US, UK and Australia forging military alliance against China

The United States, Britain and Australia have forged a historic security alliance to strengthen military capabilities in the Pacific, allowing them to share advanced defence technologies and giving Australian forces nuclear submarine technology. The move, announced on Wednesday, extends Washington’s drive for military cooperation.

To begin the “Aukus” security partnership, naval officials and technical specialists from the three countries will work together over the next 18 months to give Australia the nuclear technology that will allow it to deploy submarines “to improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific”, said a senior official from US President Joe Biden’s administration.

“We undertake this effort as part of a larger constellation of steps, including stronger bilateral partnerships with our traditional security partners in Asia – Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines – and also stronger engagements with new partners like India, Vietnam and new formations like the Quad,” the official said, referring to the security grouping of the US, India, Japan and Australia.

“This is an historic announcement. It reflects the Biden administration’s determination to build stronger partnerships to sustain peace and stability across the entire Indo-Pacific region.”

The three countries will also cooperate on integrating artificial intelligence, quantum computing and undersea capabilities into their military operations.

At a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British leader Boris Johnson, Biden said the initiative was needed to ensure the US and its allies had the “most modern capabilities we need to manoeuvre and defend against rapidly evolving threats”.

“We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region and how it may evolve because the future of each of our nations, and indeed the world, depends on a free and open Indo-Pacific enduring and flourishing in the decades ahead,” Biden said.

The nuclear-powered submarines will be built in Adelaide with “in close cooperation” with Britain and the US, said Morrison.

Johnson called the undertaking “one of the most complex and technically demanding projects in the world”.

“Only a handful of countries possess nuclear-powered submarines,” he said. “And it is a momentous decision for any nation to acquire this formidable capability, and perhaps equally momentous for any other state to come to its aid.”

While all three leaders cast the initiative as an effort to bring “stability” to the Indo-Pacific region, none made any explicit mention of China.

Asked whether the formation of Aukus was meant to counter China’s military build-up, the US official said the move “is not aimed or about any one country”, adding that “it’s about advancing our strategic interests, upholding the international rules-based order and promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific”.

The official said that Biden did not mention the Aukus initiative specifically when he spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, but that the US leader “did underscore our determination to play a strong, strong role in the Indo-Pacific”.

Asked on Wednesday about the new security alliance, Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said that countries “should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties”.

“In particular, they should shake off their Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice,” Liu said.

While Beijing may seek to downplay the new pact by calling it an outdated ideological move, there was “no doubt” about the initiative’s significance, said Oriana Skylar Mastro, an expert in Chinese military and security policy at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

“Not only for the content of the deal, but it shows innovation in how US allies and partners are thinking of working together,” she said. “It’s more than the usual exercises and air shows.”

News of the trilateral alliance comes as China’s People’s Liberation Army steps up aerial drills near Taiwan and in the South China Sea, where China’s territorial claims have been contested by Washington and other countries in the region.

Against this backdrop, Beijing will not buy the Biden administration’s assertion that Aukus is not a specific reaction to China’s military rise, said Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

“Beijing will see this as part of US efforts to forge coalitions aimed at pushing back against China, and they aren’t wrong,” she said. “The Chinese need to recognize that this assertive behavior is drawing democratic countries to cooperate in new ways to defend their interests.”

Charles Edel, an expert in Indo-Pacific security issues, viewed Wednesday’s announcement as the latest example of Biden’s rejection of the go-it-alone approach that characterized his predecessor’s China policy, and “a signal that the United States is willing to invest more responsibilities into its allies than it has in the past”.

 “The bet that’s clearly being placed here is that, in response to increasing Chinese capabilities and the turn to a more threatening Chinese foreign policy, more allies are going to become more capable, and that that will serve as a greater deterrent to the Chinese, both militarily and politically,” said Edel, a global fellow at the Wilson Centre in Washington and senior fellow at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Morrison stressed that the submarines would be nuclear in propulsion only, rather than carrying nuclear weapons. “We will continue to meet all our nuclear weapons,” he said.

But nuclear power alone carried with it significant tactical advantages that had obvious applications when it came to countering China’s military presence in the Indo-Pacific, said Edel.

