Baglihar is win-win for both: Expert

SRINAGAR: Not ready to throw a spanner in the fast forward peace process between India and Pakistan, Swiss Professor Raymond Lafitte gave a win-win verdict. But at the same time, his interpretation of the treaty lived up to an anonymous philosopher’s obiter dictum: “An international treaty that gives one party all that it wants cannot be a good treaty.”

Of the six “Determinations”, he upheld Indian position on three issues and awarded three others to Pakistan. A “creative compromise”, as some observers term it.

But the interesting aspect of the apparently win-win verdict is the costs of arbitration. Under the Indus Water Treaty, of which Annexure F deals with the allocation of costs, each party has to bear its own costs.

As for the remuneration and expenses of the Neutral Expert, the party against which his decision is rendered has to pay the costs, except as, in special circumstances. The costs have to be deposited with the World Bank that has brokered the 1960 agreement and is sole referee.

“In principle, costs are to be borne by the unsuccessful partyThe logical basis for this policy appears to be that a “successful” claimant has, in effect, been forced to go through the process in order to achieve success, and should not be penalized by having to pay for the process itself.

The same logic holds true for a successful respondent , faced with an unmerited claim”, says the 116-page Lattife report on Baglihar to which Islamabad referred three “differences”.

After the verdict was out on February 12, there were victory statements from New Delhi as well as from Islamabad (though afterthoughts suggest that Pakistan may take its spillway hangover to the Court of Arbitration that Treaty permits).

Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad went to the Baglihar site a day after and was showered petals by hundreds of residents and workers.

In fact, the victory to the two parties emanated from the last but one paragraph of the report: “In conclusion, having considered the content of his decision, paragraph 10 of Annexure F which gives him discretion in “special circumstances” and the practice of international tribunals, the NE decides to share the costs equally among the parties”.

In the post script, Prof Lafitte explains his decision: “The NE considers that his decision has not been rendered against one or the other party.”

His opinion is that, in fact, specific parties emerge successfully from the treatment of this difference: the Authors of the Treaty. The Treaty is the successful document”. Long live the Treaty. Long live the Peace Process.