Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for April, 2012

US DEA & BRITISH ANTI-NARCOTICS AGENCIES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: Narco-Prime Minister of Pakistan & Ephedrine Smuggler Sons

 

Pakistan’s Narco Prime Minister has outdone crook “President” Asif Zardari. Narco PM Gilani facilitated his sons narcotics smuggling activities.

 

Ephedrine case: SC issues notice to Musa Gilani

 | April 10, 2012, 3:10 pm 
Ali Musa Bilani and his bride

 

This time the Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani is facing a real danger. The Supreme Court of Pakistan issued notice to his son Ali Musa Gilani and his Principal Secretary Khushnood Lashari. The accusation is very serious and relates to involvement in illegal sale of an imported chemical, ephedrine, which is the poor-man cocaine. It is Rs. 7 billion scandal.
Brig. Faheem Ahmad Khan, Director of ANF (Anti-Narcotic Force) unveiled this huge scandal and found documentary evidence against Gilani and Lashari. However, the Prime Minister used the entire machinery of the state to save his son and his principal secretary.
With the help of his Secretary of Ministry of Narcotics Zafar Abbas intervened and stopped the investigation. He even constituted new team of investigation to give the impression that the case was still on.
But Brig. Khan knocked the door of the Supreme Court which ordered cancellation of recently made transfers and postings in the ANF and ordering the federal government to restore all ANF officials to their position of March 6, 2012.
Zafar Abbas was subbed for protecting drug smugglers instead of fighting them. The supreme Court also accepted ANF ‘s request to add Musa Gilani and Lashari’s names to the Exit Control List so that they should not flee the country.

The military-led Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) moved the Supreme Court on Saturday, challenging Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s decision to remove its chief Maj-Gen Shakeel Hussain.

The document attached with the ANF’s application reveals that removal on April 6 of Maj-Gen Hussain followed a dramatic action by the force on April 4 when it summoned the prime minister’s principal secretary, Khushnood Lashari, in the probe against the premier’s son, Musa Gilani.

The ANF took the drastic step even after it had been divested of all powers of investigations through a notification on March 21, 2012.

The ANF had been probing illegal import of ephedrine — a controlled substance — and during a hearing before the Supreme Court last month it had revealed that Musa Gilani was also being investigated before the government forced the investigators to withdraw the case. The apex court has summoned detailed record for a hearing scheduled for April 20.

The application accused the principal secretary to the prime minister of trying to influence investigations against Musa Gilani.

The application filed before the apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry by Commander of Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi, stated: “The notification dated 6th April whereby DG, ANF Major General Syed Shakeel Hussain has been repatriated to the Army and notification of same date whereby Zafar Abbas, Secretary Narcotics Control Division has been given additional charge of DG, ANF be withdrawn immediately and ANF’s powers be restored, so that the orders of this apex court be implemented in letter and spirit.

“That further secretary, ministry of narcotics control, and principal secretary to the prime minister be restrained from interfering in the investigation or prosecution of the matter by Anti-Narcotics Force and from causing any hindrance in the same or from seeking their permission prior to taking any action by the ANF.”

The application has been filed through senior Supreme Court lawyer Akram Sheikh.

When asked to comment on the ANF’s move, Law Secretary Irfan Qadir said all government departments were expected to respect the decisions of the prime minister and that there should not be any defiance of his orders.

“This amounts to insubordination and indiscipline,” he said, adding that he needed to read the application before commenting any further. He, however, said that all organs of the state, including the superior judiciary, should respect the Constitution.

The application is accompanied by statements of witnesses (health officials), including Dr Rashid Juma, Asad Hafeez and Abdussattar Mehrani. Some of them have said that Musa Gilani remained in touch with them on telephone to ensure the illegal import of the controlled substance.

The application also revealed that the ANF has already requested the interior ministry to place the names of all accused persons on the exit control list.

 

No Comments

The Father, the Son and the Naughty IG

IN BALOCH traditions, if a boy is too rebellious and hard to control, the best thing for the folks in the neighborhood is to reach out to his father. If the father is not at home, they would most likely reach out to the boy’s elder brother.

Major General Ubaidullah Khan, the Inspector General of the Frontier Corps (FC), is not a Baloch, nor is he from Balochistan. Therefore, he does not know the rules of engagement while dealing with Balochistan. It was hilarious for many people to learn that he applied this rule  in the opposite way. He reached out to the son of the Khan of Kalat to seek his help to bring his father on the ‘right’ (read official) track.

Can you imagine how the I.G. would have conversed with the Khan’s son if he spoke Balochi?

He would have probably said, “Aday Wathi Pissa Samjahen!” [ Boy, make your dad behave well].

The confident son, who also attended the Pakistan Day ceremony with the Corps Commander, assured the I.G. that his father would behave and he would also persuade him to return to Balochistan. The top F.C. officer was too delighted. He impatiently wanted to break the great news. For him, it seemed to be the greatest diplomatic breakthrough of all times. He convened a press conference and informed everyone that the Khan’s son had promised to convince his disillusioned father to come back to Balochistan. Politically naive, the I.G. seems to have thought that he required only a week time to resolve the Balochistan crisis once and for all. It was a good, but a failed, effort.

There are two fundamental problems attached to this official approach.

Firstly, the army and the F.C have become main actors in the Balochistan conflict. They can do a great favor in conflict management if they only stay away and allow the civilian government to initiate a dialogue process. Having done that, they also have an important responsibility to cooperate with such a broad-based dialogue process and and honestly offer all support they can to make sure that a political process is not derailed. The derailment of rapprochement in Balochistan has historically come from the military and the F.C. While politicians engage in talks, sometimes (as happened in 2004-05) a military captain is either blamed for raping a lady doctor at a gas plant in Balochistan or the FC is seen shooting at a political rally killing activists.

Secondly, there seems to be some cultural misunderstanding when the armed forces try to impose a peace model which may have successfully worked elsewhere in Pakistan. There is a reason why these two security organizations continue to fail in what they may call their ‘true’ and ‘sincere’ efforts to resolve the Balochistan conflict. The army mainly comprises of the Punjabis while the FC is heavily manned with Pashtuns of FATA. Considering the absolute absence and under-representation of the Baloch in both the forces, the top strategists in these organizations fail to understand the Baloch culture and negotiating style. If there was a sizable portion of Baloch officers in the army or FC, they could at least provide honest advice and a workable strategy to their top bosses before reaching out to the Baloch leaders. For instance, the Pashtuns in the Pakistan army play a key role in advising the army how to negotiate with the Taliban. That strong element is missing when it comes to reaching out to the Baloch.

