21 January 2005	Friday	10 Zilhaj 1425

ISLAMABAD, Jan 20: Pakistan's formal notification on Tuesday to the World Bank for appointment of a neutral expert to settle the Baglihar dam dispute with India has raised questions in certain circles about the fate of the bilateral water-sharing Indus Waters Treaty.

The Indians maintain that there "was convergence" and more dialogue was needed. Pakistanis believe that despite talks for three years India did not budge on the design of the dam which violates the treaty.

The simple answer is that there is no easy way of walking out of the treaty that took at least six to seven years to conclude. From both the legal and technical standpoint it is not possible.

Those who are familiar with the treaty say it cannot be modified or scrapped unilaterally. Also, since the treaty is an international instrument brokered by the World Bank it is difficult for either party to unilaterally withdraw from it.

The treaty signed in 1960, was made foolproof with in-built safeguards and contains no renunciation clause. The 'final provisions' stated in Article XII of the treaty stipulate that neither party could at any time modify or terminate the agreement by way of a subsequent treaty and its ratification by the two countries.

After the breakdown of talks on Baglihar between Pakistan and India early this month there has been talk in certain Indian quarters about modifying or re-negotiating the treaty.

Interestingly, about two years back when the Baglihar issue came into the public fray, the same view echoed in the Indian press. Re-negotiation of the treaty was strongly advocated by voices in the mainstream Indian newspapers. The argument put forth was that the treaty tilts heavily in favour of Pakistan and "puts a whole lot of obligations on India without adequate compensation."

An editorial titled: "Sharing Indus Water" in the Indian Business Standard read: "India should start building a case for thrashing out a fresh Indus treaty, taking the changed water harnessing and exploitation technologies into account."

However, a noted Indian legal expert A.G. Noorani warned of international repercussions of a unilateral revocation of the treaty by India in his article published in the Frontline magazine.

He wrote: "It would activate the UN Security Council and evoke a reaction from the World Bank and the six countries -- Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United States -- which contributed money for the Indus Basin Development Fund.

India's blatant violation of the Indus Waters Treaty in the case of the design of its under-construction Baglihar hydropower project is bound to send wrong signal to its other neighbouring countries with whom it has also signed water-sharing agreements.

It would convey to them that for India treaties are not sacrosanct. Besides Pakistan, India also has water pacts with Nepal and Bangladesh signed in 1996. Bangladesh and India are already in a row over water-sharing with the former accusing the latter for not providing its due share of water.

At the peak of Indo-Pakistan tension in 2002 the Indian water resources minister even threatened to curtail water supplies to Pakistan. Pakistan gets 40 per cent of its water from outside sources and bulk of its agriculture, that constitutes a fourth of the country's GDP, is dependent on water.

About 70 per cent of the country's exports are also based on agriculture that also accounts for 42.1 per cent of the total employed labour force in Pakistan. International law strictly forbids the use of water as a weapon. Such an act is considered crime against humanity.

The protocols of the 1949 Geneva Convention say that "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited and includes drinking water installations, supplies and irrigation works.

India which is aspiring for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and positioning itself to be a major strategic player can ill afford to disregard international accords and violate treaties with such impunity. Already it stands guilty of severe human rights violations in occupied Kashmir and of not implementing the UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir.

The Indus Treaty was concluded in 1960 and signed on September 19 at Karachi by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan's Field Martial Mohammad Ayub Khan. It was widely hailed as a major confidence building measure between the two countries.

It has held good for 44 years, survived two wars and extended periods of conflict and tension between the two countries. Any attempt to undermine it would erode the goodwill and confidence building for which the two nuclear-armed neighbours have worked so painstakingly.

Curiously enough while diplomats from some Western countries do privately concede that Pakistan appears to have a strong case against India on both legal and technical grounds, they avoid giving public statements.

In the past key members of the international community have put pressure on Pakistan to halt the alleged cross LoC infiltration on Indian insistence, they have not uttered a word yet on the creeping violation of an international Treaty by India.

Clearly, as Pakistan's decision to go to the World Bank, its diplomatic offensive on the Baglihar issue was also launched a bit late in the day. Probably the Indians were already at it while we were still scratching our heads over the question of moving the World Bank. So let us not fool ourselves by blaming it all on the market forces and economic interests.

NEW MEN IN AT FO: While Pakistan's ambassador to China Riaz Mohammad Khan is preparing to take over as the next foreign secretary, most likely by the end of February, a new position of a special secretary administration has been created which will be occupied by Pakistan's ambassador to Turkey Sher Afghan who is apparently already here.

However, while Mr Afghan will be in charge of some aspects of administration, the powers of postings and promotions will remain with Riaz Mohammad, who believes key administrative control is indispensable to effectively running the country's foreign policy.