Will Pakistan be ready to renegotiate Indus Water Treaty?

According to an article published in South Asia Journal the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Water Resources has recommended that the government should renegotiate the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, with Pakistan.

According to the author, the need has arisen due to some pressing challenges that include: climate change, global warming and environmental impact assessment. Without making overtures of abrogating the treaty, which has often been part of the debate in midst of tensions with Pakistan, the committee, in no uncertain terms, acknowledged the rationality of the framing of IWT on the basis of knowledge and technology existing at the time.

IWT, with its emphasis on hydraulic engineering, divided the basin into upper and lower parts (the western and eastern rivers), and envisaged the most complete utilization of the waters through dams, barrages and canals. Without the treaty, Pakistan would have been constrained to build grand hydraulic works to transfer water from the western rivers to meet its irrigation needs and become independent of the eastern rivers. And without the eastern rivers being given exclusively to India, it would have struggled to operationalize the Bhakra and Nangal dams. The Rajasthan canal would not have made much progress, and the Ravi–Beas link canal would have failed to take off.

However, during the IWT negotiations, there was no unified methodology or specialized institutions to foretell the dangers of the climate crisis on water resources. With the advancement of science and improvement in measurements, snow and glacier melt in the upper Indus hydrology, which contribute to 60-70% of total average flow in the Indus river system, and precipitation patterns are now better understood. The contribution of these sources to the Indus Basin is undergoing considerable variations explained by the weather systems and the monsoon.

As a result, sustainability and future water availability are under existential threat. Rivers are the lifeline of almost 300 million people living in the Indus basin. Issues such as food and energy will increasingly have intricate linkages to water while demographic pressures will impact water management.

The emphasis of cooperation should be on setting up new meteorological observation stations, supply of data, and new engineering works on the rivers. However, Article XII explicitly mentions that IWT “may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for the purpose between the two Governments”.

The author has put blame on Pakistan saying that technically, any cooperation or modification of the treaty cannot be undertaken unilaterally. Even if India shows the political courage to renegotiate IWT, the dynamics of it will be far more exacting.

It also alleged that Pakistan, in all likelihood, will make it a political and territorial issue, expressing its disappointment over the treaty rather than the material benefits it has accrued. Pakistan has never advocated abrogation or revision of the treaty, but has not shied away from blaming India for its water woes.

IWT remains a scapegoat to cover up its poor water management policies, which, in successive decades, have seen inefficiency in its irrigation system and excessive water waste in the agricultural sector.

The author suggests that the best option for India is to fulfill the provisions of IWT, particularly those on the western rivers in Jammu and Kashmir. While signing IWT, India gave preference to fulfilling its immediate water needs over future needs, particularly those of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. IWT allows storage entitlement of up to 3.6 MAF (million-acre feet) on the western rivers. Many of the projects are now underway in achieving the “permissible storage capacity”.

He also says that the Permanent Indus Commission that meets every year to settle differences over IWT is an excellent mechanism to raise concerns over water efficiency, ecological integrity and sustainability in the backdrop of the climate crisis. A new water governance framework will be required to deal with the uncertain future of the Indus basin.

Pakistan hosts meeting of spymasters of regional countries

According to DAWN newspaper, Pakistan on Saturday hosted a meeting of spymasters of some countries in the region on the situation in Afghanistan. The meeting was attended by the intelligence heads from Russia, China, Iran and some Central Asian states.

The hosting of the meeting by Pakistan reflects its sincerity for peace in the region and Afghanistan.

It was the latest effort by Pakistan, which had over the past few days hosted meetings of the foreign ministers of the six neighboring countries of Afghanistan and that of their special envoys, to develop a common regional strategy on dealing with challenges emanating from the events unfolding in the war-ravaged country since the fall of Ghani regime.

Foreign ministers of Afghanistan's neighboring countries earlier in a meeting on Wednesday, “Agreed to remain seized of the developments in Afghanistan and coordinate with each other for a holistic, comprehensive and harmonized response,” according to a joint statement issued after their meeting.

The regional countries are worried about security situation along their borders with Afghanistan, terrorists using Afghan soil for launching attacks on other countries, spread of extremism, possibility of influx of refugees, drug trafficking and transnational crimes.