Thirdly, the army does not know how to play politics but it continues to insist upon doing so. It is not primarily trained to run businesses but it is bent upon running the country’s businesses. As said above, it does not have a successful history of brokering deals with the Baloch but it also refuses to pave the way for political actors to come forward to decide what can best work in Balochistan. In the past, the military has committed two types of blunders in the province in its conflict resolution strategies. First, it pitted Baloch tribes, family members and neighbors against each other. One among several examples is the crowning of Mir Aali Bugti as the Nawab of the Bugti tribe only to discredit is anti-government cousin Bramdagh Bugti. The experiment should have succeeded by now considering the fact that apolitical generals induct the depoliticized Nawab some three years back. Second, the army has off and on offered unsolicited development projects to (what they say) make the Balochs rich, happy and healthier! The opening of the Chamalaang coal project was one such example of the army’s unnecessary involvement in an economic project. In serious conflicts, like Balochistan’s, coal projects headed by the army or schools constructed by the FC, do not make much sense. They only aggravate the situation.

Fourthly, Murtaza Baig, the spokesman for the FC, does not confide with us actually gave the I.G. the formula of reaching out to people’s sons to bring fathers on the negotiation table. I fail to agree that someone in Balochistan gave him this suggestion. The thought must have struck him somewhere in FATA or in Islamabad. In Balochistan, there are already more practical examples to be analyzed before reaching out to another son to please another disillusioned father.

While there is absolute consensus about the significant role the Marris are playing in the current nationalist movement, a son of Nawab Khair Baksh Marri, the ideological father of the current movement, is already the provincial organizer of Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League. If such approaches could work, Jangiz Marri, Nawab Marri’s son in the PML, would have surely convinced his father and brothers long ago to give up their demand for a free Balochistan and become a part of the Pakistani government.

As far as the Khan of Kalat is concerned, he has his merits and demerits. Depending on which side one takes, you can praise him and you can also endlessly criticize him. He has to deal with both sections of the opinion. Only his son can embarrass him.  To ensure damage control, the Khan addressed a press conference and completely disassociated himself with is son saying that he had not interacted with his (now popular) son for the past two years.

The Khan, who know lives in London on exile, came in spotlight in September 2006 after he arranged a grand Jirga in Kalat deciding to take Balochistan’s case (of forced annexation by Pakistan in 1948) to the International Court of Justice.

The Khan can easily be criticized for three reasons: (a) He is too religious (b) He does not have a political party  (c) most of his family members are pro-Pakistan ministers, MPAs and senators and do not share his vision of an independent Balochistan.

What, nonetheless, still makes him look genuine and credible to the Baloch movement, is his unwillingness to surrender before Islamabad. If he had agreed to give up his stance, he could have easily become the governor of Balochistan. As argued above, he does not have a political background or a political party which can sweep polls for him but, in the area’s tribal circle, he is still more respected and powerful than Nawab Raisani, the Chief Minister or Nawab Magsi, the governor. Interestingly, Raisani and Magsi and another powerful tribal chief, Sanaullah Zehri, all attended the Khan’s Jirga in 2006 but eventually all the three betrayed him and joined the government on key positions.

The I.G F.C. has indirectly offered an opportunity to the Khan of Kalat as next general elections get closer. The Khan has turned down the first offer. In such cases, it is in the greater interest of sons not to convey the full message to their fathers if they are themselves interested in eating the larger piece of the cake. Who knows?  Go Prince!

Reference

No Comments

Water Conflicts and Hydroelectricity in South Asia The Indus Water Treaty. A Review

Water Conflicts and Hydroelectricity in South Asia
The Indus Water Treaty. A Review article

 

 

 

 
March 21, 2012
 

Transboundary river water distribution agreements tethering neighboring countries are overstretched, at least between Pakistan and India. Tens of hydropower dam on the Western Indus Basin rivers have been transformed into a real threat to “lower riparian”. 


Industrial expansion, population growth, global warming, oil and gas depletion scenarios further worsen the water situation when the water flow declines 8-9 times below the minimum agreed limit. 

Underground water pumping in excess of natural recharge rates has reached a stage of continued free fall in the Indus Basin. 

The energy crisis, the economic meltdown, global warming and climate change scenarios require fine-tuned transboundary laws to share the international rivers. 

This work points out dire need of new global water laws to sort out real transboundary river conflicts transforming into water wars. “A Business as usual approach” may transform water skirmishes into full fledged armed conflict. 

Water is life affects the underlying geopolitical realities.

1. Water and Power Nexus

Hydroelectricity is the prevalent most economic source of white energy. There is little chance of inventing a genius innovatory energy source anytime soon that will not engage nations to water conflicts to produce electric power. Hydroelectricity is derived from gravitational force (potential energy) of the flowing or falling waters. A hydropower house may take the form of a run-of-river (flowing) or dam (falling). Hydroelectric power plants use water turbines instead of water wheel. The Water turbine has a swirling component for force to pass on kinetic energy to spinning rotor.

French engineer, Bernard Forest de Belidor, conceived the idea of water power in the 1770s. Different types of turbines such as Francis (1849), Pelton (1879) and Kaplan (1913) are considered suitable for10-350, 50-1300 and 2-40m heads whereas waterwheels are used for 0.2-4m falls. Typical capacities of pico, micro, small, medium and large dams are <5 kW, 5 to 100 kW, 100 to 10 MW, 10 to 10,000 MW and >10 GW. There only three large dams worldwide namely Three Gorges Dam (22.5 GW), Itaipu Dam (14 GW) and Guri Dam (10.2 GW). Global small scale hydropower capacity is 85 GW out of which 65 GW in China, 3.5 GW in Japan, 3 GW in USA and 2 GW in India. Norway, Brazil, Venezuela, Canada, andSweden produce 98.25, 85.56, 67.17, 61.12 and 44.34% of their national power demands by hydro power plants. Hydropower is considered the cleanest white energy.

 

The World’s first DC hydropower house, Cragside in Northumberland, was operated in England (UK) in 1878. Thomas Edison invented the first long life incandescent lamp in 1879 before which carbon filament based short lived lamps were available. The first US Niagara hydropower station started delivering DC electricity in 1881. 

Nicolas Tesla invented the first three phase AC generator used in the Niagara Falls hydro station. Most European countries got hydropower stations from 1880 to 1890 simultaneously. The British brought this technology to India in the early 1900s. The Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) was established in Pakistan in 1959. 

The British government had already developed large barrages and canals systems for irrigation. WAPDA engineers constructed 1000 MW Mangla dam in 1867, 3500 MW Tarbella dam in 1976 and 2000 run-of-river Chashma power house in 2004. World’s largest hydropower producers are China, Canada, USA, Brazil, Russia, India, Norway and Japan which have total installed capacities of 196.79, 88.974, 79.511, 69.08, 45.00, 33.60, 27.528 and 27.229GW. Famous Chinese three gorges dam since 1994 produces 22,500 MW electricity and proposed Congo Grand Inga dam will produce 39,000 MW by 2014. 

A 50,000 MW dam is under proposal on the Red Sea. China’s installed hydropower capacity is more than the total combined hydropower capacities of USA, Canada and Japan. Chinese hydropower generation capacity is about six times more than that of India and 33 times more than Pakistan’s hydropower generation. 