Besides increased payload capabilities, nuclear-powered submarines had greater endurance and could remain in deep waters for longer periods of times, said Edel. “They are, at depth, less detectable, so that’s a deterrent,” he said. “When we think about the extraordinary production of Chinese ground-based missiles that basically blanket the entire South China Sea – without necessarily a counterbalancing force other than the US – this then, I think, is a partial answer to that.”

Biden’s other geopolitical initiatives since taking office, including his efforts to bolster ties with NATO and the G7 and the shaping of the QUAD, have specifically included language about countering China’s growing influence.

The administration official cited Biden’s planned in-person meeting with Morrison and the other Quad leaders next week at the White House, and suggested that the presence of British aircraft carriers in the South China Sea in recent months figured into the strengthening military alliance.

“You have just seen the substantial deployment of British forces throughout the Indo-Pacific very successful deployments of the aircraft carriers, supporting ships, lots of valuable port engagements,” he said. “Our strategic discussions … transcended several months of very deep, very high level engagements with both our military commands, our political leadership and the people closest to our leaders in order to chart a common path on the way forward.”

The establishment of Aukus follows a warning on Tuesday by Glaser, former US National Security Council, Deputy National Security adviser Zack Cooper and other military analysts that the US needs stronger military partnerships in region.

“China’s modernizing military … poses the greatest challenge in the world,” they said in a white paper on how Washington should respond to challenges posed by Beijing. “China is not a global military peer competitor of the US … but it has developed a robust capability to fight effectively in the areas within the first island chain, which runs north to south from Japan in the East China Sea, to Taiwan, to the Philippines in the South China Sea.”

“Long-term success will depend on the US making significant advances in its regional diplomacy with new partners who feel threatened by Beijing’s military modernization and grey zone assertiveness, even as many have strong trade, investment and financial ties with China,” they said.

But in the wake of Wednesday’s announcement, it remains a possibility that Beijing will respond to Washington’s growing alliances with increased assertion, said Ali Wyne, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group and an expert in US-China relations.

“A big question is whether China will recalibrate, recognizing that it is engendering greater resistance among advanced industrial democracies or instead adduce that resistance as evidence that it needs to double down on its current course of diplomacy.”

Tanker carrying Iranian fuel for Lebanon reaches Syria

After 19 days of waiting, the Iranian ship containing 33,000 tons gasoline for Lebanon reached Baniyas port in Syria on Tuesday. Hezbollah leader Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah had threatened retaliation if anyone tried to interfere with the shipment and said the tankers bringing fuel are considered Lebanese territory.

Nasrallah dropped a bombshell when he announced that an oil tanker carrying Iranian fuel oil was bound for Lebanon. Addressing a commemorative ceremony marking the Day of Ashura, Hezbollah’s chief announced that the first of several ships loaded with fuel would sail from Iran to Lebanon within hours, warning the United States and Israel against any sabotage.

“Our first ship has completed all arrangements and will sail within hours from Iran to Lebanon with the blessing of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him),” he said, noting, “This ship will be followed by other ships, but we gave priority to diesel oil on the first ship because it is a top priority and is linked to people’s lives.”

Nasrallah thanked Syria for receiving the shipment on Sunday and facilitating its transfer, and said it would reach Lebanon by Thursday.

Unable to deliver directly by sea to Lebanon due to sanctions, the Iranian vessel, named Faxon, went instead to Baniyas, Syria for land transfer.

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati has not yet commented on the arrival of the Iranian tanker. 

“Lebanon set to receive more fuel shipments from Iran”

The Hezbollah chief said a third and a fourth fuel-laden vessel is expected to navigate towards Lebanon in the future, saying his group seeks for a part of Lebanon’s fuel needs to be met using Iranian imports.

“Paperwork has been done for the dispatch of the third gasoline-laden ship from Iran. The fourth ship will carry diesel and will be sent over subsequently,” Nasrallah said during a speech on Monday, Press TV reported.

Referring to Lebanon’s new government that was formed recently at the direction of President Michel Aoun following endless indecision, he said the government would decide on any fuel shipments that could follow that. 

Nasrallah, however, asserted “we want part of Lebanon’s fuel imports to be provided by Iran.”

The Hezbollah movement announced a decision to start importing fuel from the Islamic Republic last month amid crippling economic conditions, caused partly by the United States’ sanctions that have been targeting Lebanon over Hezbollah’s legitimate involvement in the country’s political and military sectors.

