Pakistan urges India to abide by water treaty after Hague court ruling
ADNAN AAMIR
ISLAMABAD -- With a ruling handed down last week by the Permanent Court of Arbitration that favors its position, Pakistan is now calling on India to resume the implementation of a bilateral water-sharing treaty. Experts say that while the ruling strengthens Islamabad's legal position, New Delhi is unlikely to go back to abiding by the treaty.
The 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) grants Pakistan rights to water from the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rivers, while granting India control of the Ravi, Sutlej and Beas rivers. Following a deadly attack on tourists in India-administered Kashmir in April, New Delhi blamed Pakistan and unilaterally declared the treaty to be in abeyance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Nikkei Asia
2 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
Rubio postpones Japan, South Korean trip to focus on Mideast conflict
Marco Rubio was set to visit Japan and South Korea next week in his first visit to those countries as U.S. secretary of state. © Reuters KEN MORIYASU and KANA BABA WASHINGTON/TOKYO -- U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called off his first visit to Japan and South Korea to focus on Middle East issues, Nikkei has learned. Rubio was expected land in Tokyo on Monday to kick off his first Asian tour. But Rubio has informed the Japanese and South Korean governments his schedule will be pushed back.
The Diplomat
3 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Are India-US Relations at a Crossroads?
Donald Trump's intervention in a brief Indo-Pakistan conflict and his diplomatic theatrics have rekindled fears of a return to Washington's old habit of hyphenating India with Pakistan. In the wake of a terrorist attack in late April targeting tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, a series of military skirmishes took place between India and Pakistan. These involved extensive artillery barrages along the Line of Control (the de facto international border in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir), the use of drones and missiles to attack a range of targets, and the use of air power. Following this four-day conflict, Pakistan alleged that it had shot down as many as six Indian combat aircraft. General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defense staff, confirmed that the Indian Air Force had lost some aircraft but did not specify the number. After the hostilities concluded, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that he had successfully persuaded both India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire. To that end, he asserted that he had threatened to impose significant trade sanctions on both countries, thereby inducing them to end the ongoing hostilities. Pakistan lauded his public remarks and even briefly nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. (After Trump's decision to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran, Pakistan's political opposition asked its government to rescind the nomination.) India, for its part, has repeatedly and categorically denied that the ceasefire was a product of Trump's intervention. It is both difficult and unnecessary to adjudicate the veracity of either claim. What matters is that Trump's attempt to insert himself into this latest India-Pakistan crisis has set off alarm bells in New Delhi about the state of India-U.S. relations. Before Trump proclaimed his role in ending the brief, intense conflict, Vice President J.D. Vance had stated that the India-Pakistan crisis was 'none of our business.' Trump subsequently claimed the U.S. acted as mediator in defusing India-Pakistan tensions. The latter statement raised hackles in New Delhi owing to its long-standing aversion to external efforts to resolve its differences with Pakistan. Finally, to New Delhi's dismay, Trump decided to host General Asim Munir, the Pakistan Army's chief of staff, for lunch at the White House. Although little of substance emerged from the meeting, the optics were a source of considerable misgiving in New Delhi. Several Indian political analysts and commentators have argued that Trump's statements and actions suggest a return to the much-disliked U.S. policy of hyphenation: linking India and Pakistan in its dealings with the two antagonistic neighbors. Indeed, this had characterized U.S. policy toward the subcontinent during much of the Cold War. It was only under the late U.S. Ambassador Frank Wisner in the mid-1990s that Washington decided to de-hyphenate its relations with the two countries. Wisner, who served as the ambassador to New Delhi between 1994 and 1997, was able to pursue this strategy because of India's growing economic clout in the wake of its fitful embrace of economic liberalization in 1991. Subsequent administrations, for the most part, adhered to this policy. Even after the renewal of a Pakistan-U.S. security relationship following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States, Washington maintained a cordial and mostly robust relationship with India. The India-U.S. partnership even survived Secretary of State Colin Powell's maladroit designation of Pakistan as a 'major non-NATO ally' in 2004, despite causing its share of unease in New Delhi. What, in considerable part, redeemed the India-U.S. relationship was President George W. Bush's monumental decision in 2005 to pursue the India-U.S. civilian nuclear accord. This accord, for all practical purposes, exempted India from the strictures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 and allowed it to maintain its nuclear weapons program. All prior U.S. presidents had, to varying degrees, sought to cajole, persuade and even browbeat India to eschew its nuclear weapons program and accede to the NPT. Bush's decision to make an exception for India amounted to what scholars of international relations refer to as a 'costly signal' — namely, one that requires the expenditure of significant domestic and international political