The JWST has an extremely sensitive IR camera. And it is going to cool down to near absolute zero so that the IR sensors don't get flooded with radiation from the rest of the telescope. Because it will get so cold, it is not going to be emitting much IR (I think this is what the GP said when they said "generating"). Your typical deployment observation IR camera's won't be of much help in that case.
The TPLF led Ethiopia for 27 years. They are a tiny minority so the perception here is they used a divided and conquer strategy to govern. They were basically pitting the two large ethnic groups against each other and playing the peace-maker. The most common rhetoric on national television was about how they liberated the Oromo from the Amhara. That resulted in the Amhara developing a lot of animosity towards TPLF because, I'm paraphrasing, "Why should I, a poor person, be blamed for something someone did 200 years ago". In addition, TPLF took some lands away from the Amhara region when they came to power (What you hear in the media as "Western Tigray") and that has caused major anger.
TPLF had Marxist origin, and they had to give names to their "ideological enemies". So Amhara were "Chauvinists" and the Oromo were "Narrow minded". This also rubs people the wrong way. I'm cringing as I write this, the whole thing is insane.
When it comes to Eritrea, They, for a long time were not in good terms with Tigrayans. This animosity actually predates the current conflict or the border war. There are a lot of nuances involved but generally speaking, it wouldn't be wrong to say those two are not friends. Of course the current conflict multiplied the hate a thousand fold.
The reason I'm writing this down is to give you a sense of the broader picture. In this scenario, an Independent Tigray will be a small and mostly very poor population in a dry area, with unfriendly neighbors. And the area has little natural resources to speak of, so it's not like USA or China would care to invest long term in it. The people of Tigray are hardy and disciplined but TPLF is a tyrannical organization, it's not the kind of government in which free thought and enterprise can thrive. In such a scenario, breaking away from Ethiopia don't make much sense. I suspect it would be disastrous. I think they know this.
* In my opinion, they started the war not to break away from Ethiopia but to topple the current Ethiopian government which they hate for breaking their near 3 decade rule of Ethiopia <-- I can unpack this statement a lot more. In the decades they were in power, they had morphed into a kleptocratic regime which enjoyed its life by wasting public money (like a billion USD on a fertilizer plant spent, with nothing completed, around 4 billion usd spent to build a series of sugar plantations and factories with nothing completed after 10 years of development... the list is long). The leaders were sending their kids for a vacation in Europe on public money while more than a million people in Tigray required food assistance to survive.
I think they started the war to topple the government and retain at least some of these benefits they lost under PM Abiy and perhaps more importantly, work to create a more opportune environment that would allow Tigray to break away.
* About the ceasefire, it's good and absolutely essential. THey have to farm this rainy season or the food insecurity will be 10x worse. But there is a problem, TPLF and most of Tigrayans *that I have talked to* thinks they won a military victory and they want to use the momentum to "liberate" western Tigray. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if fighting resumed in those areas.
* As for Eritrea, they were probably invited in at a time of great danger for the Ethiopian military and they helped. People are grateful here, not angry. Of course some of the senseless atrocities have caused the enthusiasm to die down a bit but there seems to be a consensus (right or wrong) that most coverage of the war has a bit of propaganda in it.. a bit of manufactured consent, when people hear about atrocities, they're immediately wondering about who wrote it, what their motive is... this reduces the impact the news would have.
* I am really excited for the Safaricom deal. But I and a lot of people are expecting the US governments to place some sanctions on us wrecking the deal. So not sure if it will go through.
I do indeed work in tech. And I have been working remotely for the past year and half. Bad and expensive internet connection is extremely frustrating. And it's hard for collogues abroad to understand the level of difficulty. Imagine trying to communicate a weird bug in the codebase that you don't even fully understand to collogues in Europe (with broken English) only find out you were disconnected minutes ago. It's painful. The safaricom deal promises 8 billion USD investment in telecom. I am absolutely excited for that and will switch if it's better.
