By Yordanos D. Addis Ababa, July 15, 2026 (ENA) —Ethiopia has entered a pivotal chapter in its modern political history. With the opening of the National Dialogue Conference in Addis Ababa, the country has embarked on one of its most ambitious efforts to confront longstanding political divisions through dialogue rather than conflict. Launched by the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission (ENDC), an independent body established by the House of Peoples' Representatives in late 2021, the conference marks the culmination of years of nationwide consultations, agenda collection, and institutional preparations. More importantly, it signals a national commitment to addressing deep-rooted challenges through inclusive engagement instead of political confrontation. For many Ethiopians, the National Dialogue represents far more than a political gathering. It is an opportunity to resolve longstanding national disputes through peaceful discussion rather than violence and to forge a shared vision for the future of one of Africa's oldest states. The dialogue also carries importance beyond Ethiopia's borders. As the headquarters of the African Union and a key political and economic actor in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia's stability has direct implications for regional peace, trade, migration, and continental diplomacy. A successful dialogue would therefore resonate across Africa, offering lessons on nationally owned approaches to conflict resolution.   A New Chapter for Ethiopia For a nation of more than 130 million people, the National Dialogue offers a rare opportunity to break with a history in which major political transitions have too often been accompanied by violence and instability. The process seeks to replace confrontation with consultation by creating a formal platform where political disagreements are addressed through dialogue, compromise, and consensus. One of the dialogue's defining characteristics is its commitment to inclusiveness. Farmers, women, youth, internally displaced persons, religious leaders, elders, political parties, civil society organizations, academics, business leaders, and representatives of diverse communities have all been invited to participate. This broad representation gives groups that have often remained on the margins of political decision making an opportunity to contribute directly to shaping Ethiopia's future. The Commission has also emphasized equality among participants. Official titles and positions will not be recognized during the deliberations, allowing ministers, professors, military officers, traditional leaders, and ordinary citizens to participate on equal footing. By minimizing hierarchy, the Commission hopes to encourage open and candid discussions where every participant can freely express their views. For historically underrepresented groups, including pastoralist communities, remote rural populations, women, and internally displaced people, the dialogue represents an unprecedented opportunity to influence national decision making.   Addressing Historical Divisions Ethiopia's political landscape has long been shaped by competing interpretations of its history. While many celebrate the country's legacy of independence and statehood, others point to histories of political exclusion, cultural marginalization, and unequal development. These contrasting narratives have influenced political identities and contributed to recurring tensions among communities. The National Dialogue provides a structured platform to address these sensitive issues through discussion rather than avoidance. Although it may not eliminate every disagreement, the process seeks to build greater understanding and lay the foundation for a shared national vision that respects Ethiopia's diversity while strengthening a common sense of citizenship. The dialogue will also examine some of the country's most consequential constitutional and governance questions. To guide these discussions, the Commission has identified eight thematic pillars covering nation building, the structure of the state, the constitutional status of Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa, religious affairs, institution building, transitional justice, socio economic issues, peace building, and good governance. Through these thematic discussions, participants will deliberate on constitutional reforms, electoral processes, peaceful mechanisms for resolving boundary disputes, and ways to strengthen democratic institutions. Equally important is the opportunity to build consensus on safeguarding the independence, transparency, and accountability of institutions such as the judiciary, electoral authorities, and law enforcement agencies, which are essential for restoring public confidence in the state. Supporting Peace and Transitional Justice Years of conflict have left Ethiopia confronting difficult questions about accountability, reconciliation, and national healing. Communities affected by violence seek justice for victims, while policymakers must also consider how to promote reconciliation and social cohesion. The National Dialogue has the potential to complement Ethiopia's transitional