logo
China's insertion into India-Pakistan waters dispute adds a further ripple in South Asia

China's insertion into India-Pakistan waters dispute adds a further ripple in South Asia

Yahoo16-07-2025
With the future of a crucial water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan up in the air, one outside party is looking on with keen interest: China.
For 65 years, the Indus Waters Treaty has seen the two South Asian rivals share access and use of the Indus Basin, a vast area covered by the Indus River and its tributaries that also stretches into Afghanistan and China.
For much of that history, there has been widespread praise for the agreement as a successful demonstration of cooperation between adversarial states over a key shared resource. But experts have noted the treaty has long held the potential for conflict. Drafters failed to factor in the effects of climate change, and the Himalayan glaciers that feed the rivers are now melting at record rates, ultimately putting at risk the long-term sustainability of water supply. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict over Kashmir, where much of the basin is situated, puts cooperation at risk.
That latest provocation threatening the treaty was a terrorist attack in the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025. In response to that attack, which India blamed on Pakistan and precipitated a four-day confrontation, New Delhi temporarily suspended the treaty.
But even before that attack, India and Pakistan had been locked in negotiation over the future of the treaty – the status of which has been in the hands of international arbitrators since 2016. In the latest development, on June 27, 2025, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a supplementary award in favor of Pakistan, arguing that India's holding of the treaty in abeyance did not affect its jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, the treaty does not allow for either party to unilaterally suspend the treaty, the ruling suggested.
Amid the wrangling over the treaty's future, Pakistan has turned to China for diplomatic and strategic support. Such support was evident during the conflict that took place following April's terrorist attack, during which Pakistan employed Chinese-made fighter jets and other military equipment against its neighbor.
Meanwhile, in an apparent move to counter India's suspension of the treaty, China and Pakistan have ramped up construction of a major dam project that would provide water supply and electricity to parts of Pakistan.
So, why is China getting involved? In part, it reflects the strong relationship between Pakistan and China, developed over six decades.
But as an expert in hydro politics, I believe Beijing's involvement raises concerns: China is not a neutral observer in the dispute. Rather, Beijing has long harbored a desire to increase its influence in the region and to counter an India long seen as a rival. Given the at-times fraught relationship between China and India – the two countries went to war in 1962 and continue to engage in sporadic border skirmishes – there are concerns in New Delhi that Beijing may respond by disrupting the flow of rivers in its territory that feed into India.
In short, any intervention by Beijing over the Indus Waters Treaty risks stirring up regional tensions.
The Indus Waters Treaty has already endured three armed conflicts between Pakistan and India, and until recently it served as an exemplar of how to forge a successful bilateral agreement between two rival neighbors.
Under the initial terms of the treaty, which each country signed in 1960, India was granted control over three eastern rivers the countries share – Ravi, Beas and Satluj – with an average annual flow of 40.4 billion cubic meters. Meanwhile, Pakistan was given access to almost 167.2 billion cubic meters of water from the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.
In India, the relatively smaller distribution has long been the source of contention, with many believing the treaty's terms are overly generous to Pakistan. India's initial demand was for 25% of the Indus waters.
For Pakistan, the terms of the division of the Indus Waters Treaty are painful because they concretized unresolved land disputes tied to the partition of India in 1947. In particular, the division of the rivers is framed within the broader political context of Kashmir. The three major rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – flow through Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir before entering the Pakistan-controlled western part of the Kashmir region.
