US initiates process for resolving Pakistan-India water dispute
The US administration has begun a process of peaceful settlement without waiting for an invitation to resolve water problems between India and Pakistan, official sources said. A recent dispute concerns two hydroelectric power plants (Kishanganga and Ratle) being built by India on the Indus rivers system. Pakistan argues that this project violates the design parameters of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
Earlier this week, US Secretary of State John Kerry called Isaac Treasury Secretary and discussed various options for resolving the dispute. After receiving the call, David met David in Islamabad at the Treasury for US Ambassador to Pakistan meeting in Pakistan.
Reading: The United States wants a friendly solution to the water.
The move is due to fears that the US administration’s dispute with the World Bank could harm treaties that effectively address water issues between India and Pakistan for more than half a century. The IWT is a water distribution agreement between India and Pakistan signed by the World Bank, signed at Karachi on 19 September 1960. The bank recognized the bank as a key arbitrator and proposed to appoint arbitration experts and arbitration courts for settlement of disputes do.
Pakistan has asked the World Bank to appoint an arbitrator, but India has asked for a neutral expert to be appointed. The World Bank President Kim Jong – il has suspended the arbitration requested by the finance ministers of India and Pakistan and asked to resolve the dispute by the end of January.
On December 23, Dar Finance said that the bank should appoint an early arbitrator chief as soon as possible because Pakistan has not withdrawn the request and the process has already been “overdue”.
Two days later, Kim phoned Dar for further talks and followed Kerry, who was Treasury Secretary during the Christmas holiday. It is rare for American officials to do so, especially since the Obama administration has completed its final term on January 20.
Usually, outgoing administrations have issues to be addressed by incoming administrations.
Kerry, however, forced him to make this call because of the seriousness of the controversy, especially the fear of harming the treaty. Washington’s diplomatic observer emphasizes that the United States should actively address this issue because it promoted the Indus Water Treaty. This treaty requires that the parties to the dispute appoint an arbitral tribunal chairperson and three members within sixty (60) days of the request for arbitration.
If both countries fail to appoint a judge, the parties will prepare to draw lots and ask the “person” mentioned in the treaty to choose the judgment. The chairman is elected by the Secretary General of the United Nations or the Chairman of the World Bank, but the technical committee is the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the head of the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.
Legitimate judgments may be drawn by the Chief Justice of the United States or the Chief Justice of the United Kingdom by lottery. Pakistan filed a case against the World Bank in September 2016 urging banks to prevent India from illegally building on the banks of the Neelum and Chenab rivers.
Differences in the design of the two plants were discussed but could not be resolved at the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th and 112th meetings of the Indus Waters Standing Committee. treaty.
Ministerial talks followed, but failed.
On August 19, Pakistan formally requested the Government of India to refer the dispute to the arbitral tribunal as provided for in Article 9 of the Treaty.
Indian media reported that in September, the government of India decided to stop water talks in New Delhi until the end of the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attacks.
Last month, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi threatened to stop the flow of water to Pakistan if terrorists were not blocked. This caused Islamabad to worry that India is making time for it, as India has decided to complete the two factories and attract negotiations.
Pakistan wants an arbitration court instead of a neutral expert. This is because only a court can make legally binding decisions. Experts can only give technical points of view and allow India to spend more time completing the project.