India’s hydropower generation capacity is about 5-6 times more than Pakistan’s, yet it is building dozens of dams on rivers which were given to Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty in 1960. India had 300 dams in 1947. This number  increased to 4000 by 2000. About 70% of new dams were built during the 1971-1989 period.

 

2. Transboundary Rivers Conflicts

 

In view of widespread water scarcity, due to climate change, it is time to fine tune the clauses of international rivers sharing laws. The United Nations adopted existing European and US agreements in light of Helsinki rules in 1997 as an international water law which has failed to protect downstream “riparian rights” (Pakistan) when the “upstream riparian” country (India) started building multiple dams on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab without permission. 

World Bank Vice president, Ismail Serageldin, said in 1995 that the next century wars would be fought over water and not over oil (World Bank, 1998). 

If there has not been any exclusive war on waters in past that does not mean it can not be in future (Star, 1991). European countries share 4 river basins under 175 treaties, 4-5 African countries share 12 river basins under 34 treaties, 4-5 Asian countries share 5 river basins under 31 treaties. There are 48 joint river commissions in Europe, 23 in the Americas, 10 in Africa and 9 in Asia. European and American states had disagreements over water quality in Rhine and Coloradorivers but African, Middle East and Asian countries have water quantity disputes on Zambezi, Mekong, Nile, Euphrates, Tigris, Indus and Ganges. We love or hate each other we have to share the water, air and sun. Oil and water do not mix but can entangle to develop water, watts and war trinity. Some social scientists are covertly producing amphoteric solutions of oil and water in blood geopolitically.

 

Upper riparian India has started diverting and holding off shared rivers waters under its innovatory dam policies which is starving lower riparian Pakistan (Ben and Sing, 2000). 

India has embarked on diverting western rivers waters through connecting canals from Jehlum to Chenab through an 80km long tunnel, Chenab to Ravi through the Marhu tunnel, interconnection of Beas to Sutlej and Sutlej to the Gangesthrough a proposed express link canal which is in blatant violation of the Indus Water Teaty.  

IPCC experts believe that global warming caused the August 2010 flash flood in Pakistan which affected 20-25 million people (IPCC, 2010). Climate change experts speculate that under rapidly rising global warming, water distribution conflicts could potentially lead to armed conflicts among nations in future (Clionadh, 2007). Transboundary river conflicts include water shortages as well as geopolitical issues (Nils, 2006). 

Water conflict between Pakistan and India is building up due to the fast melting of the glaciers. Middle Eastern countries take water availability as a strategic weapon (Alees, 1994). Palestinians per capita water consumption is 60 liters per day in the West Bank whereas Israelis use 330 liters per day (5 times more) (Stephen, 2008). 

Fair water distribution is one of the key issues in Israel-Palestinian agreement today (David and Julie, 2010). Arab-Israel conflict is getting aggravated by water conflicts (Mustafa, 1994). Israel is also trying to secure access to Nile, Euphrates and Ceyhan in Turkey. Global research observers blame Israel for stealing Arab waters (Sawsan, 2010). People have been occupying waters since antiquity but the water flows today and they have gone the same is going to happen with present and future generations.

 

Historic wrecks are often the source of conflict as well as consensus (Paul and Craig, 2000). Transboundary water conflicts cannot be resolved using game theory geopolitics bearing undercurrents (Kaveh, 2010). Fair rules must be developed by United Nations in the name of International Rivers Water Sharing Laws. Shared river waters conflicts are both of the inter and intra state types (Hans et al, 2000) that require global laws to safeguard lower riparian (Paul et al, 2006). Without UN backed water laws, the long held agreements may break leading to political confrontations (Eran, 2000). 

Water distribution experts have already proposed several models (Irene et al, 1986; Marc et al, 1987; Giordano et al, 2007, Joseph et al, 2004) that facilitate the UN to formulate transboundary water sharing and conflict resolution laws. Mass migrations and water conflicts intensification has been noted in Tanzania since last one decade (Milline, 2005) and Pakistan during August 2010 floods. The developed countries sustain dilemmas in developing countries that lead to talent migration causing serious blows to economies of developing countries (Schon and Ian, 2009).

 

The Water situation is getting worse in the USA and China. It is  extremely critical in Brazil, and in India and Pakistan where the underground water table is falling at rate of 3-5cm per year. 

India is building several dozen dams and diversion canals on shared rivers; Indian hydro tactics have caused droughts and flash floods horrors in Pakistan. India is constructing 24-25 dams on river Chenab that feeds to central Punjab housing 90-100 million people. India relates it to her growing power needs but Pakistan takes it aqua bomb capable of causing droughts and flash floods. The Recent flash flood due to monsoons rains and timed injection of Indian dam waters has inflicted 25000 lives, 1-2 billion crops and 5-7 billion property losses. 

The United Nations have no global law on transboundary water distribution. Due to natural scarcity of freshwaters, concerned experts have long been warning of water wars (Swain, 2001; Richard and Robert, 1996; Grayling, 2008; Michael and Glen, 2008, Kay, 2009). 

European and Americans water agreements under Helsinki Rules and the International Law Commission Convention on Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Water courses have been universalized for global water treaties which have no consensus across the board. Despite 2 dams on Beas, 4 on Sutlej, 6 on Ravi, 7 on Indus, 8 on Jhelum and 24 on Chenab India assumes full right on all six rivers falling down to Pakistan and blames colonial period water laws creating schism that locks the water sector into a developmental catharsis (Radha, 2002).

 

In response to a satellite research on ground water depletion in Punjab (Matthew and Isabella et al, 2009) reporting underground water table declining rate of 3-5cm/yr, an Indian water expert tried to justify multiple dams policy on western Pakistani rivers as a sensible measure to mitigate their water depletion crisis (Saumitra, 2009). Pakistan, being downstream riparian, supports Radha’s demand for international legislature on transboundary water sharing laws to avoid water conflicts but does not support Saumitra’s innovatory policy to steal others waters to solve own problems. Pakistan proposes United Nations to frame laws governing distribution of international river waters including construction of dams in high hazards seismic areas. In view of multiple river basins shared by two or more countries it has become imperative to formulate global river water distribution laws acceptable to upper and lower riparian, déjà vu, water fracas and frays might escalate to dismal water wars in forthcoming decades. Several water experts have pointed out Indian ingenuity based maneuvers to hoodwink lower riparian (Swain, 2001).

 

3. Breach of Indus Water Treaty 

 

India and Pakistan used to share the River Indus and its five contributories Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej under British rule. The Pakistani areas had no dam to store water, therefore 80% of the water from six rivers would eventually fall into the Arabian Sea. When water conflicts started intensifying after the division of British India in 1948, the World Bank’s President Eugene Black acted in an arbitration procedure between Pakistan and India which resulted in 1960 in the Indus Water Treaty. Under this agreement three eastern rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej were given to India and three western rivers the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum were given to Pakistan. It was “water division” rather than ‘water sharing”.Pakistan also agreed to allow India to use some of western rivers’ waters for local agriculture around rivers in India and produce run-of-river style hydroelectricity provided tyhe water flow did not fall below 55,000 cusecs at Marala and other interface barrages that went below 20,000 in 2009. 