But the instability of the Kashmir region – disputes around the Line of Control separating the Indian- and Pakistan-controlled areas are common – underscores Pakistan's water vulnerability.
Nearly 65% of Pakistanis live in the Indus Basin region, compared with 14% for India. It is therefore not surprising that Pakistan has warned that any attempt to cut off the water supply, as India has threatened, would be considered an act of war.
It also helps to explain Pakistan's desire to develop hydropower on the rivers it controls. One-fifth of Pakistan's electricity comes from hydropower, and nearly 21 hydroelectric power plants are located in the Indus Basin region.
Since Pakistan's economy relies heavily on agriculture and the water needed to maintain agricultural land, the fate of the Indus Waters Treaty is of the utmost importance to Pakistan's leaders.
Such conditions have driven Islamabad to be a willing partner with China in a bid to shore up its water supply.
China provides technical expertise and financial support to Pakistan for numerous hydropower projects in Pakistan, including the Diamer Bhasha Dam and Kohala Hydropower Project. These projects play a significant role in addressing Pakistan's energy requirements and have been a key aspect of the transboundary water relationship between the two nations.
With it's rivalry with India and its desire to simultaneously work with Pakistan on numerous issues, China increasingly sees itself as a stakeholder in the Indus Waters Treaty, too. Chinese media narratives have framed India as the aggressor in the dispute, warning of the danger of using 'water as a weapon' and noting that the source of the Indus River lies in China's Western Tibet region.
Doing so fits Beijing' s greater strategic presence in South Asian politics. After the terrorist attack, China Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaffirmed China's support for Pakistan, showcasing the relationship as an 'all-weather strategic' partnership and referring to Pakistan as an 'ironclad friend.'
And in response to India's suspension of the treaty, China announced it was to accelerate work on the significant Mohmand hydropower project on the tributary of the Indus River in Pakistan.
Chinese investment in Pakistan's hydropower sector presents substantial opportunities for both countries in regards to energy security and promoting economic growth.
The Indus cascade project under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor initiative, for example, promises to provide cumulative hydropower generation capacity of around 22,000 megawatts. Yet the fact that project broke ground in Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed area in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, underscores the delicacy of the situation.
Beijing's backing of Pakistan is largely motivated by a mix of economic and geopolitical interests, particularly in legitimizing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. But it comes at the cost of stirring up regional tensions.
As such, the alignment of Chinese and Pakistani interests in developing hydro projects can pose a further challenge to the stability of South Asia's water-sharing agreements, especially in the Indus Basin. Recently, the chief minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders China, warned that Beijing's hydro projects in the Western Tibet region amount to a ticking 'water bomb.'
To diffuse such tensions – and to get the Indus Waters Treaty back on track – it behooves India, China and Pakistan to engage in diplomacy and dialogue. Such engagement is, I believe, essential in addressing the ongoing water-related challenges in South Asia.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Pintu Kumar Mahla, University of Arizona
Read more:
Tensions over Kashmir and a warming planet have placed the Indus Waters Treaty on life support
India and Pakistan tension escalates with suspension of historic water treaty
China's 'nightmare' youth revolution was lit by its neurotic authoritarian leader, Mao Zedong. What can we learn from it?
Pintu Kumar Mahla is affiliated with the Water Resources Research Center, the University of Arizona. He is also a member of the International Association of Water Law (AIDA). Pintu Kumar Mahla has not received funding related to this article.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What the World Court's latest climate change ruling means for the U.S.
What the World Court's latest climate change ruling means for the U.S.