According to an Op-Ed, Russian Security Council’ Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev warned that tens of thousands of militants were harboring in Afghanistan’s provinces close to borders with Central Asian countries.

Also on Wednesday, CIA Chief William Burns during his visit to Pakistan met Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) Gen Qamar Bajwa and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director General Lt Gen Faiz Hamid. Burns had come to Pakistan to share US concerns about the new situation and see how Pakistan can be helpful in dealing with them.

Earlier on 4^th September, the ISI DG had travelled to Afghanistan where he reportedly held meetings with the new Taliban regime. According to sources, in his meetings in Kabul, besides, other issues had emphasized on the urgent need for dealing with the terrorist threat from groups including ISIS, Al-Qaeda, ETIM, TTP, BLA, and Jundullah to the neighbouring countries.

Islamabad had while welcoming the formation of caretaker government in Afghanistan by the Taliban hoped that “the new political dispensation will ensure coordinated efforts for peace, security and stability in Afghanistan”.

Afghan territory must not be allowed to become safe haven for terrorist

On 8th September 2021, Iran hosted a virtual summit of the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and China on Afghanistan. The next round will be held in Tehran in the near future," Iran's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi informed.

Ravanchi also pointed to the sufferings of the Afghan people, saying, "Afghanistan is passing through a critical juncture; hundreds of thousands of Afghans have fled their country; nearly 600,000 others have become internally displaced; essential food supplies are running short, and 18.4 million people need humanitarian assistance."

He added, "This situation is primarily the direct result of the intervention by the US and other foreign forces in Afghanistan and their irresponsible withdrawal. When they entered Afghanistan, they brought catastrophe for Afghans, and when they withdrew, they left calamity for Afghans."

"Iran stands ready to facilitate the transfer of humanitarian aids to Afghanistan through Iran’s sea ports, airports, railways, roads and border crossings," said Ravanchi.

Iran’s ambassador the UN added, "Afghanistan’s people must also be helped to achieve lasting peace, stability and prosperity. The full realization of this objective must be facilitated and strongly supported by the international community particularly the neighboring countries.

Ravanchi went on to say that Iran urges all Afghan leaders from different religious, linguistic, ethnic, and political backgrounds to place the interests of Afghan people above all things.

"Indeed, the path to stability, durable peace and sustainable development in Afghanistan passes through intra-Afghan talks with the active and equal participation of the true representatives of all ethnic, linguistic and religious groups aimed at finding a just, peaceful and durable solution to the crisis, achieving national reconciliation and establishing a truly inclusive, broad-based and fully representative government that is emerged from a free and fair elections including with the full participation of women both as voters and candidates and is committed to combat terrorism and organized crime as well as to guarantee and protect, based on true Islamic teachings and principles, the human rights of all Afghan people including ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities and women. We expect the Taliban to honor its commitments in this regard. Such a government will enjoy Iran’s support," he stated.

"Like Afghanistan’s other neighbors we are gravely concerned about insecurity and instability as well as threats of terrorist networks and organized criminals active in trafficking in drugs and persons," he added.

"We also strongly believe that Afghanistan’s territory must not be used, under any circumstances, to threaten or attack any country or to shelter or train terrorists, or to plan or to finance terrorist acts. Terrorist groups like Daesh that represent a grave threat to Afghanistan and the region must not be allowed to operate in that country."

Ravanchi also cited the services that Iran has provided for commercial ties between Afghanistan as a landlocked country and other countries through Chabahar Port and to Europe through the Khaf-Herat railway.

"Afghanistan needs to be supported to overcome its current economic difficulties. We have established the link from Afghanistan as a land-locked country to high seas through Iran’s Chabahar Port and to Europe through the Khaf-Herat railway."

Consensus on formation of government in Lebanon

Lebanese leaders have finally agreed to formation of a new government led by Sunni tycoon Najib Mikati, after a year of feuding over cabinet seats that has exacerbated a devastating economic collapse, opening the way to a resumption of talks with the IMF.

