prosperity.

It is manifest that, for the first time in the past eight years, PM Abiy and President Sisi are on the exact same page on the use of the Nile River as a turbine for regional and collective economic development and prosperity, and as a bulwark against regional conflict and destabilization.

“Water, Water Everywhere, Nor Any Drop to Drink”: Principle of Equivalence and No Double Standard

The Horn of Africa is blessed with water—many rivers and lakes and the great Red Sea—yet not a drop to drink. Despite being surrounded by the gifts of the Nile and the Red Sea, the Horn countries have not been able to benefit from these resources as much as they could have over the centuries.

In light of his “shared prosperity” message, I urge President Sisi  to temper his new approach with the principle of equivalence. Equal standards should apply to situations that are substantially similar. In other words, there should be no double standards for the Nile River and the Red sea. What is sauce for the goose (Nile) is sauce for the gander (Red Sea).

So, I raise a simple question for President Sisi: If the principles he outlined— shared prosperity, dialogue, sharing resources, and conflict avoidance —are right for the Nile Basin countries, why should the same principles not also guide the nations bordering the Red Sea?

My position is that what is good for the Nile is good for the Red Sea. It is a simple water calculus: Egypt’s demand for water security on the Nile should be balanced with Ethiopia’s demand for maritime and economic security on the Red Sea. The solution to the dispute over the Nile or the Red Sea does not come from a war of words or water wars on the Nile or the Red Sea. It comes from a sincere desire and determined efforts to use natural resources for the shared prosperity of all.

The principle of equivalence is simple: shared geography on the Nile should create shared opportunities and prosperity, just as it should on the Red Sea.

President Sisi correctly reminded his audience that the Nile has been the foundation of Egyptian stability and the engine of its development and prosperity. He described it as “Egypt’s lifeline” and a “bridge connecting peoples.”

Similarly, for thousands of years, the Red Sea has been a lifeline for Ethiopian commerce, diplomacy, and civilization. The ancient Ethiopian Axumite Empire that began in the 1st century CE and lasted for the next 900 years maintained uninterrupted maritime and commercial connections through the Red Sea, including through the historic port of Adulis.

Ethiopia has been known not only as the cradle of humankind but also as a historic maritime nation, with deep-rooted ties to the sea.

Homer, widely recognized as the founding father of Western literature, mentions Aethiopia twice in Iliad and three times in Odyssey. He wrote the Aethiopians were noble, pious, and “blameless” people visited by “Poseidon (god of the sea) ” and live “at the world’s end, and lie in two halves, the one looking West and the other East.”

European mapmakers of the 16th century called the southern half of the Atlantic Ocean the “Aethiopian Sea” (Oceanus Æthiopicus).

Edward Gibbon, the author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, widely regarded as one of the greatest works of historical scholarship ever written, wrote in 1776, a few months before the American Declaration of Independence, about ancient Ethiopia’s connection to the Red Sea, its seaport of Adulis, and its maritime trade.

In Chapter XLII of his history, Gibbon describes the ancient Aksumite kingdom and its seaport: “the Aethiopians of Abyssinia, who had recently acquired the arts of navigation, the spirit of trade, and the seaport of Adulis.” Ancient Ethiopians conducted vibrant maritime trade with Africa, Arabia, the Roman Empire, Persia, and India. Aksum was connected to international trade and geopolitical competition across the Red Sea.

Thirty years ago, Ethiopia had two ports. Then rebel groups overthrew the incumbent regime, called themselves “transitional government,” and their leaders made a private deal under the table and rendered Ethiopia landlocked. Today, Ethiopia with some 130 million people, with an expanding economy and enormous development needs, has become a prisoner of geography.

The Red Sea has always been Ethiopia’s gateway and connection to the world. Ethiopia must regain its gateway, seaway to the world by any means necessary.

To me, Ethiopia’s loss of sea access bears a striking resemblance to the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking western region of Czechoslovakia, by Nazi Germany. In 1938, Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy signed the Munich Agreement, permitting Nazi Germany to take over the Sudetenland. The agreement was negotiated without the participation of Czechoslovak representatives or anyone else representing Czechoslovak interests.

