The present study examines how Egyptian and Ethiopian officials seek to (de-)legitimize the course of action towards the so-called crisis of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) as exemplified in the two countries' respective letters to the UN General Assembly in May 2020. Adopting a qualitative analysis of the two selected documents, I investigate how the crisis is cognitively and discursively framed in the two countries' official discourse.  This type of framing is seen as a subtle form of persuasion to prioritize some issues over others, and thereby promote a particular interpretation of reality. In fact, frames are seen as a means of gearing the audience's cognition; specially to the direction of the speaker's viewpoint.From a cognitive perspective, Cap (2013) proximization theory is employed to show how the crisis discourse space is constructed in both letters, hence, in both official discourses. This cognitive-pragmatic framework proves instrumental in both interventionist and crisis discourse to reflect how authors legitimize their actions to the public. Cap (2014a) specified strategies of proximization as linguistic resources of ‘legitimization' in political interventionist discourse. Moreover, the discourse-historical approach (2001, 2009, 2016, 2017) informs the analysis of the letters to highlight the discursive strategies used to frame the crisis. Qualitative findings reveal how the linguistic choices evoke cognitive and discursive frames intended to influence the addressees' preference for the speaker's viewpoint. This is achieved through abundant use of framing strategies that include deictic expressions, discourse markers as well as metaphors. From a proximization perspective, emphasis is placed on spatial and axiological proximized threat devices in the Egyptian letter, in contrast to temporal proximized threat ones in the Ethiopian. Both letters employ similar framing and proximization strategies in addressing the UN Security Council.