The Indus Water Treaty worked well up to the 1980s before the Indian Government decided to build dams in Shiwaliks (Himalchal, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir) on the western rivers (Jindal, 1990). Geotechnical studies were carried out in Ballowal, Takarla and Karoan areas from 1984 to 1995. Generally pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon rain fall in Kashmir valley (Handwara) used to be 305, 161.8 and 89mm from 1903 to 1982 (Kumar, 2010) which increased to 1117 to 1249mm in 1990s (Jindal, 1990) that prompted India to go for multiple dams on western rivers without seeking permission of lower river riparian.

 

Building dams on active faults in Zone-V (<7<Meq<9) was in violation of the Indus Water Treaty. 

The Indian Government conducted several more studies on geotechnical and hydrological parameters for the design of small earth filled dams in the 1990s (Sur, 1999). 

Initially, the small dams construction experience using local expertise led to micro-earthquakes around Thien Dam in Himalayas in 1980s ( Bhattacharya et al, 1986) which forced them to seek international assistance on dams. Feasibility studies on 400 MW Hasti Dul (400 MW) and other dams were carried out in Kashmir valley and the adjacent provinces of Himachal and Punjab in the 1990s (Winter et al, 1994). 

Uri-I (240 MW) dam on river Jhelum and Nathpa (1650 MW) dam on river Sutlej were carried out to test geological and geotechnical responses which hardly complied (Behrestaghi et al, 1996). If the Indian dams were to fail for technical reasons or as a result of earthquakes the people who would suffer would be Kashmiri or Pakistanis. 

Building tens of dams without consulting lower riparian renders the Indus Water Treaty virtually defunct. Under the Indus Treaty of 1960, India is supposed to inform at least six months before launching any hydropower project. India did not comply in this regard. 

India has several dam projects including water diversion tunnels and canals. India had allocated  RS.33 billion for the 330 MW Krishanganga project and Rs. 18 billion for the 240 MW Uri-II hydropower dam on River Jhelum, Rs.51 billion for 1000 MW Pak Dul and 1200 MW Sawalkot dams projects on Chenab. The Sawalkot dam is 646-feet height which is more than the 485-feet height Tarbela and 453 feet height Mangla in Pakistan. These dams are 160 km away from Kangra where a 8.0 Richter scale earthquake occurred in 1905 on record (Kiani, 2010).

 

India has already built 60 MW Madekheda dam on Indus river and is constructing 130 MW Chuttak, 600 MW Monpreet n Randeep, 44 MW Dumkhar and 60 MW Nimo Bazgo dams on river Indus. After completion of 330 MW Wular barrage and 240 MW Uri-I dam India is further constructing 330 MW Krishanganga and 240 MW Uri-II dams on the river Jhelum. 

India completed 450 MW Baglihar, 345 MW Salal-I and 345 MW Salal-II on river Chenab on which Pakistan objected seriously. India has diverted Jhelum river water to Chenab through a 80km long tunnel which is clear breach of Indus Water Treaty. India is constructing another 1200 MW Bursar dam on this tunnel. Instead of respecting Indus Water Treaty India has started construction of 400 MW Hasti Dul, 460 MW Rattle, 400 MW Gyspa, 100 MW Pakdul, 800 MW Karthai, 180 MW Raoli, 725 MW Seli, 1200 MW Sawalkot, 90 MW Tangat, 50 MW Pattan, 50 MW Teling, 100 MW Tandi, 180 MW Sach Khas, 300 MW Dueli/Dugli, 100 MW Rashal, 100 MW Myar, 190 MW Gondhala, 240 MW Dogar, 100 MW Shatru, 110 MW Dang, 20 MW Thai Rot and Chenai dams (Wikipedia, 2010; Arashad, 2010). After completion of so many dams all the western rivers will become dry. Bhutan has a hydropower potential of 23,000 MW out of which 4,484 MW is expected to be harnessed by constructing six dams by 2024. Pakistan has 50,000 MW hydro potential which is under threat due to 39,000 MW power Indian dams on western rivers. Pakistan is generating 71.9% thermal, 25.2% hydel and 2.9% nuclear power. Our energy mix consists of 43.5% oil, 41.5% gas, 0.3% LPG, 4.5% coal, 9.2% hydropower and 1.1% nuclear electricity (Nayyer, 2004). Pakistan has over 40,000 MW wind, 30,000 MW solar and 800 MW geothermal potential.

 

India has already contributed to the drying up of the eastern rivers Ravi, Sulej and Beas. Water only flows in these rivers when India has significant dam overflows. India is digging a Sulej-Ganges Link canal to divert waters to the southern Indian states on which Indian riparian have taken stay from the Indian court. 

India has built 390 MW Pong, 360 MW Pandoh and 126 MW Larji dams on river Beas, 1000 MW Bhakra, 1650 MW Nathpa and 800 MW Kol, 1000 MW Karcham Wang and 77 MW Nangal dams on river Sutlej, 1200 MW Baira Siul, 540 MW Chamera and 600 MW Ranjeet Agar, 120 MW Sewa-II and 70 MW Budhil dams on river Ravi. Indian dam mania is causing drought to both eastern and western riparian farmers. Pakistan has only two dams which usually stay partially filled throughout the year except monsoon months Wikipedia, 2010). Unfortunately, 95% Indian dams in Himachal, Jammu and Kashmir regions are located on dangerous earthquake faults zones. Recently India has launched another dams construction drive in Himachal Pardesh (En.Wikipedia, 2010) to build 300 MW Baspa, 231 MW Holi, 70 MW Dhamwar, 2050 MW Parbati, 192 MW Allian, 162 MW Swara, 370 MW Sham Not, 560 MW Rattle, 430 MW Kiru, 320 MW Kawar and 35 MW Bichlari dams (Ramanathan, 2007). United Nations water experts must formulate global water legislation to avoid water wars especially between India and Pakistan which may engulf many others. When Pakistan came to know of water shortages in rivers India had completed 70% of 48 dams. Indus river system is spread over 944,473 km2 out of which 553,416 km2 lies in Pakistan. Pakistan declared failure of Indus Commission in 2005 referring the case to neutral expert. India has 34 large dams out of which 10 are in Kashmir. Indian links between Neelum, Jhelum, Chenab through Tavi river uplift canal, Ravi, Beas, Sutlej and Yamana transfer western rivers water to Indian highlands as shown in Fig.1

 

There is no dam on Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers on the Pakistani side. However, 

India is building over three dozens dams on Western rivers which are viewed as a matter of grave concern by Pakistan. 

Science news and global warming observations conclude that the Himalaya region will be affected in the near future. Dams worth 150,000 MW have been proposed in India, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan. International Rivers point it out that these projects are environmentally determinental (ie from a global warming perspective). Melting glaciers, like Dig Tsho Glof in Nepal in 1985, may lead to glacial lake bursts causing flash floods. Bhutan noted 25 dangerous glacial lakes in 2009. 

