Category: 2. World

– Advertisement –

By Rehan Khan

ISLAMABAD, August 13 (APP):Uzbekistan is setting a regional benchmark in water resource management, with ambitious targets to offset climate-induced shortages through large-scale conservation, infrastructure upgrades and digital innovation.

Recalling concerns raised a decade ago by international experts over the impact of climate change, reduced rainfall and melting glaciers on Central Asia’s water supply, Uzbekistan’s Minister of Water Management, Shavkat Khamrayev, said projections had warned of a 5 percent drop in water resources by 2025 and 10 percent by 2030.

“President Shavkat Mirziyoyev has set a crucial task – to ensure water access for the population and compensate for deficits caused by climate change,” Khamrayev said.

Thanks to a series of reforms, the country saved 7 billion cubic meters of water in 2023 and 8 billion in 2024, with 10 billion projected for 2025 – matching earlier shortage forecasts. By 2030, annual savings are expected to reach 15 billion cubic meters.

Infrastructure projects have already delivered visible change in cities such as Nukus and Gulistan, where canal lining, drainage systems, and vertical wells have lowered groundwater levels, eliminated flooding threats, and improved irrigation. Similar projects in Urgench, Naryn, and across multiple regions — backed by financing from the Islamic Development Bank, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank — have improved water flow efficiency and reduced reliance on costly pumping stations.

With natural channels losing an estimated 14 billion cubic meters of water annually, 2024 was declared a “breakthrough year” for canal lining. The state allocated 676.7 billion soums to reconstruct 555 km of canals, while farms and clusters rehabilitated 13,500 km of internal irrigation networks.

Over the past seven years, water-saving technologies such as drip irrigation have been deployed across nearly half of Uzbekistan’s 4.3 million hectares of irrigated land. Local manufacturing of equipment – which expanded from just three producers in 2019 to over 60 today – has cut costs and ensured maintenance support.

Electricity consumption in the water sector has fallen from 8.3 billion kWh in 2017 to 6.5 billion in 2024, even as major pumping stations were modernized. In 2025, the government will prioritize upgrading medium and small pumps to further reduce costs.

Uzbekistan has embraced digitalization as a cornerstone of transparency and efficiency. Over 13,000 water-gauging stations now operate under the “Smart Water” system, groundwater is monitored via 10,296 reclamation wells, and nearly 1,750 pumping stations are equipped with automated water consumption controls.

Under the President’s “From Poverty to Prosperity” initiative, 3.2 trillion soums have been allocated to improve irrigation, electricity, internet access, roads, and other infrastructure in 1,000 underdeveloped mahallas. In 2025, 1,882 km of irrigation networks, 380 km of pipelines, and 818 wells will be completed, improving water supply for 467,000 households.

Minister Khamrayev said Uzbekistan’s vision extends beyond national borders. “We call for united efforts to launch a Regional Program for the Introduction of Water-Saving Technologies in Central Asia,” he stated, noting that sustainable water management is vital for regional peace, prosperity, and food security.

PARIS: A heat wave gripped parts of Europe on Monday, sending temperatures up to 43 degrees Celsius in southern France and increasing risks of wildfires in wine country, while Bulgaria suffered blazes along its southern borders and Hungary saw record-breaking weekend temperatures.

Scientists say Europe is becoming the world’s fastest-warming continent.

According to the UK-based Carbon Brief, 2025 is predicted to be the second- or third-warmest year on record. Europe’s land temperatures have risen about 2.3 C above

pre-industrial levels, nearly twice the global rate, intensifying heatwaves, the EU’s Copernicus climate service reports. EU data show burned area across the continent is already far above the long-term average this summer, with major outbreaks in Spain, Portugal and deadly blazes in Greece since late June.

The UK’s Met Office expects a heatwave, the fourth this summer, to peak around 33C in London on Tuesday. The UK Health Security Agency issued a yellow health alert for older adults and those with medical conditions.

In France’s Aude department, a patchwork of vineyards and Mediterranean scrubland, hundreds of firefighters remained in the rolling wine country guarding the edges of a massive, deadly blaze that scorched 16,000 hectares last week. Officials say the fire is under control but warn it will not be fully extinguished for weeks, with hot spots still smoldering and at risk of reigniting.

On Monday, the French national weather authority, Météo-France, placed 12 departments on red alert, the country’s highest heat warning, anticipating exceptional heat stretching from the Atlantic coast to the Mediterranean plains. Forty-one other departments were under lower-level orange alerts, as was the neighboring microstate of Andorra, between France and Spain.

“Don’t be fooled — this isn’t ‘normal, it’s summer.’ It’s not normal, it’s a nightmare,” agricultural climatologist Serge Zaka, told BFMTV from Montauban in France’s Tarn-et-Garonne department, where the blistering heat pressed relentlessly throughout the day.

Social media images showed shuttered streets in Valence, residents shielding windows with foil to reflect the light, and tourists huddling under umbrellas along the Garonne in Toulouse. Across the south, cafe terraces stood empty as people sought cooler corners indoors.

The red alert in France has been issued only eight times since it was created in 2004 after a deadly summer the year

before. It is reserved for extreme, prolonged heat with major health risks and the potential to disrupt daily life. The designation gives local officials powers to cancel outdoor events, close public venues and alter school or summer camp schedules.

Australia’s prime minister has accused his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu of being “in denial” over the consequences of the war in Gaza.

Anthony Albanese on Monday announced his country would recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September, following similar moves by the UK, France and Canada.

Albanese said frustration with the Israeli government had played a role in the move, saying Australians “want to see the killing and the cycle of violence stop”.

Israel, under increasing pressure to end the war in Gaza, has said recognising a Palestinian state “rewards terrorism” and Netanyahu called the decision taken by Australia and other allies “shameful”.