The tech scene is unfortunately NOT as developed as it should be. Internet connectivity, power issues are factors, government procedures and policy over the decades. I think they feared tech and their policies directly and indirectly affected the industry.
An instance of government indirectly stifling growth: There is a government body called Information Network Security Agency (INSA). It was actually founded by the current PM. He was removed and over time, the agency started to moonlight as a the preferred tech company that government agencies work with. They had tens of thousands of employees and can win contracts due to political connections. In the past decade it dominated most government contracts for making software. They thought they were saving money but it was those kinds of contracts that would have allowed the private sector to develop. And to no ones surprised, the stuff they did was often of low quality and over budget.
And 5 or 6 years ago the government wanted to ban VOIP tech (prison time for using). In a separate instance, I very vaguely remember the then director of the agency, a military general (From TPLF ofc) talking about how local developers should consider working on security products rather than communication apps.
That said, there are a few interesting tech companies. We have the local clones of Uber. And they're pretty good (The Tigrayan taxi I mentioned earlier was actually driving for one of these). Food delivery startups. There are lots of companies developing health care logistic related software (lots of funding from USA on that area). A major payment platform in Nigeria (PAGA) is developed here also. There are labs that work on ML, I think the robot the Saudi's gave citizenship to was partially developed here. Right now, one of the current PM's initiative is to digitize Ethiopia. A focus area within the initiative are mobile payment solutions. This will breath new life on both business and tech.
> Nile river is historically and from legal perspective an international river not an Ethiopian property. Violating this always comes with consequences.
The Nile is an international river. All of us accept that. But you should reconsider if you think Ethiopia will accept any treaties that Egypt signed with its colonial master (without Ethiopia being present).
As for consequences, We've been facing the consequences of this for all our lives in the form of food insecurity, famine, rolling blackouts. I will trade food and power for Egyptian military threats or American sanctions. So your consequences are not really that scary considering what's at stake.
* There are 11 countries in the basin. Of the 11, only Egypt and Sudan are using it for any development project.
* Since it's an international resource, we should all be using it.
* Since Egypt and Sudan gets 100% of the benefit, they will likely see a decrease. That's the physical reality
* Right now, Ethiopia gets 0%. We'll increase it.
The gotcha comments don't do much to address the reality on the ground. And it's not particularly merit-worthy for me to bother going point by point "debunking" you. And we're already deep in flame-war territory which is strongly discouraged on HN.
> Where is a country like Ethiopia getting all the money for such a mega-project?
The major source:
For most of the decade, for each bank loan, 27% of it goes to the construction of the dam. And then, most employees have given at least 1 month of their salary to the dam.
We're all happy the election (most of it anyways) concluded peacefully. There was a fear of violence that didn't materialize. The results indicate a massive win for the PM's party. Given how popular he is, I was expecting his party to win, but not by this margin.
As for Tigray, people here are really pessimistic. Over the past 8 months, the Ethiopian government narrative was that the people of Tigray and the political party that rules them (the TPLF) were two different entities and that the former needs to be free from the latter (TPLF has ruled there probably for more than 4 decades, they had their shot).
And the TPLF narrative was that it, and the people of Tigray are one and the same. That TPLF was the only power that can protect/save Tigray. And that if it doesn't get its way it will take Tigray out of the Ethiopian Federation.
After 8 month of conflict, the only reason TPLF still exists is because it has popular support of the Tigrayan public. And the PM basically acknowledged as much.
TPLF has been a bad actor in Ethiopian life. I personally will not be okay with 70 year old TPLF cadres and generals continuing the game they played for 30 years. And I believe the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians will not accept them.
So, if Tigray accepts TPLF, and the rest of Ethiopia rejects it completely, then we're stuck.
Just like there are people in Tigray that want to break away, there are people in the rest of Ethiopia that want them to break away (paraphrasing, "nothing comes out of Tigray, their ambition and their actual population size is not matching up and they're not worth the trouble". This is really dangerous for Tigray because, despite their bravado, it's one of the poorest area in Ethiopia. It has food security issues even in the best of times. TPLF seems to be wanting to leverage the threat of breaking away to get concessions. I don't think they realize just how bad public opinion has soured against Tigray.