Over one billion people rely on Himalaya waters. Upstream countries should not store waters in dams to starve lower riparian. India must focus on other sources of energy instead of blocking the flow of water to Pakistan. 

United Nations and Indian scientists and engineers must advise the Indian Government to curtail dam construction in fault zones on western rivers under 1960 Indus Treaty to discourage water war for long term regional security. We have long history of using waters amicably but energy crisis is driving the conflicts. Global irrigation potentials exists 68% in Asia, 17% in Americas, 9% in Europe and 1% in Oceania. Indus Basin western rivers contribute to 15-20% of Asian food cycle. Transboundary rivers are not local rather global assets which need due attention on merits. Indus water treaty went well for last 50 years but recent Indian dam drive is worsening the scenario.

 

Salaman’s (Salman, 2010) claim the lower riparian (Pakistan) can harm upper riparian (India) is not a valid argument as Pakistan and India have divided rivers instead of sharing them. 

Eastern rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were chosen by India and Western rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab were left for Pakistan due to geographical locations. Eastern rivers had annual water capacity of 41 billion cubic meters (33 MAF) whereas western rivers had capacity of 188 billion cubic meters (135 MAF). Uri dams have storage capacity of 3.07 MAF in 1999 which increased to 6.37 MAF in 2002. Sutlej-Yamana (SYL) can transfer 3.5MAF water. India is transferring this water from western rivers into eastern rivers through Tavi-Ravi 31 meter high uplift link canal. India stopped Neelum River to divert water to Wular Barrage through 27 km long tunnel which is further diverted from Jhelum to Chenab through 77 km long tunnel. Asia Times called it race to death over Kashmir waters (Asia Times, 2009).

 

The Indus Waters Treaty 1960 Annexure D Part 2 (8, 9, 13, 15, 16 and 18) allows India to build even new run-of-river power plants without interfering with the water flow and diversion. The Indian decision to build large dams instead of run-of-river power stations is clear violation of above subsections. 

Part 2 section 15 restricts India to deliver volume of water varying from 30% to 130% of river water. India can divert water from one to other tributary of the same river but not the other rivers like Jhelum to Chenab and build 1200 MW dam on the tunnel. It must be run-of-river design not the dam capable holding waters for months. India has the right to stop water flow to Pakistan when dead storage of run-of-river powerhouse is being filled not several MAF dam which exceeds her permitted 3.6 MAF limit. Treaty section 18 (a, c) permit India to use 300 cusecs discharge turbines along with storage capacity 20 feet above mean bed level of tributary but the new 33 dams have been raised up to several tens of meters which contradicts the agreement. Part 4 (24) also allows India to build hydropower plants on any irrigation channel taking off western rivers without storage other than the poundage but is required under Part 5 (1-3) to supply location, hydrodynamic, design details such as spill ways, head tail etc to Pakistan 6 moths before starting construction work that has been covertly violated in last two decades. Indus Waters Treaty 1960 Annexure E related to water reservoir, dead, live, flood, surcharge, conservation and power storage capacities restricts India to values shown in Table 2.

 

The Indus Water Treaty Annexure E allows India to enjoy general, power and flood storage limits of 1.25, 1.60 and 0.75 MAF which is consistent with 3.6 MAF restriction of Part 2 section 15 as discussed above. Ground reality is the India has already build 14 power houses and working on the construction of another 33 medium size dams with storage capacities exceeding several tens of MAF instead of allowed 3.6 MAF. Pakistan used to get over 156 MAF earlier which despite fast snowmelts and monsoon runoff has reduced to just 134 MAF per year. Indus Waters Treaty 1960 Annex E (10) restricts India to not exceed storage beyond 10,000 acre feet above 3.6 MAF during even emergency and do not release it all of sudden to cause difficulty for Pakistan. Annexure E (18) restricts India to not let the water flow go bellow 55,000 cusecs it has been going bellow 20,000 in routine since many years.

 

 

4. Water, Power and Energy Confluence 

 

 

Population growth, industrial expansion and the consumer economy  have increased electricity demand from 17PWh in 2000 to 20PWh in 2010. Demand is esitamted to  increase to 24 PWH by 2020 and 30PWh by 2030. 

About 2.5 billion people out of global 6.8 billion population lived with severe water conditions in 2005 which are likely to increase to 3.95 billions out of 8.5 billions population by 2030. 

The IEEE believes trading water for watts is start of hard choices era. Hydroelectric, solar, nuclear and wind power plants consume 5.4, 2.5-2.8, 1.5 and 0 liters water per kWh but produce no carbon. 

Coal and gas fired power plants consume 1.1-1.8 and 0.5-1.8 liters per kWh energy producing 0.43 to 0.96 kg/kWh carbon. P

hotovoltaic power generation uses 0.1 liter/kWh water producing 0.02 kg/kWh carbon. Wind power is the cleanest form energy which neither uses water nor produces carbon (IEEE Staff, 2010). Pakistan is among least coal burning countries but global warming is hitting hard on it since 1998. A recent temperature rise to 54°C in Mohenjo Daru followed by 1200,000 cusecs flash floods has affected over 2 to 2.5 million people across Pakistan. The climatologists say it makes no difference whether a single country increases or decreases greenhouse gases emissions at global scale. A country injecting thousands miles away can affect you through the common atmosphere. Recent industrialization in China and India has led to accumulation of green gases over Pakistan that has changed monsoon flow patterns from Bangladesh to India to Southern Punjab to northern mountains exacerbating glacier melting.

 

World power demand is 17 PWh whereas thousands of dams installed electric power capacity is 777 GWe that supplies just 2.9 PWh which is 18% of total demand. The remaining 82% demand is met with fossil fuels which are likely to be deplete after 2050.

5. Dams Hazards & Drawbacks 

 

A large dam may fail during earthquake and flash flood. Dam failures may lead to serious consequences. It causes flash flood causing catastrophes. The Chinese Banqiao dam failure killed 26,000 by drowning in flood water and 145,000 people by subsequent epidemics in addition to billions dollars property losses. 

Vajont Dam failure by geological reasons killed 2000 people in Italy in 1963. 

Kelly Barnes Dam failed due to flash flood killing 27 people in 1957. 

It is very dangerous to construct dams on geological fault lines.

Dam construction devastates lots of fertile land and causes the evacuation of rural populations. It is estimated that 50-80 million peoples have been displaced worldwide due to dam construction.

7. Concluding Remarks 

 

Freshwater drives irrigation and industrial processes which support life. Even if natural freshwater does not decline significantly due to global warming, the pressure of growing population and industrial production are important factors to bear in mind in relaiton to the debate on “Peak Water”. (Peak water, 2010) 

To prevent water conflicts between nations, it is necessary to develop under international auspices, workable global laws which govern international rivers. 