The breakthrough followed a flurry of contacts from France which has led efforts to get Lebanon’s fractious leaders to agree to a cabinet and begin reforms since last year’s catastrophic Beirut port explosion.

In televised comments, Mikati’s eyes welled up with tears and his voice broke as he described the hardship and emigration inflicted by the crisis, which has forced three quarters of the population into poverty.

The biggest threat to Lebanon’s stability since the 1975-90 civil war, the crisis hit a crunch point last month when fuel shortages brought much of the country to a standstill, triggering numerous security incidents, adding to Western concerns and warnings of worse to come unless something is done.

Mikati and President Michel Aoun, a Maronite Christian, signed a decree establishing the government in the presence of Nabih Berri, the Shia Speaker of Parliament.

Mikati said divisive politics must be set to one side and that he could not go for talks with the International Monetary Fund only to encounter opposition at home.

He pledged to seek support from Arab countries, a number of which have shunned Lebanon because of the extensive influence wielded in Beirut by Hezbollah.

Lebanon could no longer afford to subsidize goods such as imported fuel, he said, adding the country did not have the hard currency reserves for such support.

Addressing the daily hardships, he described how mothers had been forced to cut back on milk for their children. “If a mother’s eldest son leaves the country and she has tears in her eyes, she can’t buy a Panadol pill,” he said, referring to medicine shortages.

Mikati also said parliamentary elections scheduled for next Spring would go ahead on time.

Like the outgoing cabinet of Prime Minister Hassan Diab, the new one comprises ministers with technical expertise who are not prominent politicians but have been named by the main parties.

Youssef Khalil, a senior central bank official and aide to Governor Riad Salameh, has been named Finance Minister in the proposed new cabinet line-up.

Hezbollah, a political ally of Aoun, has named two of the 24 ministers.

Afghan economic collapse would benefit terrorists

UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres has warned that an Afghan economic collapse would occur if assets weren’t unfrozen, saying the collapse would be beneficial to terrorist groups in the area.

"We need to find ways to avoid a situation that would be catastrophic for the people and, in my opinion, a source of instability, and an action, gift for terrorist groups still operating there," Guterres said. 

After the Taliban came into power, Afghanistan was cut off from its US$10 billion assets abroad and US$440 million in emergency reserves it has with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

"At the present moment the UN is not even able to pay its salaries to its own workers," Guterres said.

Guterres’s comments came after Deborah Lyons, UN Secretary General’s special representative for Afghanistan, told the Security Council there would be “a severe economic downturn” if the funds are not released.

"The economy must be allowed to breathe for a few more months, giving the Taliban a chance to demonstrate flexibility and a genuine will to do things differently this time, notably from a human rights, gender, and counter-terrorism perspective," Lyons said.

The funds have been held from the group to have leverage over the Taliban, but Lyons said safeguards can be put on the money to ensure it is used correctly.

Palestinian Authority slams Israel for opposing US consulate in Jerusalem

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has condemned Israel for opposing the reopening of the US Consulate in Jerusalem, which had previously served as a de facto diplomatic mission to the Palestinians. 

Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh urged the United States to fulfill its promises to the Palestinians and speed up the reopening of the consulate.

 “We think it’s a bad idea,” Foreign Minister Yair Lapid told reporters last week in response to the US plan to reopen the consulate. “Jerusalem is the sovereign capital of Israel and Israel alone, and therefore we don’t think it’s a good idea.”

The PA Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Israeli stance does not serve the peace process and disrupts American and international efforts to build confidence and relaunch negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel.”

It condemned the statements of Lapid and other Israeli officials opposed to the reopening of the consulate, which was merged into the US Embassy in Jerusalem by the administration of former US President Donald Trump.

The ministry also condemned “pressure” from Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Lapid on the US administration to backtrack on its decision to reopen the consulate.

According to the PA Foreign Ministry, the Israeli position is in the context of the “Israelization and Judaization of Jerusalem, ethnic cleansing of the residents of Jerusalem and attempts to change the historical and legal status of the city.”

It accused Israel of working to sabotage the efforts of the Biden administration to revive the peace process between the Palestinians and Israel.