Of course, take everything with a grain of salt --- I'm not in politics. My sources are just people here (Like my taxi driver from Tigray who was upset and concerned about a youtuber calling for Tigray to break away).
To provide the HN audience with a single data-point from Ethiopia.
* More than half of Ethiopia's 110 million people have no electric power.
* Almost all of Ethiopia is under some level of food stress.
* The Nile basin contains some 11 countries
* More than 80% of the Nile waters come out of Ethiopia
* Some 70% of the rivers in Ethiopia are parts of the Nile basin
* Out of these countries, only Egypt and Sudan use the Nile river for irrigation and power generation.
* This happened due to Colonial era agreements in which great Britain (Then ruling Egypt) brokered agreements which "gave" Egypt usage and veto rights. Most of the Nile basin countries were colonies of GB and they had no say in the matter (that I can find recorded in history). Ethiopia was an exception as it was not colonized, but it was not consulted by the British and is not signatory to the agreements. And It was fighting to maintain its independence against Europe so it had little power to spare for water politics at the time.
* In 1959, The Sudanese and Egyptians governments met and awarded each other 18.5 billion cubic meter of water and 55 billion cubic meters of water respectively. Again ignoring the other Nile basin countries, including Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia....
* Egypt is unfortunately threatening us with war if there is a drop in their water share. I can basically paraphrase their UNSC statement as saying "Peace and security will be impacted in the horn of Africa because we will start war on Ethiopia".
* I am an Ethiopian, and I realize that Egypt relies on the Nile. As far as I can see, public opinion here (to the extent I see it) is not about depriving Egypt of water and life, it's about living a life of dignity. It's about a fair and equitable use of the water.
Again, unfortunately, Egypt is signing military deals with Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda in what is perceived here as an intimidation campaign. My two cents, there is 0 chance these countries will ever stand against Ethiopia regarding the Nile water usage.
=I am perplexed that they are making an enemy out of Ethiopia when 80% of the Nile comes from here. That's no way to secure your future.
As a lover of ancient history, I am fascinated by Egypt and their reach history. I think the way to secure Egypt's future is by cooperation with all Nile basin countries to protect and further develop the Nile river basin such that the we raise the total water contained in the basin.
Hey, 60% of Ethiopians don't have powers. Take a look at "earth at night" satellite images. Ethiopia is dark. I'm an Ethiopian national and this affects me deeply.
I am tired of desensitizing myself away from the plight of 4 foot 10 women carrying a load of firewood heavier than them.
There are a couple of reasons this is unlikely to happen.
A. The dam already contains more than 4.9 billion cubic meters of water. That along with the wet season rain will mean breaching it will result in catastrophic flooding of Sudan which will result in death and loss of arable land.
Each day that goes on, the water level is increasing, after a some time, Egypt itself will face flooding.
B. Egypt has powerful military but it seems it was designed to fight Israel, not Ethiopia. The distances are just too great. Not many nations in the world have that kind of power projection in the world. That's an exclusive club of great powers like Russia, France, and superpowers like the USA and China. Most Egyptian fighter/bomber aircraft don't have the range to reach Ethiopia. And Sudan seem to be against war so they're unlikely to grant them passage as they will be the ones that suffer the consequences of a breached dam.
The Egyptian airforce is getting new jets from France and Russia. Last I checked, which was months ago, only a few of those jets were delivered. It's unclear that the air crew have the resources, time, training to accomplish the difficult task of dam busting.
C. The renaissance dam is a gravity dam. Giant concrete structure. It's not going to be easy to destroy. And attempts could just make it collapse on the water spillways. Which might end up even more disastrous.