justice process by building broad political consensus on the principles that should guide accountability and reconciliation. Rather than framing these objectives as competing priorities, the dialogue creates space to develop a balanced approach that incorporates truth seeking, justice, reparations, institutional reform, and national healing. If implemented effectively, such a framework could help address longstanding grievances and reduce the risk of future conflict. Regional and Continental Significance The importance of Ethiopia's National Dialogue extends well beyond its borders. As host of the African Union and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Ethiopia occupies a strategic position in continental affairs. Greater political stability would strengthen peace and security throughout the Horn of Africa, where instability often has cross border consequences through refugee flows, insecurity, and disruptions to regional trade. Economic gains could also be substantial. Ethiopia is one of Eastern Africa's largest markets and relies heavily on regional transport corridors, particularly through Djibouti. A more stable political environment would encourage trade, attract investment, strengthen infrastructure connectivity, and expand regional energy cooperation.   Beyond its economic and security implications, the dialogue may offer a valuable model for other African countries facing constitutional disputes, ethnic tensions, or post conflict transitions. If successful, Ethiopia's experience could demonstrate the value of inclusive, nationally led dialogue in addressing deeply rooted political divisions. For the African Union, headquartered in Addis Ababa, a peaceful and stable Ethiopia would reinforce the effectiveness of African solutions to African challenges and strengthen confidence in continental peace and governance mechanisms. Conclusion The Ethiopian National Dialogue represents one of the country's most ambitious attempts to address longstanding political, constitutional, and social challenges through peaceful consultation rather than confrontation. For Ethiopians, it offers an opportunity to replace recurring cycles of conflict with a culture of dialogue, mutual respect, and peaceful political competition. For the Ethiopian state, it provides a pathway to strengthen institutions, improve governance, and build a more inclusive constitutional order. For Africa, it stands as a significant test of whether nationally owned and African led dialogue can provide durable solutions to complex political challenges.

By Professor Al Mariam (Emeritus & Attorney at Law) July 14, 2026 (ENA) Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty for the umpteenth time declared Egypt reserves its full right to defend its Nile water security should it be harmed by Ethiopia and that the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is an illegal unilateral action taken by Ethiopia without consulting the downstream countries. He asserted, “We reserve the right to legitimate self-defense in accordance with the rules of international law.” Egypt has used the term “unilateralism” and other scurrilous words to demonize Ethiopia not only in the global media but also before the UN Security Council on numerous occasions. The repetition of this narrative reflects less a legal reality than a lingering nostalgia for a bygone era of exclusive dominance over the Abay River. The GERD has fundamentally transformed that narrative. Without consuming or diverting a single drop of the Abay's natural downstream flow, the dam has dismantled the long-standing doctrine of exclusive control and emerged as a powerful symbol of equitable and reasonable utilization of the shared waters. Under international law, unilateralism refers to a state acting independently to pursue its own interests or enforce legal rights without the consent, cooperation, or prior consultation of other nations. As Abdelatty wags an accusatory finger at Ethiopia, he forgets three fingers are pointing at Egypt, the unilateralist hegemon of the Nile River for thousands of years. Let the facts speak for themselves: In the Anglo-Italian Protocol of 1891, Britain unilaterally and without consulting Ethiopia, guaranteed Egypt “undisturbed flow of the Nile by restricting Italy’s endeavour to control a water project over the Atbara River”, one of the tributaries of the Nile. In the Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1902, the British unilaterally and fraudulently prohibited Ethiopia from any developmental use of the Nile waters and guaranteed Egypt complete veto power on any projects upstream in the Abay River. In the 1906 Tripartite Agreement Between Britain, France, and Italy, the three colonial powers unilaterally, and without consulting Ethiopia, guaranteed protection of the “interests of Great Britain and Egypt in the Nile Basin, more especially as regards the regulation of the waters of that river and tributaries.” In the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1929, super-special rights were unilaterally, and without consulting Ethiopia, guaranteed to Egypt in the amount of 48 billion cubic meters of water flow per year, the