Responding to Bennett’s recent remarks in which he was quoted as saying he would not meet with PA President Mahmoud Abbas because of the latter’s efforts to prosecute Israelis for “war crimes” before the International Criminal Court, the PA ministry said, “Those who fear trial before the International Criminal Court must immediately stop committing more violations and crimes against the Palestinian people and their homeland.”

“Naftali Bennett continues to repeat his statements and stances that are hostile to peace and reject any political process with the Palestinian leadership,” it added. “The ministry warns against Bennett’s misleading campaigns and statements, which aim to gain more time in favor of perpetuating the occupation and settlements. Bennett is selling illusions to all parties in exchange for calm and keeping his government in power, while maintaining his expansionist colonial project.”

Afghan debacle to cast shadow over transatlantic security

In February, President Biden declared, “We would repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.” Seven months later, his bungled Afghanistan pullout has left US alliances bruised and battered. Repairing the damage will not be easy. 

The sudden US withdrawal showed callous disregard for its allies. This was compounded by the administration’s Pollyannaish response to the international deluge of criticism that followed.

It is being said openly that the US administration failed to comprehend the ownership stake which many European allies retained in a secure and democratic Afghanistan. The Germans, for example, deployed 150,000 soldiers to Afghanistan from 2002- 2021, many for repeat tours. Berlin’s decision to join the US-led effort was not easy. For historical reasons, Germany is extremely cautious about overseas military deployments, and getting the mission extended year over year was tortuous and politically taxing.

Yet the Germans and other allies stood with the US year over year. Last year, NATO’s Resolute Support (RS) mission to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces counted 16,000 troops from 38 allies and partner nations.

Yet Biden decided to pull all US forces from Afghanistan unilaterally, leaving allies – many of whom had recently committed additional troops to RS at the behest of the US – feeling as though the rug had been pulled out from under them.

Some allies, such as Italy, Turkey and the United Kingdom, reportedly sought to sustain a presence in the country but were unable without US support, in particular American air support. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson tried desperately to find out what the US was doing, but the White House ignored his calls for 36 hours. If the administration didn’t bother to talk to Britain, something deeply dysfunctional was happening.

Biden’s precipitate action created a crush of desperation at Hamid Karzai International Airport, leaving Europeans stranded and allies like France and the UK resorting to dangerous, clandestine rescues of their own citizens from the streets of Kabul.

Now, many analysts say, Taliban are back in charge and flush with billions in abandoned western equipment and weapons. Afghanistan will soon be a haven for transnational terrorists once more. Even Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledges, “you could see a resurgence of terrorism coming out of that general region within 12, 24, 36 months.”

The allied reaction has been scathing. Armin Laschet, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union, called the Afghanistan withdrawal “the greatest debacle that NATO has seen since its foundation.”

Calling it “the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez,” Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee added, “We need to think again about how we handle friends, who matters and how we defend our interests.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “For those who believed in democracy and freedom, especially for women, these are bitter events.”

Europe’s disillusionment and anger with Biden and the US is understandable. They remember how President Obama’s Iraq withdrawal led to a flood of refugees, the rise of ISIS and years of terror attacks. They are bracing for a repeat.

Last week, the EU began quickly drawing up plans to boost aid to neighboring Iran and Pakistan in hopes of holding back the tide of refugees.

Rotting credibility may lead adversaries to wonder whether an attack against the NATO alliance would be met with full US resolve and commitment. In some corners of Europe, the inability to sustain an independent European force in Afghanistan is already leading to renewed calls for an autonomous EU military.

Staunching the damage requires a sustained effort to get beyond trite speeches and show that our alliances matter. The Biden administration should reverse its requested defense cuts, which just further erode US credibility.

The US has to establish a permanent presence in Eastern Europe. It will have to invest in desperately needed Arctic capabilities. To improve NATO it will have to go back towards basics, collective defense of the member states. Unleash the power of the market through the Three Seas Initiative to help infrastructure blossom in Eastern Europe, while drowning out Russian and Chinese efforts to make inroads.

These are just a few of the many steps that should be taken to restore allies’ faith in the US. The US needs to shore up its European alliances. It has tools to do that and just show the will to do and stick to it.