Fast Company

timean hour ago

  • Fast Company

What the World Court's latest climate change ruling means for the U.S.

The International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion in July 2025 declaring that all countries have a legal obligation to protect and prevent harm to the climate. The court, created as part of the United Nations in 1945, affirmed that countries must uphold existing international laws related to climate change and, if they fail to act, could be held responsible for damage to communities and the environment. The opinion opens a door for future claims by countries seeking reparations for climate-related harm. But while the ruling is a big global story, its legal effect on the U.S. is less clear. We study climate policies, law and solutions. Here's what you need to know about the ruling and its implications. Why island nations called for a formal opinion The ruling resulted from years of grassroots and youth-led organizing by Pacific Islanders. Supporters have called it ' a turning point for frontline communities everywhere.' Small island states like Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Barbados and others across the Pacific and Caribbean are among the most vulnerable to climate change, yet they have contributed little to global emissions. For many of them, sea-level rise poses an existential threat. Some Pacific atolls sit just 1 to 2 meters above sea level and are slowly disappearing as waters rise. Saltwater intrusion threatens drinking water supplies and crops. Their economies depend on tourism, agriculture and fishing, all sectors easily disrupted by climate change. For example, coral reefs are bleaching more often and dying due to ocean warming and acidification, undermining fisheries, marine biodiversity and economic sectors such as tourism. When disasters hit, the cost of recovery often forces these countries to take on debt. Climate change also undermines their credit ratings and investor confidence, making it harder to get the money to finance adaptive measures. Tuvalu and Kiribati have discussed digital nationhood and leasing land from other countries so their people can relocate while still retaining citizenship. Some projections suggest nations like the Maldives or Marshall Islands could become largely uninhabitable within decades. For these countries, sea-level rise is taking more than their land – they're losing their history and identity in the process. The idea of becoming climate refugees and separating people from their homelands can be culturally destructive, emotionally painful and politically fraught as they move to new countries. More than a nonbinding opinion The International Court of Justice, commonly referred to as the ICJ or World Court, can help settle disputes between states when requested, or it can issue advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized U.N. bodies such as the General Assembly or Security Council. The advisory opinion process allows its 15 judges to weigh in on abstract legal issues – such as nuclear weapons or the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories – without a formal dispute between states. While the court's advisory opinions are nonbinding, they can still have a powerful impact, both legally and politically. The rulings are considered authoritative statements regarding questions of international law. They often clarify or otherwise confirm existing legal obligations that are binding. What the court decided The ICJ was asked to weigh in on two questions in this case: 'What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system … from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases?' 'What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system?' In its 140-page opinion, the court cited international treaties and relevant scientific background to affirm that obligations to protect the environment are indeed a matter of international environmental law, international human rights law and general principles of state responsibility. The decision means that in the authoritative opinion of the international legal community, all countries are under an obligation to contribute to the efforts to reduce global greenhouse emissions. To the second question, the court found that in the event of a breach of any such obligation, three additional obligations arise: The country in breach of its obligations must stop its polluting activity, which would mean excess greenhouse gas emissions in this case. It must ensure that such activities do not occur in the future. It must make reparations to affected states in terms of cleanup, monetary payment and apologies. The court affirmed that all countries have a legal duty under customary international law, which refers to universal rules that arise from common practices among states, to prevent harm to the climate. It also clarified that individual countries can be held accountable, even in a crisis caused by many countries and other entities. And it emphasized that countries that have contributed the most to climate change may bear greater responsibility for repairing the damage under an international law doctrine called ' common but differentiated responsibility,' which is . While the ICJ's opinion doesn't assign blame to specific countries or trigger direct reparations, it may provide support for future legal action in both international and national courts. What does the ICJ opinion mean for the US? In the U.S., this advisory opinion is unlikely to have much legal impact, despite a long-standing constitutional principle that ' international law is part of U.S. law.' U.S. courts rarely treat international law that has not been incorporated into domestic law as binding. And the U.S. has not consented to ICJ jurisdiction in previous climate cases. Contentious cases before international tribunals can be brought by one country against another, but they require the consent of all the countries involved. So there is little chance that the United States' responsibility for climate harms will be adjudicated by the World Court anytime soon. Still, the court's opinion sends a clear message: All countries are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and cannot escape responsibility simply because they aren't the only nation to blame. The unanimous ruling is particularly remarkable given the current hostile political climate in the United States and other industrial nations around climate change and responses to it. It represents a particularly forceful statement by the international community that the responsibility to ensure the health of the global environment is a legal duty held by the entire world. The takeaway The ICJ's advisory opinion marks a turning point in the global effort to hold countries responsible for climate change. Vulnerable countries now have a more concrete, legally grounded base to claim rights and press for accountability against historical and ongoing climate harm – including financial claims. How it will be used in the coming years remains unclear, but the opinion gives small island states in particular a powerful narrative and a legal tool set.

Here's what could get more expensive from Trump's massive tariff hikes
Here's what could get more expensive from Trump's massive tariff hikes

