How Egyptian Media and Experts Mislead the Public on the Renaissance Dam

By- Asrat Berhanu

To understand how Egyptian media, experts, or a significant number of ignorant activists have been engaging in misleading or manipulative practices regarding the Renaissance Dam negotiations and related narratives, it’s important to examine several potential strategies that have been used, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Here are some tactics that have been employed to mislead or convince the public with a false narrative, along with supporting data and information:

1. Selective Reporting

• Description: Highlighting specific aspects of a story while deliberately ignoring others to create a skewed perspective.
• Example: Egyptian media, experts, and activists focus solely on Ethiopia’s actions regarding the dam’s filling, without mentioning Ethiopia’s legitimate rights under the 2015 Declaration of Principles. This agreement allows Ethiopia to fill the dam while construction and negotiations are ongoing. This skewed reporting portrays Ethiopia as acting unilaterally and aggressively without giving a full picture of the legal and diplomatic context.
• Data: In July 2020, Ethiopian officials reported the completion of the first filling of the GERD’s reservoir, reaching a water level of 4.9 billion cubic meters (BCM). Egyptian media labeled this action a violation, blatantly ignoring that the 2015 Declaration, signed by Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia, endorses Ethiopia’s right to begin filling while negotiations continue (source: International Water Law).

1. Repetition of False or Misleading Claims

• Description: Repeating false or misleading statements multiple times creates a false perception of truth.
• Example: Egyptian media, experts, and activists repeatedly claim that Ethiopia is “stealing” water from Egypt or that every cubic meter of water in the Renaissance Dam belongs to Egypt. This assertion disregards the fact that 86% of the Nile’s water originates from Ethiopia, while Egypt contributes nothing to the river’s flow. Furthermore, the dam’s filling is being carried out in strict accordance with the 2018 agreements made by a scientific committee of 15 experts, including five from Egypt. This relentless repetition of lies creates a false narrative of theft and aggression.
• Data: Between 2020 and 2021, over 200 articles and broadcasts in Egyptian media framed Ethiopia’s actions as a direct threat to Egypt’s water supply, despite the fact that the annual flow of the Nile is around 84 BCM and the impact of the GERD’s filling falls within natural hydrological variations over the 5 to 7 years it will take to fill, as agreed upon by the 2018 scientific committee including Egypt (source: Science Publishing Group). Even the Egyptian Minister of Irrigation admitted in parliament that the dam’s filling had not caused any damage to Egypt (source: Egyptian Parliament Proceedings).

1. Use of Loaded Language

• Description: Using emotionally charged or biased language to manipulate public opinion and create a false sense of urgency and crisis.
• Example: Egyptian media describe Ethiopia’s actions as “hostile” or “reckless” without providing any factual basis for these accusations. Such inflammatory language is designed to provoke strong emotions and unjustly vilify Ethiopia.
• Data: An analysis of 100 Egyptian news articles from 2019 to 2022 reveals that over 60% used terms like “aggression,” “hostile,” and “reckless” when referring to Ethiopia’s actions regarding the GERD. This biased language consistently lacks evidence or acknowledgment of Ethiopia’s legal rights under international law (source: Media bias through collocations on Academia).

1. Omission of Key Context or Facts

• Description: Deliberately omitting crucial information that provides context, leading to a distorted understanding of the situation.
• Example: Egyptian media fail to report on Ethiopia’s legal rights under the Declaration of Principles or the hydrological studies that support Ethiopia’s actions. This deliberate omission leads to a one-sided narrative that paints Ethiopia as the sole aggressor.
• Data: A review of media coverage in Egypt from January 2020 to December 2022 found that less than 15% of articles mentioned the 2015 Declaration of Principles or Ethiopia’s compliance with international agreements regarding transboundary water management, deliberately creating a skewed understanding of Ethiopia’s actions (source: Media Coverage Review).

1. Framing and Bias

• Description: Presenting news in a way that emphasizes one viewpoint while dismissing or minimizing others, manipulating the audience’s perception of the situation.
• Example: Egyptian media frame the GERD negotiations as a zero-sum game where Egypt is the only victim, completely ignoring Sudan’s support for the dam and Ethiopia’s legitimate arguments about equitable resource sharing.
• Data: A study of news framing from 2018 to 2022 found that 75% of Egyptian media articles portrayed the GERD as a zero-sum conflict, with minimal to no coverage of Sudan’s favorable stance towards the dam or the benefits for regional energy security, such as the generation of 5,150 megawatts of electricity, which could greatly benefit neighboring countries, including Sudan (source: News Framing Study from BBC, source: Al Jazeera).

1. Spreading Unverified or False Information

• Description: Disseminating unverified or outright false information to create confusion, fear, and hostility.
• Example: Publishing unverified claims about Ethiopia’s intentions to control the Nile or harm Egypt stirs up panic and hate, even though these claims are later proven false.
• Data: A 2021 survey found that over 40% of respondents in Egypt believed unverified claims that Ethiopia intended to divert the Nile’s course or significantly reduce Egypt’s water supply, despite hydrological studies confirming that the GERD’s operations do not intend to alter the Nile’s flow but manage water storage for power generation (source: Public Opinion Survey by Science Publishing Group).

1. Ignoring Counter-Narratives or Alternative Perspectives

• Description: Refusing to provide coverage or acknowledgment of alternative viewpoints or new developments that contradict the dominant narrative.
• Example: Egyptian media, experts, and activists deliberately avoid reporting on Ethiopia’s diplomatic efforts to negotiate in good faith or statements from international bodies that support Ethiopia’s actions under specific conditions.
• Data: A media analysis from 2019 to 2022 shows that only 10% of Egyptian media reports covered Ethiopia’s proposal in June 2020 to adhere to drought flow guidelines as a non-binding measure, which was an effort to compromise and ensure water availability during droughts. Egypt rejected this proposal, yet the media coverage did not provide balanced reporting on Ethiopia’s concessions (source: Media Analysis Report from IFRC).

1. Misrepresentation of Data or Statements

• Description: Twisting or misinterpreting data, quotes, or official statements to fit a false narrative.
• Example: Egyptian media take statements from Ethiopian officials out of context to make it appear that they are threatening Egypt or planning aggressive actions when discussing defensive measures or negotiations.
• Data: In 2021, several Egyptian news outlets misrepresented a statement by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed about the dam’s operations, suggesting it was a threat to Egypt’s water supply. The original statement emphasized Ethiopia’s right to use its resources responsibly while adhering to international agreements, but this context was intentionally omitted (source: Media Misrepresentation Report on Academia).

1. Promoting Conspiracy Theories

• Description: Encouraging unfounded conspiracy theories to undermine legitimate concerns or diplomatic efforts.
• Example: Suggesting without evidence that Ethiopia is building the dam as part of a secret plot to dominate the region sows distrust and fear among the public.
• Data: An analysis of social media and news content from 2020 to 2022 found that conspiracy theories about Ethiopia’s motives behind the GERD accounted for approximately 30% of the discussions, with no credible sources to support these claims. Nonetheless, they were widely circulated and believed by segments of the public (source: Social Media Analysis on Academia).

Conclusion

The deliberate and calculated practices of Egyptian media, experts, and activists to mislead and manipulate public opinion about the GERD are not only irresponsible but also dangerous. By selectively reporting, using loaded language, omitting key facts, framing with bias, spreading false information, ignoring counter-narratives, misrepresenting data, and promoting conspiracy theories, these entities have fostered a toxic and hostile environment that hinders genuine understanding and cooperation. Recognizing these tactics is the first step in preventing manipulation and ensuring a more balanced and truthful discourse.