right to undertake any project on the Nile in its territory, the right to monitor the Nile flow in the upstream countries and the right to veto any construction projects that would affect Egypt’s interests. In the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement between Egypt and the Sudan, Egypt unilaterally, and without consulting Ethiopia, guaranteed itself 84 billion cubic meters of water and the right to construct the Aswan High Dam that can store the entire annual Nile River flow of a year. What is more unilateral than Egypt’s insistence on unilateral and exclusive use of all Nile River waters for herself under the fraudulent 1902 agreement? Let us look at few other facts about Egyptian unilateralism. Egypt built the Aswan Dam, the world’s largest embankment dam on the Nile unilaterally and without consulting Ethiopia, to better control flooding, provide increased water storage for irrigation and generate hydroelectricity and accelerate Egypt’s industrialization. In 1979, Egypt unilaterally and without consulting Ethiopia began digging a canal to carry water from the Damietta branch of the Nile, near Egypt’s Mediterranean coast, into Sinai. Water flowed into the canal and then into Sinai in 2001. Today, Egypt is building a new administrative capital to replace Cairo “on a flat stretch of desert between the Nile River and the Suez Canal” unilaterally and without consulting Ethiopia. Egypt unilaterally and without consulting Ethiopia uses water from a massive underground water supply known as the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System which “in relation to the current extraction rates has a lifespan of approximately one thousand years.” Egypt constructed the Ismailia and Ibrahimia Canals, unilaterally and without consulting Ethiopia. Let a candid world judge! Who is and has ALWAYS been the diehard, dyed-in-the-wool, adamant, and inflexible unilateralist hegemon on Nile River waters? Who is the intransigent unilateralist victimizer and victim in the Nile water dispute? Ethiopia’s entire foreign policy has ALWAYS been based on bilateralism and multilateralism. Ethiopia has NEVER been a unilateralist! Ethiopia has ALWAYS been a bilateralist and multilateralist. Ethiopia was a founding member of the League of Nations in 1920. The League was the first multilateral international organization with the core mission of maintaining world peace. In 1945, the League was replaced by the United Nations, of which Ethiopia was a founding member, organized to maintain international peace and security and develop friendly relations among nations. In 1963, Ethiopia was one of the key founders of the Organization of African Unity. Ethiopia has declared to the world she will abide by the 2015 GERD Declaration of Principles signed by Ethiopia, Egypt, and the Sudan. Ethiopia is a signatory to the multilateral Nile Comprehensive Framework Agreement (CFA), a treaty designed to establish a permanent legal and institutional framework for the cooperative management of the Nile River Basin waters. Unlike previous colonial-era agreements that prioritized specific allocations, the CFA focuses on equitable and reasonable utilization, sustainable development, and the establishment of the Nile River Basin Commission (NRBC) as a joint management body. It aims to replace the fragmented bilateral arrangements with a unified basin-wide approach, promoting regional peace, security, and integrated water resources management. The CFA has been signed by Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Burundi and South Sudan officially becoming legally binding on October 13, 2024. Egypt and Sudan have steadfastly refused to sign the multilateral CFA agreement. In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, Prime Minister Abiy declared to the entire world his aim for Ethiopia, the Horn region and beyond is peace, peace, and more peace. “The Horn of Africa is a region of strategic significance. The global military superpowers are expanding their military presence in the area. Terrorists and extremist groups also seek to establish a foothold. We do not want the Horn to be a battle ground for the superpowers nor a hideout for the merchants or terror and brokers of despair and misery. We want Africa to become a treasury of peace and progress. Indeed, we want the Horn of Africa to become the Horn of Plenty for the rest of the continent.” In June 2018, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed pledged to the Egyptian people in Cairo, “I swear to Allah that Ethiopia will not do any harm to Egypt’s water.” To date, there is not a shred of evidence the GERD has caused an ounce of harm on Egypt. Egypt and Sudan must sign the CFA and join the other sister riparian countries for mutual benefit from the Nile. Egypt should look forward to working with the Nile riparian countries and abandon the futile approach of my way of the highway. Let Ethiopia, Egypt and the Sudan work together to make the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam a Horn of Plenty (cornucopia) not only for themselves but the whole of Africa. Let the GERD be the Horn of Africa’s Horn of Plenty. Let the GERD be Africa’s GERDucopia!