ISLAMABAD, Nov 11: The World Bank arbitrator on the Baglihar Dam dispute between Pakistan and India, Raymond Latiffe, has delayed his much-awaited verdict till mid February next year, diplomatic sources told Dawn on Saturday.
Mr Latiffe decided to delay his verdict after his final meeting with the Pakistani and Indian delegations in Washington early this week. He had earlier informed the two parties that his decision would come in December.
The Pakistani experts were able to prove with the help of elaborate diagrams that the design of the dam was in clear violation of the bilateral Indus Waters Treaty.
According to informed sources at the Washington meeting, the Pakistani experts raised several pointed questions regarding the technical aspects of the project. Reportedly to some the neutral expert of the WB had no clear answers. In view of these “new elements” he sought more time to review the matter, sources maintained.
The neutral expert had shared with the two parties his preliminary assessment at the Paris meeting in October and had asked them to submit their ‘written comments’ on it before the November 7 Washington meeting. During the three-day meeting, discussions were held on the written comments submitted by the two parties. Both the delegations also made detailed presentations to support their respective positions.
The nine-member Pakistani team was led by Attorney General of Pakistan Makhdum Ali Khan and comprised secretary water & power Ashfaq Mahmood, Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah and water experts. The Foreign Ministry was represented by its Director-General (South Asia Division) Jalil Abbas Jilani.
Pakistan had formally approached the World Bank on January 18, 2005 to appoint a neutral expert to arbitrate on its lingering Baglihar dam dispute with India under Article 9(2)(a) of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty brokered by the Bank.
In May 2005 the Bank appointed the neutral expert who convened the first meeting in June 2005 in Paris. The Washington meeting was the fifth and the last meeting that he held with the two parties.—Q.A.