Nasrallah went on to say that some used to speculate that the promise for shipment of fuel from Iran simply served propagandist media purposes. “It, however, became finally clear that such remarks are false,” he said, according to Press TV.

Those same people were hopeful for the Israeli regime to target the vessels, the Hezbollah chief said.

“Their speculations were proven wrong. Israel is in a tight spot and the deterrence equation is there” to dissuade it from taking any such action. 

By deterrence power, Nasrallah was referring to his movement’s vast arsenal of missiles, including precision ones that the group has vowed not to hesitate to deploy to defend the country against the Tel Aviv regime.

Meanwhile, Nasrallah said the fact that the movement was distributing the fuel at a lower price that its purchase and imports have cost proved that it has not been cooperating with the fuel shipment “for commercial purposes.”

“We’re not after conducting business here,” he noted.

 

US military-industrial complexes the biggest beneficiary of Afghan war

Brown University’s Costs of War Project released a new report Monday, detailing post-9/11 spending by the Pentagon. The study found that of the over US$14 trillion spent by the Pentagon since the start of the war in Afghanistan, one-third to one-half went to private military contractors.

The report, authored by William Hartung of the Center for International Policy, said US$4.4 trillion of the total spending went towards weapons procurement and research and development, a category that directly benefits corporate military contractors. Private contractors are also paid through other funds, like operations and maintenance, but those numbers are harder to determine.

Out of the US$4.4 trillion, the top five US weapons makers — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman — received US$2.2 trillion, almost half. To put these huge numbers into perspective, the report pointed out that in the 2020 fiscal year, Lockheed Martin received US$75 billion in Pentagon contracts, compared to the combined US$44 billion budget for the State Department and USAID that same year.

Besides getting paid for weapons and research, US corporations profit from private contractors that are deployed to warzones. The most notorious private security contractor previously employed by the Pentagon is Blackwater, the mercenary group whose employees massacred 17 people in Iraq’s Nisour Square back in 2007.

Besides armed mercenaries, the Pentagon employed private contractors for just about every task in US warzones. Demonstrating the Pentagon’s reliance on contractors, at the end of the Trump administration, only 2,500 US troops were left in Afghanistan, but over 18,000 Pentagon contractors were still in the country.

The report explained how China is the new justification for military spending. “The most likely impact of the shift towards China will be to further tighten the grip of major weapons makers like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon Technologies on the Pentagon budget,” the report reads.

Can Bennett-Sisi cooperation restore peace in Middle East?

Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett met Egyptian Pres­ident Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Monday, on the first visit by a prime minister of the Jewish state to the North African country in over a decade. 

Sisi hosted Bennett in the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh where they discussed “efforts to revive the peace process” between the Israelis and Palestinians, presidential spoke­sman Bassam Radi informed.

Security cooperation between the two countries was also discussed at the meeting attended by Egyptian Intelligence Chief, Abbas Kamel and Israel’s National Security Advisor, Eyal Holata.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous country, in 1979 became the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, after decades of enmity.

In May this year, Egypt played a key role in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that rules the Gaza Strip, after 11 days of deadly fighting.

Egypt regularly receives leaders of Hamas as well as of its political rival the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmud Abbas, while maintaining strong diplomatic, security and economic ties with Israel.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Yair Lapid on Sunday had proposed improving living conditions in Gaza and building new infrastructure in exchange for calm from Hamas, aiming to solve the “never-ending rounds of violence”.

But “it won’t happen without the support and involvement of our Egyptian partners and without their ability to talk to everyone involved”, he said.

Bennett’s visit came about 10 days after Abbas was in Cairo for talks with Sisi.

Monday’s talks mark “an important step in light of the growing security and economic relations between the two countries, and their mutual concern over the situation in Gaza”, Cairo-based analyst Nael Shama said.

It also fits with “Egypt’s plans to revive the political talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority”, he added.

Bennett, a right-wing religious nationalist, took office in June, ending Benjamin Netanyahu’s 12 straight years as Israel’s premier.

The last meeting between an Egyptian President and an Israeli Premier dates back to January 2011 when Hosni Mubarak received Netanyahu, weeks before Mubarak was toppled in a popular revolution.

In the political turbulence that followed, relations between the two countries deteriorated as protests were staged outside the Israeli embassy in Cairo in 2011.