D. Dam or no dam, the water still flows from Ethiopia. And the Nile is not like the Amazon river in that it doesn't contain as much water. If Egyptian leadership plays a zero-sum game, where only they use the Nile then Ethiopia has zero incentive to protect and develop the water. In the age of climate change, this is a huge factor. Diverting some of the smaller tributaries would at most require a single grader and a few days of work. Diverting some 10 or 20% of the water would not be difficult. And that is far more disastrous to the stated objective of Egypt (Which is to maintain the colonial era agreement that allows them and Sudan 100% of the water).
E. Ethiopia is currently a divided country. But when it comes to the dam, its people are 100% on the same page. Most western lenders don't finance any project on the Nile due to Egyptian lobbying. So Ethiopian populace paid for it out of pocket. Most salaried people payed for it out of pocket. WHat that usually means is giving up a month of your salary for the dam. And When Ethiopia is united, it is capable of putting up a good fight.
As for the PRC, who do you think loaned to Ethiopia the money for buying the generators?
And also, PRC has dams on similar rivers. It unlikely to positively accept such an act.
This claim loses significance when you consider 70% of Ethiopia's water resource is in the Nile basin. There is no development without using that water.
I have talked with a few Egyptians on the subject. Unfortunately most think a military solution would be simple and straightforward. "Egypt has hundreds of fighter jets. Ethiopia has 20, We can turn the dam into dust".
They probably can. But then what? History is not over yet.
Egypt thinks of Ethiopia as enemy state. A lot of Ethiopians believe Egypt supports every rebel group in Ethiopia. But Ethiopians still don't view Egypt as an enemy, more like a thorn on the side. For thousands of years the Nile has been flowing toward Egypt without much objection. Bombing the dam will change that. It is the equivalent to creating a monster at your water source. Ethiopia will not try to block the water or anything like that. But it can and probably will start small irrigation projects everywhere. And it will stop consulting with Egypt. In the end, this will be much more devastating to Egypt than a hydro-electric dam which isn't even used for irrigation.
What baffles me about the Egyptian stance is, climate change is coming. Projections for fresh water in Africa in the coming decades don't look rosy. Mitigation for this is, fresh water sources should be developed and protected from environmental degradation. And you need the cooperation of upstream countries to do that. Being source of 85% of the Nile, Ethiopia's support is needed to do that.
Even if Ethiopia stops constructing the dam right now, in 50 years, at a time Egypt is sporting 200 million souls, there is potential that water levels on the Nile are probably going to decrease purely from climate change.
The talk of war is stupid. Playing zero sum game of "Only Egypt" is a bad idea.
I called your opinion reductive because, it does not consider potential consequences and is oblivious to the various factors behind Sudanese change of position. I called your opinion idiotic because it contained this statement "Egypt can just occupy them, install a puppet regime and then move on. They definitely have that capability" which is an idiotic statement and because it will create more problems than it solves. I am sorry it sounds rude but some things need to be made clear.
Fyi, Egypt invaded Ethiopia twice already and were repulsed.
Glad to hear that.
But I am pessimistic about reaching a deal both sides would consider fair. Right now the basin water is divided by Egypt(85%) and Sudan(15%) with Ethiopia and the other 8 or 9 Nile basin countries allocated 0. Egyptian negotiation tactic over the past decade has been aimed at forcing Ethiopia to ratify this water share. The recent comments by your leader about war if "Egypt's water" is reduced is indicative of that.
For the Ethiopian side(and the rest of the Nile basin countries), this is outrageously unfair. Most people here recognize the water is a lifeline for Egypt and are against reducing Egypt's share by a consequential amount. But Egyptian intent of holding onto the 85/
Depressing. I'll call it like it is. This is an idiotic response that lacks common sense. It's so common in the pro Egypt camp.
Most of the inventory is filled with short range equipment. The only jets able to reach Ethiopia are the Rafales and the SU-35 which make up a minority. They're not enough. More importantly, wars are not won by equipment (though they help immensely).
I don't get why such reductive opinions are so common when this issue is discussed.