Similarly, Ethiopia’s port of Assab was given away to Eritrea under a transitional government led by rebel leaders who had no legal authority whatsoever . A matter of such profound consequence for Ethiopia’s sovereignty, economic future, and access to the sea was effectively settled through a private deal of two sworn and dyed-in-the-wool anti-Ethiopian rebel leaders, without meaningful public debate, parliamentary scrutiny, transparent national deliberation, or a demonstrable process to safeguard Ethiopia’s long-term strategic interests.

It is an outrage for a transitional government to treat a nation’s vital strategic interests as its personal property, to be casually surrendered or given away at will. A decision with consequences spanning generations was made without the informed consent of the Ethiopian people or a credible demonstration that their national interests had been fully represented.

Following Nazi Germany’s defeat in 1945, Czechoslovakia recovered the Sudetenland. That outcome followed a world war and the defeat of the power that had annexed the territory.

The fundamental question is: Can a private political bargain under the table, with no transparency, between rebel leaders,  establish a legally binding and internationally recognized disposition of sovereign territory? 

Must Ethiopia wage a war in 2026 to resolve its maritime predicament and regain access to Assab? 

Egypt and Ethiopia are in the same boat when it comes to their water security. Their economic development is tied to their geography and natural resources. If the Nile is a lifeline for Egypt, maritime connection is a lifeline for Ethiopia. Just as Egypt has a right to secure arrangements to ensure water security on the Nile for its development, so does Ethiopia have a right to arrange access to the sea and ocean for its economic survivability and thrivability.

The principle of equivalence also applies at the legal level. The Nile and the Red Sea are governed by different legal regimes founded on the same principles. The 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea are based on the foundational principles of equitable and reasonable utilization, obligation not to cause significant harm, and general obligation to cooperate. The principles President Sisi invoked—cooperation, consultation, international law, good-neighborliness, and shared prosperity—are relevant to conventions.

President Sisi spoke of Egypt’s unique geographical circumstances and its dependence on the Nile for more than 98 percent of its renewable water resources. He said, “Egypt faces a unique water challenge due to its geographic nature and its primary reliance on the Nile River, which is shared among the basin states and provides Egypt with more than 98% of its renewable water resources.” He explained that population growth, rising water and food needs, and climate change make water security an increasingly urgent national concern.

The development pressures on Ethiopia are equally burdensome. The population is growing; there is an increasing need for food, energy, infrastructure, and jobs. Ethiopia’s economy requires secure and efficient effective access to international markets.  Currently, around 90% of all its international business is handled via Djibouti, which costs the country at nearly 3 billion per year in logistics and port expenses.

Given these facts, it is absurd to believe Ethiopia must conduct its international trade without a coastline of its own.

Being landlocked is not a circular line on a map. It comes with huge costs for transportation, longer supply chains, disruptions in transit routes, and constrictions in how goods enter and leave the country. The World Bank has extended millions of dollars in credit to Ethiopia to reduce trade logistics costs, explicitly stating that “higher-than-average trade costs undermine Ethiopia’s international competitiveness” and that the success of industrial and agricultural growth depends on improving connectivity along vital corridors like the Ethio-Djibouti route.

So, President Sisi must address certain critical questions as part of his new approach to the Nile dispute resolution. 

Why should Egypt expect its unique geographical circumstances to be accepted while it actively opposes Ethiopia’s sea access question? Or insist as stated in the October 4, 2026 El Alamein Joint Declaration that governance of the Red Sea is the exclusive responsibility of littoral states, intentionally and flagrantly excluding Ethiopia.

Should not Ethiopia’s distinctive geographical predicament be treated in the way as Egypt’s unique geographical circumstances? Must Ethiopia endure being landlocked indefinitely?

Why should Egypt’s complaints on the Nile command international attention, while Ethiopia’s dependence on neighboring countries — dwarf states, pocket states, village states — for access to the sea is denied equivalent consideration as a legitimate development concern?