Nasrullah Khan Kalair,
Department of Electrical Engineering, Comsats Institute of Information Technology Islamabad, CIIT, Park Road, Islamabad, [email protected]

 

References

 

Airtricity (2008) ‘Airtricity’, World Future Energy Summit, Dubai, January 2008

 

Alees, S. (1994) ‘Conflict over water in the Middle East: From a security and strategic point of view’, Studies in Environmental Science, Vol. 58, pp.505-514

 

Arshad, H. A. (2010) ‘Climate change and transboundary water issues’, UNDP consultant for Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan.

 

Asia Times (2009) ‘Race to death over Kashmir water’, 13 January 2009.

 

Basharat, H.Q. (2010) ‘How India betrayed Pakistan’, The Nation, September 18, 2010.

 

Behrestaghi, M.H.N. and Rao, K.S, Ramamurthy, T. (1996) ‘Engineering geological and geotechnical responses of schistose rocks from dam project areas in India’, Engineering Geology, Vol.44, pp.183-201.

 

Ben, C. and Nirvikar, S. (2000) ‘Impediments and Innovation in International Rivers: The Waters of South Asia’, World Development, Vol. 28, pp.1907-1925

 

Bentley, R.W (2002) ‘Global oil and gas depletion: a review’, Energy policy, Vol.30, pp.189-205

 

Clionadh, R. and Henrik, U. (2007) ‘Climate change, environmental degradation and armed conflict Political Geography’, Vol.26, pp.674-694.

 

Cyranoski, D. (2010 ‘Japan plans nuclear power expansion’, Nature, Vol. 464, pp.661.

 

Darley, J. (2005) ‘High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis’, Chelsea Green.

 

David, B. and Julie, T. (2010) ‘Confronting water in an Israeli–Palestinian peace agreement’, Journal of Hydrology, Vol.382, pp.103-114.

 

Eric, H. (2008) ‘Terms merge for dark energy mission’, Nature, Vol.455, pp.577.

 

Eran, F. (2000) ‘The ebb and flow of Arab–Israeli water conflicts: Are past confrontations likely to resurface?’, Water Policy, Vol.2, No. 4-5, pp. 343-363.

 

Franklin, W. (2002) ‘Water: Life force or instrument of war’, The Lancet, Vol. 360, 29-30.

 

Giordano, R., Passarella, G., Uricchio, V.F. and Vurro, M. (2007) ‘Integrating conflict analysis and consensus reaching in a decision support system for water resource management’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.84, pp.213-228.

 

Grayling, A. C. (2008) ‘Mind fields: We must avert the water wars’, The New Scientist, Vol. 198, No. 2660, pp. 52.

 

Guardian (2002) ‘War over water’, 3 June 2002.

 

Hans, P.W.T., Nils, P. G. and Håvard, H. (2000) ‘Shared rivers and interstate conflict’, Political Geography, Vol.19, pp.971-996.

 

Harper, F. (1999) ‘Ultimate hydrocarbon resources in the 21st century’, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Conference on Oil and Gas in 21st Century, Birmingham, UK.

 

Heinberg, R. (2005) ‘Party’s over: Oil, war and the fate of industrial societies’, New Society Publishers Limited, 2005.

 

Hugo, K. M. (1994) ‘Magneto-hydrodynamic power generation’, John Wiley, Chester.

IEEE Staff (2010) ‘The coming clash between water and energy’, Spectrum, Vol. 610, pp. 22-23

 

Irene, L.M, J. and Eleonora, S. (1986) ‘International river basins: A policy model for conflict resolution’, Resources Policy, Vol.12, pp.133-144.

 

IWT (1960) ‘Indus water treaty 1960’, Annexure D & E.

 

IPCC (2010) ‘IPCC representative’s interview on CNN’, August 2010.

 

Jarunee, W. (2010) ‘Technological change of the energy innovation system: From oil based to bio-based energy’, Applied Energy, Vol.87, pp. 749-755.

 

Jindal, P.K, Rao, B.N. and Sur, H. S. (1991) ‘Performance evaluation of mini dams in Kandi area of Punjab state a Case study’, Symposium on Small Vs Large Dams, Delhi, 1991.

 

Joseph, E. M. (2004) ‘Causes and possible solutions to water resource conflicts in the

Okavango River Basin: The case of Angola, Namibia and Botswana’, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Vol. 29,  pp.1319-1326.

 

Kaveh, M. (2010) ‘Game theory and water resources’, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 381, pp.225-238.

Kay, D. (2009) ‘Water management’, International Encyclopedia of human geography, pp. 207-214.

 

Khan, Z. A. (2010) ‘Indus Water Treaty 1960 in Doldrums’ Pakspectator.com 20/2/2010

 

Kees, V. D. E and Frederik, G. 2007) ‘Blue Energy’, http://www.leonardo-energy.org

 

Kiani, K. (2010) ‘Five dams being built in occupied Kashmir’, Dawn, February 3, 2010.

 

Kiani, K. (2010) ‘Drastic decline in Chenab water flow’, Dawn, 21 January, 2010.

 

Kumar, V. and Jain, S. K. (2010) ‘Trends in seasonal and annual rainfall and rainy days in Kashmir valley in last century’, Quarterly Journal, Vol. 212, pp. 64-69.

 

Marc, D. K., Keith, W. H. and Liping F (1987) ‘The graph model for conflicts’, Automatica, Vol.23, pp.41-55

 

Matthew, R., Isabella,V. and James, S.F. (2009) ‘Satellite based estimates of groundwater depletion in India’, Nature, Vol. 460, pp. 999-1001.

 

Michael, C. and Glen, L. (2008) ‘Accounting for war’, Accounting Forum, Vol. 32, pp. 313-326.

 

Milline, J. N. (2005) ‘Migration and intensification of water conflicts in the Pangani Basin, Tanzania’, Habitat International, Vol. 29, No.1, pp. 41-67.

 

Mirza, M.M.Q (2002) ‘The Ganges water sharing treaty: Risk analysis of the negotiated discharge’, International Journal of Water, Vol.2, pp. 57-74.

 

Mustafa, I. (1994) ‘The Arab-Israeli Conflict Over Water Resources’, Studies in Environmental Science, Vol.8, pp.123-133.

 

NDMA (2010) ‘National Disaster Management Authority’, http://ndma.gov.pk/

 

NAP (2005) ‘Controlling the Quantum World of Atoms, Molecules, and Photons’,

National Academic Press, ISBN 0-309-65565-X

 

Nayyer, A.Z. and Zeeshan A.N (2004) ‘Prospects of renewable energy sources in Pakistan’, Proceedings of. Renewable Energy Technology & Sustainable Development Conference, COMSATS, 2004.

 

Nils, P. G., Kathryn, F., Håvard, H., Bethany, L. and Taylor, O. (2006) ‘Conflicts over shared rivers: Resource scarcity or fuzzy boundaries?’, Political Geography, Vol. 25, pp. 361-382

 

Noah, C.G., Robin, L.N., Burton, E., James, E., M, Girish, G. and Deborah, W. M. (2008) ‘The energy-water nexus and information exchange: Challenges and opportunities’, International Journal of Water, Vol. 4, pp. 5-24.