The one-year reign of Egypt’s Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in 2012 also proved to be icy, with Israel suspicious of his Muslim Brotherhood’s close ties to Hamas.

Sisi has again positioned Egypt as a regional bulwark of stability, echoing the frequent peace summits overseen by Mubarak before his ouster.

Israel and Egypt are two of Washington’s main allies in the Middle East and are the largest recipients of US military aid, and they have worked together on security issues. Sisi, in a 2019 interview on CBS, acknowledged Egypt’s army was working closely with Israel in combating “terrorists” in the restive North Sinai.

He underscored Cairo’s wide range of cooperation with Israel.

The relationship developed after Egypt regained sovereignty over the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.

The two neighbors have also deepened their ties in the field of energy. Since last year, Egypt has received natural gas from Israel to liquefy and re-export to Europe.

 

Baghdad talks pave way for Iran-Saudi Arab rapprochement

After years of rivalry and lack of diplomatic relations, Saudi Arabia and Iran are slowly moving toward mending ties thanks to at least three rounds of behind closed doors talks mediated and hosted by the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustaf al-Kadhimi. 

He arrived in Tehran on Sunday as the first foreign high-ranking official to visit Iran since the new Iranian President, Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi, took office in early August. 

Al-Kadhimi had many issues on his agenda during his meetings with Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Raisi and Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani. These issues included visa abolition for Iranian citizens, completion of a joint railway project, increasing the level of trade between Iran and Iraq, withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, and the presence of anti-revolutionary dissident groups in Iraqi Kurdistan.  

During a joint press conference, Ayatollah Raisi and al-Kadhimi stressed the importance of deepening the Iran-Iraq relations at all levels. “The deep bonds between Tehran and Baghdad stems from the beliefs and hearts of two nations, two countries and two governments,” Ayatollah Raisi said. “Despite the wishes of the enemies, the level of relations between Iran and Iraq will develop day by day.”

In addition to bilateral issues, the Iraqi Prime Minister also discussed regional issues. Arab media outlets reported that during his visit to Tehran, al-Kadhimi would pursue a mediation between Tehran and Riyadh among other issues. Informed sources revealed to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that al-Kadhimi planned to discuss with Iranian officials four important issues during the visit, which are the Iraqi elections issue, the energy issue, and the mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as other mediation between Tehran and Washington.

Regarding the mediation between Tehran and Riyadh, these sources told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that al-Kadhimi will bring with him new proposals to push this mediation forward and achieve practical results for it in light of the failure that accompanied the Baghdad conference recently to persuade the leaders of the two countries to participate in the conference on the one hand, and hold a meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia on the sidelines of the conference on the other hand. 

The sources indicated that Baghdad is seeking to hold a meeting between the foreign ministers of the two countries during the next stage. Saudi side had suggested that Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian visit Saudi Arabia. Iranian refused and suggested Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan visit Tehran. 

The sources added that the Iranian foreign minister had held detailed talks with Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah Khaled al-Hamad al-Sabah on the sidelines of the Baghdad conference, and the Kuwaiti official also held a similar meeting with the Saudi foreign minister, and exchanged messages between the two sides.

“These multilateral contacts created a comfortable atmosphere for a meeting at the level of the foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia,” the sources noted.

Tehran and Riyadh have been involved in security oriented talks in Baghdad ever since April when Tehran also resumed talks with major world powers over reviving a 2015 nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Before al-Kadhimi’s visit, Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Iraj Masjedi, who has been involved in the Iran-Saudi talks, announced that they would resume soon. “So far, we have had three rounds of talks with the Saudi side, and the fourth round will be held following the formation of the new Iranian government,” he said at an event in Baghdad held on the sidelines of the August Baghdad summit. 

Underlining that Iran is a large and civilized country and is ready for any kind of dialogue with other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Masjedi said, “Iran has declared its readiness for dialogue and peace and has extended its hand to help neighboring countries and the region.”

During the past three rounds, the Saudis have been cautiously treating the talks with Iran as “exploratory.” They brought up the issue of Yemen at an early stage, possibly to gauge the seriousness of Iran in the talks. Yemen is the most important point of contention, which explains why Tehran and Riyadh have agreed to form an Iranian-Saudi-Iraqi “thinking cell” to exchange ideas and opinions to set broad lines for resolving the Yemeni crisis, according to the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar. 