As President Sisi stated, the Nile must be “a bridge between peoples and a river that brings us together and does not split us apart.” The same logic applies to the Red Sea. If the Nile is to be a bridge between peoples, then the Red Sea must also be a bridge between peoples, not a water all to separate neighbors but a conduit for economic collaboration and mutual benefit.
 
As Prime Minister Abiy once said, “The search by Ethiopia for an outlet to the sea is a proposal for partnership that would not compromise any party’s sovereignty or interest.” He said Ethiopia’s access to the sea through the Red Sea could be an engine of economic development not only for littoral states but also for the entire Horn of Africa. A successful port contributes to not only those ships that use it but also to transportation firms, customs agencies, logistics providers, manufacturers, exporters, importers, hotels, constructors, and labor force.

Such is the logic of shared prosperity on the Nile and the Red Sea. It is also the logic President Sisi invoked when he argued that the Nile Basin’s common interests are greater than its differences. It is the same logic PM Abiy urged when he said the Horn of Africa has more than 5,000 km of coastline which can be a fountain head of shared prosperity for million of people.

The Nile can unite its basin. An Ethiopian port on the Red Sea can connect the Horn region. Both waters can become instruments of peace, regional economic development and help put out the recurrent fires of conflict in the region.

President Sisi emphasized that Egypt supports water cooperation based on the relevant rules of international law, stating, “Egypt attaches paramount importance to fostering water cooperation based on respect for the relevant rules of international law.” He also affirmed the right of all Nile Basin states to development based on international legal principles.

PM Abiy has consistently stated that Ethiopia’s use of Nile waters and its pursuit of access to the Red Sea are based on international law, citing specific provisions of the respective conventions. Specifically, Article 125 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes the right of landlocked states to access to and from the sea and freedom of transit, subject to the Convention’s terms and arrangements agreed upon with the transit states concerned.

The El Alamein Joint Declaration, asserting that governance of the Red Sea is the exclusive responsibility of littoral states, is a provocative provision that risks escalating regional tensions and inviting confrontation. Littoral states or not, Ethiopia will pursue reliable access to the Red Sea, preferably through peaceful negotiations and mutually beneficial agreements. But Ethiopia’s legitimate interest in maritime access cannot be indefinitely denied. If every lawful diplomatic avenue fails, Ethiopia will secure access to the sea, by any means necessary—come hell or high water.

History bears witness.

On September 27, 1993, Ethiopia and Eritrea reached the Transit and Port Services Agreement, which expressly designated the ports of Assab and Massawa as transit ports for goods originating from or destined for Ethiopia. It recognized the importance of unhindered transit to Ethiopia’s international trade and economic development. The UN later included the Agreement in its Law of the Sea Bulletin, thereby documenting it as a bilateral agreement between the two countries.

In 1998, Eritrea invaded Ethiopia. The Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission subsequently found that Eritrea violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter by attacking and occupying Badme and other territories then under peaceful Ethiopian administration on May 12, 1998. That is a formal and binding conclusion of an international arbitral commission.

I believe Afewerki invaded Ethiopia not to resolve a border dispute. Today, the Ethiopia-Eritrea border remains undemarcated on the ground, although its legal line was delimited by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission in 2002. If demarcation was Afewerki’s real objective, he would have had his border demarcated nearly a quarter of a century ago.

Afewerki invaded Ethiopia with a hidden and nefarious agenda. He wanted to violate the 1993 Agreement but could not do so openly and needed a justification. If he invaded Ethiopia, there would be a state of war between the two countries, and he could simply disrupt Ethiopia’s access to the Red Sea through Assab on the grounds that the two countries were at war.

Eritrean officials have invoked the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission’s 2005 Ports Award to justify terminating Ethiopia’s access to Assab during the war and walking away from the 1993 Agreement. Eritrean officials disclose only one part of the Commission’s findings, namely, that once an international armed conflict existed, a belligerent could lawfully terminate commercial access to its ports notwithstanding prior peacetime agreements.
 
