Pakistan Warns UN of India's Water Weaponization in Indus Treaty Breach
Pakistan Voices Grave Concern Over Indus Waters Treaty Suspension

Pakistan has issued a stern warning at the United Nations Security Council about the dangerous precedent being set by the deliberate weaponization of shared natural resources, specifically highlighting India's unilateral suspension of the landmark 1960 Indus Waters Treaty earlier this year.

Grave Concerns Over Treaty Violation

Ambassador Asim Iftikhar, Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN, expressed serious apprehension during a wide-ranging discussion on climate and security in the 15-member Council. India suspended the major, World Bank-mediated treaty governing water sharing of six rivers in the Indus basin between the two countries following the Pahalgam incident in April.

"Such acts do not just harm one country; they weaken confidence in international water law and set a precedent for resource-based and driven coercion elsewhere," Ambassador Iftikhar stated, describing India's unilateral action as a "textbook example" of deliberate weaponization of shared natural resources.

Six Decades of Cooperation Threatened

The Pakistani envoy emphasized the treaty's historical significance, noting that "For more than six decades, this Treaty has stood as a model of co-operation, ensuring equitable and predictable sharing of the Indus Basin's waters between Pakistan and India, even in times of war."

He detailed the severe consequences of India's decision, stating that "India's unlawful unilateral decision to suspend this framework undermines the letter and spirit of the Treaty, threatens ecosystems, disrupts data-sharing, and endangers the lives of millions" who depend on the Indus river water system for food and energy security.

Ambassador Iftikhar pointed out that no provision of the Indus Waters Treaty permits unilateral suspension or modification, and referenced the Court of Arbitration's 2025 award that reaffirmed the continuing validity of the Treaty and its dispute-settlement mechanisms.

Broader Environmental Security Implications

The Council's debate coincided with International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. The Pakistani representative called for focusing on prevention and early resolution of conflicts to address environmental impacts of armed conflict and climate-driven security risks.

He proposed several measures including integrating environmental considerations into UN peace operations and political missions, where relevant, and embedding these actions in planning, budgeting, and mandate design. The envoy also underscored the need for upholding international law, especially international humanitarian law.

In his comprehensive address, Ambassador Iftikhar called for promoting coherence in the UN system with greater coordination among UN Country Teams and relevant regional and international bodies. He emphasized the need for providing climate and biodiversity finance that is new, additional, predictable, and grant-based, not debt-creating or double counted with other financial streams.

Pakistan believes that measures to address climate change should be pursued through universal platforms under a cooperative approach based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, ensuring that shared natural resources serve as avenues for cooperation rather than contention.

The timing of this discussion was particularly relevant as UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen outlined how environmental damage from conflicts continues to push people into hunger, disease and displacement. She noted that while climate-conflict pathways are complex, "climate change is not infrequently one of the peels of the onion."

A 2024 World Bank study referenced during the session found that "most contexts affected by fragility and conflict also experience consistently drier, more severe drought periods." Andersen also drew attention to the "yawning gap" in adaptation finance for conflict-affected countries, revealing that between 2014 and 2021, people in severely conflict-affected countries received just $2 per capita in climate finance compared to $162 in more stable countries.