IWT's disruption warned off: India trying to sabotage Trump's peace efforts: Bilawal
LONDON: Former foreign minister and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has said that Pakistan continues to advocate for peace, while India persists with its war narrative.
Speaking at a press briefing at the Pakistan High Commission in London, accompanied by members of a parliamentary delegation on Wednesday, Bilawal said 'Pakistan is looking to US President Donald Trump for Kashmir resolution while Indian government is trying to sabotage the American president's peace efforts.'
Bilawal reiterated 'Pakistan believes in dialogue as the only path to resolving core issues, including the Kashmir dispute.' He said India was using terrorists as a diplomatic tool.
Bilawal emphasised that both Pakistani and Indian people desired peace and that ongoing hostilities were counterproductive to regional stability.
Bilawal strongly warned India against any move to disrupt the Indus Waters Treaty, stating, 'Even threatening to cut off water supply amounts to a clear declaration of war.'
The PPP chairman said 'India cannot suspend or annul the treaty, which is internationally recognised and legally binding.'
Commenting on the country's military leadership, Bilawal said General Asim Munir was elevated to the rank of Field Marshal not only for winning battles but also for aligning with the aspirations of the people.
Highlighting past military engagements, he remarked, 'Although India may have had numerical strength, Pakistani forces gave a powerful and measured response.'
Bilawal claimed that 'India often says one thing but does another, alleging that New Delhi continues to use terrorist organisations to sabotage peace in the region.'
Bilawal emphasised that the Pakistani armed forces had proven their ability to defend the country, and Pakistan always exercised its right to a strong defence when needed.
Bilawal said threatening Pakistan was a violation of the UN Charter, even though Pakistan was talking about peace and India was talking about war.
Bilawal Bhutto also expressed gratitude to the entire delegation representing Pakistan and reiterated that all regional issues can be resolved through dialogue and negotiation. 'We want lasting peace in the region,' he said.
Looking ahead, he announced that the delegation would travel to Brussels to convey Pakistan's message to the European Union.
Earlier, the PPP chairman arrived at the Pakistan High Commission in London, where he recorded his remarks in the guestbook, accompanied by senior members of Pakistan's high-level diplomatic delegation.
Upon arrival, they were warmly received by High Commissioner Dr Mohammad Faisal and his team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
35 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Israel says it strikes Iran amid nuclear tensions
JERUSALEM/DUBAI/WASHINGTON: Israel said early on Friday it had struck Iranian nuclear targets to block Tehran from developing atomic weapons, and Iranian media and witnesses reported explosions including at the country's main uranium enrichment facility. Calling the offensive 'Rising Lion,' Israel said it was also targeting Iranian commanders and missile factories, and declared a state of emergency in anticipation of retaliatory missile and drone strikes by Tehran. 'We are at a decisive moment in Israel's history,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a recorded video message. Trump says Israel should not strike Iran, as nuclear deal 'close' Israel targeted Iranian scientists working on a nuclear bomb, its ballistic missile programme and its Nantanz uranium enrichment facility, in an operation that would continue for days, he said. A witness in Nantanz city said multiple explosions were heard near the facility, and a senior Iranian official told Reuters that the country's leadership was holding a top security meeting. Iran's state TV said several explosions were heard in Tehran and the country's air defence system was on full alert. An Israeli military official said Israel was striking 'dozens' of nuclear and military targets. The official said Iran had enough material to make 15 nuclear bombs within days. 'Following the preemptive strike by the State of Israel against Iran, a missile and UAV (drone) attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate timeframe,' Defence Minister Israel Katz said in a statement. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Israel acted unilaterally because it believes the operation was necessary for self-defense. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' Rubio said in a statement. 'Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,' he added. CNN reported that U.S. President Donald Trump was convening a cabinet meeting. Crude oil prices jumped more than $3 a barrel on the news. U.S. and Iranian officials were scheduled to hold a sixth round of talks on Tehran's escalating uranium enrichment programme in Oman on Sunday, according to officials from both countries and their Omani mediators. But the talks have appeared to be deadlocked. Trump said on Thursday an Israeli strike on Iran 'could very well happen' but reiterated his hopes for a peaceful resolution. U.S. intelligence had indicated that Israel was making preparations for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, and U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity that Israel could attack in the coming days. The U.S. military is planning for the full range of contingencies in the Middle East, including the possibility that it might have to help evacuate American civilians, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
IWT in ‘abeyance': a national wake-up call