 Most importantly, the Commission did NOT declare the 1993 Agreement permanently invalid, nullify it as a treaty, or determine that Eritrea was forever released from the possibility of negotiating or honoring equivalent transit obligations in peacetime. Nor did it establish that the Agreement could be extinguished permanently merely by the outbreak of war.

The fact of the matter is that the Commission’s mandate under Article 5 of the 2000 Algiers Agreement was to adjudicate claims for loss, damage, or injury arising from violations of international law connected with the conflict. Its Ports Award addressed only and only the legality of the wartime interruption of commercial access and the treatment of stranded cargo. It was NOT a comprehensive adjudication of the continuing legal status of the 1993 Agreement after the cessation of hostilities. The distinction matters: a ruling that wartime termination of trade was lawful is not a ruling that a bilateral treaty was permanently extinguished.

Ethiopia should therefore reserve its right to pursue a rigorous legal examination of the 1993 Agreement, its continuing status, and any obligations or claims that may arise from it. It will pursue those interests through diplomacy, negotiation, and any mutually accepted international legal mechanism available. If peaceful means fail, then Ethiopia can enforce its treaty rights by any means necessary, come hell or high water!

The question is not whether Ethiopia should enforce its treaty rights by force, but how international law can be used to help Ethiopia and its neighbors develop practical arrangements that serve their legitimate mutual interests. Various options are available, including reinstating the 1993 Agreement, negotiating a commercial port-access agreement, establishing a long-term lease, creating a jointly financed logistics corridor, or reaching another mutually agreed arrangement.

If consultation and prior notification are practical tools for building confidence in the Nile Basin, as President Sisi argued, consultation and transparent negotiations should likewise be tools for resolving maritime-access concerns.

If international law should prevent unilateral domination of a shared river, it should also help ensure that a landlocked country is not permanently excluded from constructive discussions about the transport corridors on which its economic life depends.

International law should be applied evenly and justly to protect all nations great and small.

President Sisi said, “Egypt’s hand remains extended to its brothers for cooperation based on the rules of international law, consultation, coordination, good neighborliness, and do-no-harm.” He argued that the common interests of the basin’s countries outweigh their differences. 

President Sisi speaks nobly and generously. Indeed, good-neighborliness is not a principle that begins at a riverbank and ends at a coastline. It is a way of conducting relations among states whose destinies are connected by geography, commerce, security, and history.

PM Abiy has declared time and again that Ethiopia will seek maritime access through negotiations and peaceful diplomacy, respecting Eritrean sovereignty and not resorting to threats or territorial coercion. At the recent BRICS Summit, he said, “For Ethiopia, access to the sea is, first and foremost, an economic imperative. Ethiopia will continue to pursue this objective through peaceful and negotiated arrangements.”

Good neighborliness also means realizing that an important neighbor will not consider its dependence on outside ports a minor irritant. The future economic prospects of Ethiopia and the stability of its trade links are issues worth discussing regionally.

President Sisi said the Nile’s resources should meet the needs and aspirations of all the basin’s peoples. He said, “Our basin possesses vast resources and potential that, through sound management and development, can fulfill the needs and aspirations of all our peoples.” He called for partnerships that maximize shared benefits while safeguarding the rights of all nations.

The same logic applies to Ethiopia’s need for sea access. An economically viable Ethiopian maritime corridor could offer Eritrea an opportunity to expand port activity and attract investment, while enabling Ethiopia to diversify its trade routes. Both countries could benefit from improved infrastructure, new business opportunities, and a more predictable commercial environment.

Other countries in the region could benefit as well through expanded cross-border trade, lower logistical barriers, and deeper economic interdependence. Investment in ports and transport corridors can create incentives for stability by giving businesses, workers, and communities a tangible stake in peace.

Following President Sisi’s logic, an Ethiopian port on the Red Sea need not be a source of resentment; it can be a source of revenue. A corridor can be an instrument of cooperation rather than confrontation. Geography can become a shared economic asset among neighbors rather than a permanent source of strategic anxiety and political tension. PM Abiy recently said, “Eritrea must stop providing a safe haven for forces hostile to Ethiopia and instead pursue constructive neighborly relations and a partnership for regional development.”