capital. In its wake, India-U.S. relations had been placed on a far more secure footing. Subsequent administrations, both Democratic and Republican, steadily built upon the solid foundations that Bush had constructed during his second term in office. The Barack Obama administration, for example, during its first year in office, neglected India. However, Obama visited India in 2010. During the visit, much to the surprise of his interlocutors in New Delhi, in a speech to the Indian Parliament he publicly stated that the United States, at some point, would look forward to including New Delhi as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Since this was a long-standing Indian goal, his announcement came as a very pleasant surprise to the Indian political leadership. Also, at the initiative of then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the administration designated India as a 'Major Defense Partner,' thereby easing defense acquisitions from the United States. Even the advent of the first Trump administration did not lead to substantial policy changes. India, it appeared, had for all practical purposes become a mostly bipartisan issue. The Joe Biden administration, despite expressing some misgivings about democratic backsliding and human rights in India, continued to deepen and broaden the strategic partnership, especially because of its concerns about an increasingly assertive, if not downright revanchist, China in Asia. Trump's return to office in 2025, however, has seen some disturbing signs, largely because of his propensity to use trade as a weapon or at least a source of leverage. Unlike in the past, perhaps cognizant of Trump's inclination to exploit the trade deficit with India as a political blunderbuss, the Modi government indicated a willingness to make certain trade concessions. These trade negotiations, though initially promising, have yet to result in an accord. Meanwhile, Trump's maladroit remarks and his hosting of General Munir have cast a pall on the India-U.S. relationship. It is, of course, possible that New Delhi is needlessly tying itself in knots about these ill-advised statements from the White House. They may simply reflect Trump's proclivity for self-aggrandizement and a degree of policy incoherence. That said, given Trump's mercurial disposition, New Delhi's concerns about the future of the relationship may well be understandable. Much of the progress that has been achieved in India-U.S. relations could suffer a setback owing to Trump's ill-advised remarks. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
Yomiuri Shimbun
9 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
UK PM Gives Full Backing to Reeves after Tearful Appearance in Parliament
LONDON, July 2 (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's office rushed to give finance minister Rachel Reeves his full backing on Wednesday after she appeared in tears in parliament following a series of U-turns on welfare reforms that blew a hole in her budget plans. Reeves looked exhausted and appeared to brush away tears during the half-hour session of Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons. Her spokesperson said it was a personal matter. British borrowing costs rose and the pound fell as the weekly question-and-answer session unfolded on TV, with market analysts saying the moves reflected fears that Reeves would be replaced, throwing the government into further turmoil. Asked about Reeves, a Treasury spokesperson said: 'It's a personal matter, which – as you would expect – we are not going to get into.' Starmer's press secretary told reporters: 'The chancellor is going nowhere, she has the prime minister's full backing.' In an interview pre-recorded on Wednesday and scheduled to air on Friday, Starmer told the BBC's Nick Robinson that Reeves would be chancellor 'for a very long time to come.' The pressure on Reeves comes after the government managed to pass its welfare reform bill, but only after it removed measures that would have led to savings in the long run. Reeves has repeatedly emphasized her commitment to self-imposed fiscal rules, limiting the amount Britain will borrow to try to build the confidence of investors. But that ambition collided with Labour members of parliament who were opposed to the scale of the cuts to welfare, and who said Reeves was being cruel in pushing for billions of pounds of savings from some of the most vulnerable people in society. Opposition politicians and economists said the decision to sharply scale back the welfare reforms meant the government would have to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere to balance the public finances in the annual budget later this year. LOOKING MISERABLE One Labour member of parliament, who asked not to be named, said Reeves was upset after an argument with the House of Commons speaker Lindsay Hoyle. A spokesperson for Hoyle declined to comment. The opposition Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch singled out Reeves during the weekly set-piece parliamentary session, in which lawmakers put questions to the prime minister in often-raucous exchanges, saying: 'She's pointing at me, she looks absolutely miserable.' Reeves animatedly gestured back. Badenoch said: 'She is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?' Starmer then responded that Badenoch would not be in her job by then, but did not explicitly back Reeves. The appearance of Reeves in tears put British government bonds on track for their biggest daily selloff since October 10, 2022, when financial markets were still reeling from former Prime Minister Liz Truss's decision to announce big, unfunded tax cuts. The pound fell almost 1% on Wednesday. Starmer's press secretary later said the prime minister had expressed his confidence in Reeves many times and did not need to repeat it every time a political opponent speculated on her position. The Treasury spokesperson said Reeves would be working out of Downing Street on Wednesday afternoon. Asked if Reeves had offered her resignation, Starmer's press secretary said: 'no.'