 

OGDC, Oil and Gas Development Authority (2009) ‘Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources’, www.mpnr.gov.pk.

 

Parkins, W.E. (2006) ‘Fusion power: will it ever come?’, Science, Vol. 311, pp.1380.

 

Paul, F. T., Craig, F. (2000) ‘Historic wreck in international waters: conflict or consensus?’, Marine Policy, Vol. 24, pp.1-10.

 

Paul, R. H., Sara, M. M. and Thomas, E. S. (2006) ‘Conflict management of riparian disputes’, Political Geography, Vol. 25, pp.383-411.

 

Peak water (2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water

 

Psatskin, O. B. (2008) ‘ Peak oil in the light of oil formation theories’, Energy Policy, Vol.36, pp.1826-1828.

 

Radha, D. (2002) ‘At the confluence of law and geography: contextualizing inter-state water disputes in India’, Geoforum, Vol.33, pp. 255-269.

 

Ramanathan, K. and Abeygunawardena, P. (2007) ‘Hydropower development in India’, Asian Development Bank.

 

Richard, A. E. and Robert, J.C. (1996) ‘Sunbelt water war: The El Paso-New Mexico water conflict’, Vol.33, pp. 359-379.

 

Rogner, H.H. (1997) ‘An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources’, Annul Rev

Energy Environ, Vol. 22, pp. 217-62.

 

Rossi, G. and Anxarani, A. (2002) ‘Innovations in water legislation in Italy: Ecosystem protection and stakeholder’s participation’, International Journal of Water, Vol. 2, pp.17-34.

 

Salman, M.A.S. (2010) ‘Downstream riparian can also harm upstream riparian: The concept of foreclosure of future uses’, International  Journal of Water, Vol. 35, pp. 350-364.

 

Saumitra, M (2009 ‘Sensible measures to guard India’s groundwater supply’, Nature, Vol. 462, pp. 296.

 

Sawsan, R. (2010) ‘Israel stealing Palestinian and Arab waters’, Global Research.

 

Schon, B. and Ian, C.W (2009) ‘The global “war for talent”’, Journal of International Management, Vol.15, pp.273-285

 

Smil, V. (2006) ‘Energy at cross roads’, Global Science Forum Conference on Scientific Challenges for Energy Research, Paris, May 17-18, 2006

 

Starr, J.R. (1991) ‘Water wars’, Foreign Policy, pp. 82.

 

Stephen, L. (2008) ‘Drought and Israeli policy threaten West Bank Water security’, Global Research, January 2008, pp.1-6.

 

Swain, A. (2001) ‘Water wars: facts or fiction’, Futures, Vol. 23, pp. 769-781.

 

Sur, H. S., Anil, B. and Jindal, P.K. (1999) ‘Some hydrological parameters for the design and operation of small earthen dams in lower Shiwaliks of Northern India’, Agriculture Water Management, Vol.1479, pp. 111-121.

 

Tertzakian, P. (2006) Thousands barrels a second: The coming oil break point and the

challenges facing an energy dependent world, McGraw-Hill Companies USA.

 

Walling, M.Y. and Mohanty, W. K. (2009) ‘An overview on the seismic zonation and microzonation studies in India’, Earth Science Reviews, Vol. 96, pp. 67-91.

 

Winter, T., Binquet, J., Szendroi, A., Colombet, G., Armjo, R. and Tapponnier, P. (1994) ‘From plate tectonics to the design of the Dul Hasti hydroelectric project in Kashmir (India)’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 31, pp. 252.

 

Winter, T., Binquet, J., Szendroi, A., Colombet, G., Armjo, R., Tapponnier, P. (1994) ‘From plate tectonics to the design of the Dul Hasti hydroelectric project in Kashmir (India)’, Engineering Geology, Vol. 36, pp. 211-241.

 

World Bank Technical Paper No.414, Washington, World Bank, 1998.

 

Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_Indiann_dams_in_Jammu&Kashmir

 

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Himachal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Table 1 Historic floods induced losses in Pakistan

 

Year

Deaths

Losses (RS)

Affected (Homes/crops/cattle)

1950

2209

10 millions

100s/100s Acres/dozens

1973

900

12.27 billion

500,000/10,350,000/dozens

1976

2600

15 billion

600,000/556,000/70,000

1977

100s

Few billions

330,000/100,000/dozens

1978

100s

Few billions

1500,000/600,000/dozens

1988

529

5 billion

400,000/150,000/33,000

1992

Few dozens

Few billions

250,000/1300,000/dozens

1995

511

Few billions

250,000/600,000/dozens

1996

118

Few billions

20,00,000/80,000/95,000

1998

Few dozens

85 billion

70,000/70,000/20,000

2005

80,000

280 billion

150,000 homes ruined

2010

>2,000

850 billion

2,500,000/8,000,000/100,000

 

 

Table 2 Indus Water Treaty 1960 water allocations (IWT, 1960)

 

Western rivers

Storage capacities (MAF)

Name

Location

General

Power

Flood

Indus

Jhelum

Jhelum

Chenab

Chenab

Main

Tributary

Main

Tributary

Main

0.25

0.50

Nil

0.50

Nil

0.15

0.25

Nil

0.6

0.6

Nil

0.75

X*

Nil

Nil

X* limited to 300 acre feet including agriculture and power use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Comments

Pakistan and India to go to War over Water?

 

John Daly.JPG

By John Daly, 04 April 201

A peaceful and stable Pakistan is integral to western efforts to pacify Afghanistan, but Islamabad’s obsessions with its giant eastern neighbor may render such issues moot.
Since partition in 1947, Pakistan and India have fought four armed conflicts, in 1947, 1965, 1971 (which led to the establishment of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan) and the 1999 Kargil clash. With the exception of the 1971 conflict, which involved rising tensions in East Pakistan, the others have all involved issues arising from control of Kashmir.

But now a rising new element of discord threatens to precipitate a new armed clash between southern Asia’s two nuclear powers – water. Lahore’s “The Nation’ newspaper on Sunday published an editorial entitled, “War with India inevitable: Nizami,” the newspaper’s Editor-in-Chief and Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust Chairman, Majid Nizami, asked his fellow citizens to prepare for a war with India over water issues. Nizami told those attending the “Pakistan-India relations; Our rulers- new wishes” session at Aiwan-e-Karkunan Tehrik-e-Pakistan, which he chaired, “Indian hostilities and conspiracies against the country will never end until she is taught a lesson.”