President Sisi said that water should be a driver of cooperation and shared prosperity, not a political tool for inflaming conflict. He said, “ water is a driver of cooperation and shared prosperity, rather than a political tool to inflame conflict and disputes. Egypt has consciously chosen the path of cooperation and dialogue, grounded in confidence in the justice of its cause and the legality of its stance.”

We can apply the same principle to Ethiopia’s demand for Red Sea access. Egypt cannot uphold those principles for the Nile but reject them for Ethiopia’s peaceful pursuit of maritime access. Ethiopia’s concerns over maritime connectivity should be seen on the same level as Egypt’s concerns over water security.

Egypt cannot credibly champion cooperation as the answer to Nile Basin tensions while opposing, as a matter of principle, peaceful negotiations that could address Ethiopia’s maritime predicament or issuing a declaration which states Ethiopia cannot be part of the governance of the Red Sea. That would be to speak with a forked tongue, a double standard.

President Sisi declared: “Any wager that Egypt will accept a fait accompli or compromise its water security is a losing wager.”

PM Abiy has also made his intentions clear on Red Sea access on numerous occasions: “Ethiopia will continue to strengthen efforts for sea access legally and through dialogue until this goal is met… Based on the principle of give and take, we will work diligently to ensure that Ethiopia has an outlet to the sea… It is inevitable, if not a matter of time…If we don’t achieve it, our children will…”

So, there is a meeting of minds between the two leaders. Neither government can be expected to abandon its vital national interest. Both agree the way forward is not threats against neighbors but securing durable agreements through diplomacy, mutual accommodation, and respect for international law.

The wiser course is to transform a persistent strategic problem into an opportunity for mutual benefit. A win-win agreement would protect Eritrea’s sovereignty, provide Ethiopia with reliable and commercially viable access, establish clear responsibilities and compensation where appropriate, and create mechanisms to manage disputes peacefully.

Such an arrangement would not require either country to surrender its national dignity. It would require both to recognize that durable prosperity is easier to build through cooperation than through permanent confrontation. 

President Sisi has issued a call from Cairo. From Addis Ababa, we respond to his call from Addis Ababa.

Cairo calls: Let the Nile be a source of shared prosperity.

Addis Ababa answers: Let the Red Sea be a source of shared regional prosperity.

Cairo calls: Let water bring peoples together rather than divide them.

Addis Ababa answers: Let maritime access connect our economies rather than become another cause of division.

Cairo calls: Let international law, consultation, coordination, and good-neighborliness guide our relations.

Addis Ababa answers: Let those same principles guide negotiations on ports, transit, infrastructure, and maritime connectivity.

Cairo calls: Let us move from managing crises to crafting solutions.

Addis Ababa answers: Let us negotiate practical arrangements that address Ethiopia’s maritime needs while respecting the sovereignty and security of coastal states.

Cairo calls: Let us move from commitments to implementation.

Addis Ababa answers: Let us translate the language of shared prosperity into agreements, investment, infrastructure, jobs, and lasting peace.

The Red Sea need not become another dividing line in a region already burdened by conflict. It can become a corridor of commerce, investment, and regional cooperation.

President Sisi’s call for a Nile that unites rather than divides offers an opportunity to embrace a broader principle: natural resources and geographic realities must serve peace, development, and shared prosperity. Ethiopia envisions a Nile Basin where all riparian nations pursue their aspirations through law, dialogue, and cooperation—and a Red Sea region where coastal and landlocked countries address their interdependence through peaceful negotiations and mutually beneficial arrangements.

These objectives are complementary, not contradictory. Egypt’s development need not come at Ethiopia’s expense, nor should Ethiopia’s economic aspirations threaten Egypt’s security. The prosperity of one nation need not mean the deprivation of another.

President Sisi, let us extend your vision beyond the Nile to the Red Sea.

The Nile for shared prosperity. The Red Sea for shared prosperity. One region, connected destinies, and a common future built through cooperation, not conflict.

Let’s strive to make the Horn of Africa the horn of Plenty and MAKE ETHIOPIA GREAT AGAIN.