On April 24, 2025, India's sudden and unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) jolted the foundations of regional stability and transboundary water diplomacy. The move, officially framed as a retaliatory response to the tragic Pahalgam incident of two days earlier, was more than a symbolic gesture. It marked a watershed moment in the history of South Asia's most critical water-sharing agreement—one that has functioned for over six decades as a buffer against hot war, a framework for peaceful negotiation, and a model for international cooperation. For Pakistan, a country overwhelmingly dependent on the Indus River system, the stakes could not be higher. The decision threatens not only the equitable distribution of a vital natural resource but also Pakistan's economic integrity, food security, and internal cohesion. In addition, India's blatant suspension of a sanctified treaty was a proof that all earlier actions to somehow jeopordise Pakistan's water re-source was in fact a prelude to its present conduct and a part of its belligerence towards all of its negotiations. Since its signing in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, the Indus Waters Treaty has been regarded as one of the most successful and durable international agreements in modern history. It divides control of six rivers—allocating the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) to India and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) to Pakistan. This arrangement has withstood wars, crises, and prolonged diplomatic freeze. The treaty also established the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), a forum for technical exchanges and dispute resolution, supported by a three-tier settlement mechanism that includes neutral experts and arbitration. Unfortunately, India's suspension of the treaty bypasses these institutional mechanisms, undermining both the letter and the spirit of the agreement. It erodes long-standing norms of international water law, particularly the principles of equitable utilization, no significant harm, and prior notification. Besides, any other incident — even if tangential to the treaty, cannot ever be considered as having effect on this venerated document. The implications for Pakistan are profound. The Indus River system is not merely a source of water — it is the country's circulatory system. Approximately 90 percent of Pakistan's agriculture depends on these rivers, supporting nearly half of the national labour force. The system irrigates 18 million hectares of land and generates around 5,000MW of hydropower. Urban centers such as Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad rely on it for municipal and industrial use. In the context of escalating water stress, climate variability, and rapidly declining aquifer levels, any disruption to these flows could have cascading effects: crop failures, food insecurity, inflationary pressures, and mass displacement. The country faces an existential challenge, caught between upstream political manoeuvring belligerence and downstream vulnerability. Exacerbating this risk is India's accelerated development of hydropower projects in the upper Indus basin, particularly in the disputed territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Projects like Nimoo Bazgo and Chutak have already pushed treaty boundaries, while ten new hydropower initiatives — including Achinthang-Sanjak, Parfila, and Khalsti — are further testing the limits. Though many of these are run-of-river schemes and technically permissible under the IWT, the lack of prior notification and cumulative hydrological impact of these projects undermines treaty's integrity. It is a classic case of incremental encroachment — each project appears compliant in isolation, but collectively they alter seasonal flows, sediment dynamics, and the broader ecological regime downstream. Unfortunately, India's past conduct proves the basis that all of the above excesses are by design and an effort to make the treaty at best, simply dysfunctional. Equally concerning is India's bid to secure international carbon credits for these hydropower projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. The absence of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessments (TEIAs), despite cross-border implications, allows India to monetize these developments while externalizing ecological and economic costs onto Pakistan. This evasion of accountability not only breaches environmental norms but also highlights deficiencies in global climate finance frameworks, which currently fail to factor in transboundary externalities. Adding to the strategic complexity is India's construction of an inland waterway in Ladakh — extending 45 kilometers along the Indus River — supported by newly built barrages. While presented as an infrastructural project aimed at enhancing connectivity, the scale and location raise concerns. Given Ladakh's sparse population and rich solar potential, the project's economic rationale is tenuous. Its strategic utility, however, is apparent: to consolidate control over headwaters and reinforce upper riparian leverage. This must be viewed not as a standalone development but as part of a broader playbook aimed at asserting dominance over shared resources – a norm for India. India's rationale for suspending the IWT—couched in the language of national security—is a dangerous precedent. The Prime Minister's declaration that 'water and blood cannot flow together' reflects a disturbing shift in discourse, where essential resources are securitized for political ends. Such rhetoric undermines decades of cooperative riparian governance and opens the door to weaponizing water in