While The Nation is a conservative daily, part of the Nawa-i-Waqt publishing group, with a circulation of roughly 20,000, it has a website, and what’s more, close ties to Pakistan’s highest military circles, so Nizami’s comments should hardly be rejected out of hand. Furthermore, Niazmi’s audience included some high ranking Pakistani officials, including Nazaria-i-Pakistan Vice Chairman Dr Rafique Ahmed; Pakistan Movement Workers-Trust Chairman, retired Colonel  Jamshed Ahmed Tareen; former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed Khan; Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan Secretary General Qari Zawar Bahadur; retired Air Marshall Khurished Anwar Mirza; retired Brigadier Hamid Saeed Akhtar and Jamaat-e-Islami Lahore Chief Ameer-ul-Azeem, among others. 

At issue are Pakistan’s concerns over India’s ongoing construction of two hydroelectric dams on the upper reaches of the Indus River. Islamabad is concerned that the 45 megawatt, 190-foot tall Nimoo-Bazgo concrete dam 44 megawatt Chutak hydroelectric power project will reduce the Indus River’s flow towards Pakistan, as they are capable of storing up to 4.23 billion cubic feet of water, violating the terms of the bilateral 1960 Indus Water Treaty. The Indus, which begins in Indian-controlled Kashmir, is crucial to both India and Pakistan, but is currently experiencing water flows down 30 percent from its normal levels. The Indus is Pakistan’s primary freshwater source, on which 90 percent of its agriculture depends. According to a number of Pakistani agriculture and water experts, the nation is heading towards a massive water shortage in the next couple of years due to insufficient water management practices and storage capacity, which will be exacerbated by the twin Indian hydroelectric projects, as they will further diminish the Indus’ flow.

So, if push comes to shove, who’s got Pakistan’s back?

China.

During the Boao Forum for Asia, on China’s southern Hainan island on 1 April, Pakistan and China agreed to support each other “in all circumstances” and vowed to uphold their sovereignty and territorial integrity at all costs. Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani told Chinese Executive Vice Premier Li Keqiang, “China’s friend is our friend, and China’s enemy is ours,” adding Pakistan considers China’s security as its own security and supports China’s position on Taiwan, Tibet and Xinqiang. Li replied that China would support Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in every situation, telling Gilani, “No matter what changes take place at international level, we will uphold Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

It might be noted here that in October 1962, coinciding with the Cuban missile crisis, India and China fought a brief but bitter war along their disputed Himalayan border.

Fifty years later, China and India have yet to resolve their border issues over Kashmir and China continues to claim most of India’s Arunachal Pradesh to the base of the Himalayas in the absence of any definitive treaty delineating the border. Kashmir remains the site of the world’s largest and most militarized territorial dispute with portions under the de facto administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir), and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas).

No guesses therefore as to whom Beijing might back should Pakistani-Indian tensions continue to rise. Accordingly, to keep the peace, one might paraphrase Ronald Reagan in Berlin – “Prime Minister Singh, tear down those dams!”

But don’t bet on it.

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com 

Readers’ comments

Nexus789 on April 06 2012 said: I guess that is why they wasted all the money on nukes…after a futile nuclear conflict there will be no demand for water.

Bob on April 06 2012 said: China too is building some controversial dams in their region to divert the mighty Brahmaputra which provides water to much of North-East of India. This can be seen as the first step to help Pakistan against India. This is game being played between these three neighbours and there may be a flashpoint in the very near future that culminates into a skirmish. Time to take stock for all countries and resolve these issues prudently. On this note, China seems to be overplaying it’s part and therefore India and Pakistan must confront this issue separately. China doesn’t need Pakistan as much as the other way around and Pakistan must know their subservient position in this matter.

 

About the author

John Daly.JPG

John Daly

Company: U.S.-Central Asia Biofuels Ltd

Position: CEO

No Comments

Foreign Minister Khar latest victim of Zardari’s mean temper and vindictiveness

Foreign Minister Khar latest victim of Zardari’s bad temper and vindictiveness

He is temperamental and impatient and can be very difficult to live with. Asif Ali Zardari tends to respond with a temper tantrum (overt or subtle) if his desires are frustrated. Asif Ali Zardari becomes very irritable and bad-tempered if he lacks vigorous physical activity or other outlets for his aggressive personality.

 

Days after Pakistan’s foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar contradicted President Asif Ali Zardari during a meeting with a visiting US diplomat, speculation is rife that her portfolio may be changed.

The speculation of the change was sparked by remarks of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani four days after the meeting.

Gilani took the top brass in the Foreign Ministry by surprise by saying during an interaction with reporters at his home in Lahore that a “fresh team” would carry forward talks with India to resolve outstanding issues like the Kashmir.

Reporters who attended the interaction did not make much of the remarks and Gilani did not explain what he meant by the term “fresh team”.

The US delegation led by deputy secretary of state Thomas Nides was taken by surprise when Khar publicly contradicted the President during a meeting held at the governor’s House in Lahore on April 4, diplomatic sources said.

Zardari was then camping in the capital of Punjab province to interact with workers of his Pakistan People’s Party. Nides raised the crucial issue of Pakistan’s participation in a conference on Afghanistan to be held at Chicago in May, and Zardari said his government was amenable to discussing the matter if Washington extended a formal invitation, the sources said.

At this point, Khar intervened and said the issue could not be taken up till a joint session of parliament completed an ongoing review of Pakistan-US relations, the sources said.

Any discussion on the Chicago conference could be held only after the review, she was quoted as saying.

The sources said the US delegation was surprised by the “argumentative” tone adopted by Khar in the presence of the President, who is perceived as the PPP’s main decision-maker on crucial foreign policy issues.

The government ordered the review of Pakistan-US ties after a cross-border NATO air strike killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November and the two countries have been unable to bring their relations on an even keel since then.

However, the remarks immediately triggered speculation in the Foreign Office that Khar’s portfolio could be changed during an upcoming cabinet reshuffle.

Gilani and other PPP leaders have said a cabinet reshuffle will be carried out soon with an eye on the general election scheduled for early next year.

Speculation is doing the rounds in the Foreign Office that Khar may be given a new portfolio in the cabinet reshuffle and a new Foreign Minister would lead talks with New Delhi, The News daily reported today.

Another significant change in the Foreign Office was the recent appointment of Jalil Abbas Jilani, a distant relative of the premier, as the new Foreign Secretary.

Officials and diplomatic sources also pointed out that Khar was not included in Zardari’s entourage for his day-long visit to India on Sunday.

Though the visit was officially described as a private trip to offer prayers at a Sufi shrine at Ajmer, Zardari also held talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi.

Sources referred to the case of former Law Minister Babar Awan, who has been completely sidelined in the PPP just two months after being named the party’s vice president, and said Zardari hardly ever forgives anyone who goes against him.

Awan was sidelined after he refused to testify in support of Gilani in contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court. Reports also said that several PPP politicians from Khar’s home constituency of Muzarffargarh in Punjab had ganged up against her under the leadership of parliamentarian Jamshed Dasti.

Dasti has expressed displeasure over the importance given to Khar in party circles. Sources close to Khar told The News there was no truth in reports of a change in her portfolio.

The sources, however, did not offer an explanation for her not being included in Zardari’s entourage for the visit to India.

 

Reference

 

No Comments