Citing diplomatic sources, the newspaper said that the Baghdad talks between Tehran and Riyadh are up and running. The sources confirmed to Al-Akhbar that the Iraqi capital will witness “soon” the fourth round of Iranian-Saudi talks after they were postponed due to the Hajj season and the Iranian presidential elections.

The sources confirmed that the previous three rounds of dialogue led to “results that will appear soon” through the reopening of each country's consulates in the other country, paving the way for the resumption of diplomatic relations between them. 

The sources also stressed that the Baghdad dialogue approaches the contentious issues between the two countries and sets the general contexts for implementing some measures in a way that helps bridge views, and works to bring about de-escalation between the two parties, which resulted in the “Oman dialogue.”

According to Al-Akhbar, the Oman talks deal with technical issues and procedural details. It also serves as a platform for the exchange of “security information” in the context of confidence-building measures. 

 

Israel unveils remote controlled armed robots to be used in battle zones

According to an AP News, an Israeli defense contractor on Monday unveiled a remote-controlled armed robot it says can patrol battle zones, track infiltrators and open fire. The unmanned vehicle is the latest addition to the world of drone technology, which is rapidly reshaping the modern battlefield.

Proponents say such semi-autonomous machines allow armies to protect their soldiers, while critics fear this marks another dangerous step toward robots making life-or-death decisions.

The four-wheel-drive robot presented Monday was developed by the state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries’ “REX MKII.”

It is operated by an electronic tablet and can be equipped with two machine guns, cameras and sensors, said Rani Avni, Deputy Head of the Company’s autonomous systems division. The robot can gather intelligence for ground troops, carry injured soldiers and supplies in and out of battle, and strike nearby targets.

It is the most advanced of more than half a dozen unmanned vehicles developed by Aerospace Industries’ subsidiary, ELTA Systems, over the past 15 years.

The Israeli military is currently using a smaller but similar vehicle called the Jaguar to patrol the border with the Gaza Strip and help enforce a blockade Israel imposed in 2007, after the tiny territory was seized by Hamas.

Gaza is home to 2 million Palestinians who have largely been locked in by the blockade, which is also supported to some extent by Egypt. The border area is the site of frequent protests and occasional attempts by Palestinian militants or desperate laborers to infiltrate into Israel.

According to the Israeli army’s website, the semi-autonomous Jaguar is equipped with a machine gun and was designed to reduce soldiers’ exposure to the dangers of patrolling the volatile Gaza-Israel border. It is one of many tools, including drones armed with guided missiles that have given the Israeli military vast technological superiority over Hamas.

Unmanned ground vehicles are being increasingly used by other armies, including those of the United States, Britain and Russia. Their tasks include logistical support, the removal of mines and firing weapons.

The tablet can control the vehicle manually. But many of its functions, including its movement and surveillance system, can also run autonomously.

“With every mission, the device collects more data which it then learns from for future missions,” said Yonni Gedj, an operational expert in the Company’s robotics division.

Critics have raised concerns that robotic weapons could decide on their own, perhaps erroneously, to shoot targets. The Company says such capabilities exist but are not being offered to customers.

“It is possible to make the weapon itself also autonomous, however, it is a decision of the user today,” Avni said. “The maturity of the system or the user is not there yet.”

Bonnie Docherty, a senior researcher from the arms division of Human Rights Watch, said such weapons are worrisome because they can’t be trusted to distinguish between combatants and civilians or make proper calls about the harm attacks may do to nearby civilians.

“Machines cannot understand the value of human life, which in essence undermines human dignity and violates human rights laws,” Docherty said. In a 2012 report, Docherty, a lecturer at Harvard Law School, called for fully automated weapons to be banned by international law.

The defense magazine Janes said the development of autonomous ground vehicles has lagged behind autonomous aircraft and boats because moving across land is far more complex than navigating water or air. Unlike the open ocean, vehicles have to deal with “holes in the road” and know exactly how much force to apply to overcome a physical obstacle, the report said.

The technology in self-driving vehicles also has raised concerns. Electric car manufacturer Tesla, among other companies, has been connected to a series of fatal accidents, including an incident in Arizona in 2018 when a woman was hit by a car driving on autopilot.

The Israeli drone vehicle is being showcased at this week’s Defense and Security System International arms trade show in London.

 

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.