bilateral relations. Global water security experts have long warned of the destabilizing effects of such moves. The consequences, once triggered, may prove difficult to reverse. Pakistan must now respond with clarity and resolve. The government should immediately invoke Article IX of the IWT to initiate dispute resolution mechanisms and consider seeking recourse at the International Court of Justice. Parallel diplomatic engagement at the United Nations and other international fora will be critical to building moral and legal pressure. The time has come to adopt a forward-leaning posture in water diplomacy and assert Pakistan's rights under international law. At the domestic level, institutional preparedness is essential. Priority must be given to fast-tracking strategic water infrastructure such as the Diamer-Bhasha and Mohmand Dams, improving irrigation efficiency through modern technologies, and revising water pricing to reduce wastage. Smart canal monitoring, watercourse lining, and agro-tech adoption must move from policy papers to implementation. Aligning provincial and federal agendas under a national water resilience framework is no longer optional—it is urgent. Public awareness is equally critical. Citizens must be informed of the strategic gravity of this issue. Academia, civil society, and industry must be engaged in shaping a national consensus. As the saying goes, 'a stitch in time saves nine' — proactive coordination today can avert irreparable damage tomorrow. Once water disputes escalate beyond diplomacy, restoring balance becomes exponentially more difficult. In water conflicts, as in diplomacy, crisis prevention is more effective than crisis management. In closing, India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty represents more than a treaty violation—it is a challenge to Pakistan's strategic coherence and sovereign resilience. As water emerges as the new theatre of geopolitical contestation in South Asia, Pakistan must act with foresight, unity, and sophistication. It must understand India's psyche and the belligerence it shows in such cases, it has to be ensured that the Indus River, cradle of an ancient civilization, must not be allowed to be transformed into a fault line of modern conflict. The path forward demands calm determination and a readiness to safeguard national interests through lawful, firm, and well-calibrated action. Actually, the effort to thwart Indian designs needs thorough professionalism and resolve. In this arena, as ever, fortune favours the prepared. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Israel launches strikes on Iran; Tehran braces for retaliatory response
In a significant escalation, Israel confirmed on Friday that it had launched an attack targeting Iran, while Iranian media reported that explosions were audible in Tehran. The incident unfolded amid rising tensions linked to ongoing US diplomatic efforts aimed at persuading Iran to cease the enrichment of materials that could be used to build a nuclear weapon. In response to potential Iranian retaliation, Israel declared a state of emergency, anticipating missile and drone attacks from Tehran. "Following the preemptive strike by the State of Israel against Iran, a missile and UAV (drone) attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate timeframe," Defence Minister Israel Katz said in a statement. According to two American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity, Israel had initiated strikes against Iran. The officials clarified that the United States had neither participated in nor supported the Israeli operation. They refrained from providing specific operational details. US and Iranian officials were scheduled to hold a sixth round of talks on Tehran's escalating uranium enrichment programme in Oman on Sunday, according to officials from both countries and their Omani mediators. But the talks have appeared to be deadlocked. Trump said on Thursday an Israeli strike on Iran "could very well happen" but reiterated his hopes for a peaceful resolution. US intelligence had indicated that Israel was making preparations for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, and US officials said on condition of anonymity that Israel could attack in the coming days. Israel has long discussed striking its longtime foe Iran in an effort to block Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. The US military is planning for the full range of contingencies in the Middle East, including the possibility that it might have to help evacuate American civilians, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. In a notable prior instance of hostilities, Israel was widely believed to be behind a drone strike on an Iranian military facility in the city of Isfahan in January 2023. The target was a defence ministry complex reportedly involved in drone and missile production. While Iran downplayed the damage, claiming that air defences had intercepted most of the drones, Western intelligence sources suggested that the attack was part of a broader Israeli strategy to curb Iran's military development, particularly its UAV and nuclear infrastructure. Additionally, in April 2024, Israel was suspected of launching a cyberattack that temporarily disrupted operations at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, a key site for uranium enrichment. The disruption came shortly after Tehran accelerated its nuclear programme following a breakdown in talks with Western powers. Although Israel did not publicly claim responsibility, intelligence sources and analysts noted the precision and timing bore hallmarks of previous Israeli covert operations aimed at impeding Iran's nuclear ambitions.