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

Here's what could get more expensive from Trump's massive tariff hikes

President Donald Trump has said that tariffs won't lead to higher prices. But the United States economy seems to disagree: Inflation, which has remained fairly tame, is slowly creeping up because of tariffs. Trump's latest round of higher taxes on imports, which goes into effect next week, will immediately make imported goods from impacted countries more expensive in the United States. And while businesses have tried to shoulder part of the cost, they now may be forced to pass along some of those expenses to consumers. That means higher prices for Americans. Here's what could get more expensive: Computers are among the top goods the United States imported last year, according to US Commerce Department data. The top countries that exported computers and other electronic products to the United States last year were China, Mexico, Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia. Goods from China already face a minimum 30%, albeit with some exclusions. However, rates could soon shoot even higher if a trade deal is not reached with China by August 12. Goods from Mexico can be shipped to the US duty-free if they comply with a trade deal Trump signed during his first term. Meanwhile, goods from Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia are all set to be taxed at nearly double their current levels by next week. Though price increases have been tame across the board, computers cost consumers nearly 5% more in June of this year compared to last, according to Consumer Price Index data. While not among the top five sources of foreign-produced computers, India is still a major supplier of computers and other electronics to the US. Goods from there are set to face 25% minimum tariffs. Economists at the Yale Budget Lab estimate that the tariffs Trump announced as of Thursday, if put in place indefinitely, could cause computer and other electronic prices to rise by 18.2% in the short run and 7.7% in the long run. (The authors of the analysis published Friday don't provide a specific timeframe for what qualifies as long run versus short run.) As with electronics, America buys much of its apparel from other countries. Top destinations include China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia. The tariffs Trump is placing on these countries are impactful for the cost clothing, especially since that's one of the top goods the US imports overall. Yale Budget Lab estimates prices could rise by 37.5% in the short run and 17.4%. Wristwatches are one of the top exports to the United States from Switzerland, which is set to face a 39% 'reciprocal' tariff. Last year the country sent over $4 billion worth of watches to the United States. Prices of leather products, which often includes watches, are estimated to rise by 39.7% in the short run and 18.9% in the long run. China, Vietnam and Indonesia are top destinations where shoes are made and tariffs are set to start at a minimum of 19% for the three countries, come next week. Like watches, many kinds of shoes use leather and could face similar price increases as a result. Vietnam is the top source of imported furniture, followed by China. China and Vietnam are the top two countries that ship toys to the United States. Toy brands have already been warning of higher prices due to the tariffs in place on Chinese goods. The higher tariffs on Vietnamese goods are also likely to be a pressure point.

Here's what could get more expensive from Trump's massive tariff hikes
Here's what could get more expensive from Trump's massive tariff hikes

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

Here's what could get more expensive from Trump's massive tariff hikes

President Donald Trump has said that tariffs won't lead to higher prices. But the United States economy seems to disagree: Inflation, which has remained fairly tame, is slowly creeping up because of tariffs. Trump's latest round of higher taxes on imports, which goes into effect next week, will immediately make imported goods from impacted countries more expensive in the United States. And while businesses have tried to shoulder part of the cost, they now may be forced to pass along some of those expenses to consumers. That means higher prices for Americans. Here's what could get more expensive: Computers are among the top goods the United States imported last year, according to US Commerce Department data. The top countries that exported computers and other electronic products to the United States last year were China, Mexico, Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia. Goods from China already face a minimum 30%, albeit with some exclusions. However, rates could soon shoot even higher if a trade deal is not reached with China by August 12. Goods from Mexico can be shipped to the US duty-free if they comply with a trade deal Trump signed during his first term. Meanwhile, goods from Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia are all set to be taxed at nearly double their current levels by next week. Though price increases have been tame across the board, computers cost consumers nearly 5% more in June of this year compared to last, according to Consumer Price Index data. While not among the top five sources of foreign-produced computers, India is still a major supplier of computers and other electronics to the US. Goods from there are set to face 25% minimum tariffs. Economists at the Yale Budget Lab estimate that the tariffs Trump announced as of Thursday, if put in place indefinitely, could cause computer and other electronic prices to rise by 18.2% in the short run and 7.7% in the long run. (The authors of the analysis published Friday don't provide a specific timeframe for what qualifies as long run versus short run.) As with electronics, America buys much of its apparel from other countries. Top destinations include China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia. The tariffs Trump is placing on these countries are impactful for the cost clothing, especially since that's one of the top goods the US imports overall. Yale Budget Lab estimates prices could rise by 37.5% in the short run and 17.4%. Wristwatches are one of the top exports to the United States from Switzerland, which is set to face a 39% 'reciprocal' tariff. Last year the country sent over $4 billion worth of watches to the United States. Prices of leather products, which often includes watches, are estimated to rise by 39.7% in the short run and 18.9% in the long run. China, Vietnam and Indonesia are top destinations where shoes are made and tariffs are set to start at a minimum of 19% for the three countries, come next week. Like watches, many kinds of shoes use leather and could face similar price increases as a result. Vietnam is the top source of imported furniture, followed by China. China and Vietnam are the top two countries that ship toys to the United States. Toy brands have already been warning of higher prices due to the tariffs in place on Chinese goods. The higher tariffs on Vietnamese goods are also likely to be a pressure point.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store