Netanyahu and his government have been facing growing condemnation over reports of starvation in Gaza.

Five people have died from malnutrition in the past 24 hours, including one child, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, bringing the total number of malnutrition deaths to 222 – including 101 children.

Israel denies there is starvation in Gaza and has accused UN agencies of not picking up aid at the borders and delivering it. The UN has rejected this, saying it faces obstacles and delays while collecting aid from Israeli-controlled border zones.

Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday, Albanese said he had spoken to PM Netanyahu last Thursday to inform him of Australia’s decision.

“The stopping of aid that we’ve seen and then the loss of life that we’re seeing around those aid distribution points, where people queuing for food and water are losing their lives, is just completely unacceptable. And we have said that,” he said.

“I spoke with PM Netanyahu. He again reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well, which is to be in denial about the consequences that are occurring for innocent people.”

Albanese had earlier said the decision to recognise a Palestinian state was made after receiving commitments from the Palestinian Authority (PA), which controls parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, that Hamas would play no role in any future state

The move has drawn a mixed response in Australia, with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry calling it a “betrayal”, and some Palestinian activists saying it doesn’t go far enough.

Right-leaning opposition leader Sussan Ley said the decision was “disrespectful” to the US, a key Australian ally.

Earlier this month, a pro-Palestinian protest drew at least 90,000 supporters who walked across Sydney Harbour Bridge, a day after a court ruling allowed the demonstration to happen.

Netanyahu said in a press conference over the weekend that it was “shameful” for countries including Australia to recognise a Palestinian state.

“They know what they would do if, right next to Melbourne or right next to Sydney, you had this horrific attack. I think you would do at least what we’re doing.”

More than 61,000 people have been killed as a result of Israel’s military campaign since 7 October, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Israel launched the offensive in response to the Hamas-led attack on 7 October, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Monday said the latest award on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), rendered by Court of Arbitration, is in line with Pakistan’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the treaty, which India has threatened to put in abeyance.

India announced in April it was putting the 1960 World Bank-mediated treaty, which ensures water for 80 percent of Pakistani farms, in abeyance a day after an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that New Delhi blamed on Pakistan, an allegation Islamabad denies. Pakistan has previously said the treaty has no provision for one side to unilaterally pull back and that any blocking of river water flowing to Pakistan will be considered “an act of war.”

The IWT grants Pakistan rights to the Indus basin’s western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — for irrigation, drinking, and non-consumptive uses like hydropower, while India controls the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — for unrestricted use but must not significantly alter their flow. India can use the western rivers for limited purposes such as power generation and irrigation, without storing or diverting large volumes, according to the agreement.

In a statement issued on Monday, Pakistan’s foreign office said it welcomed the award rendered by the Court of Arbitration on Aug. 8 on issues of general interpretation of the IWT, explaining the designed criteria for the new run-of-river hydropower projects to be constructed by India on the western rivers of Chenab, Jhelum and Indus. New Delhi has not yet commented on the development.

“In a significant finding, the Court has declared that India shall ‘let flow’ the waters of the western rivers for Pakistan’s unrestricted use. In that connection, the specified exceptions for generation of hydro-electric plants must conform strictly to the requirements laid down in the Treaty, rather than to what India might consider an ‘ideal’ or ‘best practices’ approach,” the foreign office statement read.

“​The Court’s findings on low-level outlets, gated spillways, intakes for the turbines, and free-board are in line with Pakistan’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Treaty. The Award also limits India from maximizing the pondage volume.”

The South Asian neighbors have been arguing over hydroelectric projects on the shared Indus river and its tributaries for decades, with Pakistan complaining that India’s planned hydropower dams will cut its flows.

Notably, the Court observed that the awards of a Court of Arbitration are “final and binding on the parties (India and Pakistan),” and have a controlling legal effect on subsequent Courts of Arbitration and neutral experts, according to the Pakistani foreign office.

Recognizing Pakistan’s vulnerability as the downstream riparian, the Court has further observed that the object and purpose of the Indus Waters Treaty, as it relates to the western rivers, is to de-limit the two states’ respective rights and obligations, in conjunction with mutual cooperation and effective dispute resolutions procedures. 

“The award carries special significance in the wake of India’s recent announcement to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, and its earlier decision to boycott the proceedings of the Court of Arbitration. It is an endorsement of Pakistan’s historical stance on the afore-stated issues,” the foreign office said.

“Pakistan remains committed to full implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty. It also expects India to immediately resume the normal functioning of the Treaty, and faithfully implement the award announced by the Court of Arbitration.”

After Donald Trump announced punishing tariffs totalling over 50 per cent on Indian imports, big manufacturers in the world’s most populous country were deluged with anxious calls from investors and US clients.

Gokaldas Exports, a garment maker that generates half its revenues exporting from India to the US, where it supplies retailers including Walmart, Gap and Abercrombie & Fitch, said customers were asking if it could shift production elsewhere.

“It’s been insane — at 50 per cent tariff there is no business to be done,” said Sivaramakrishnan Ganapathi, the managing director of Gokaldas. “In the interim, brands are saying they’ll scale down their sourcing from India . . . they have options to go to Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka.”

A broad section of Indian industry is in panic mode after the US president last Wednesday announced an additional 25 per cent rate on the country’s imports to be levied from August 27 on top of a 25 per cent duty imposed earlier this month.

Unless New Delhi can strike a deal with Washington, crucial sectors could be decimated, jeopardising Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” push to turn the country into a manufacturing supply chain alternative to China.

Trump, who has previously denounced India as a “tariff king”, blamed New Delhi’s purchases of Russian weapons and oil for the additional rate, which puts at risk India’s largest export market, worth $87bn in the year to the end of March.

Some big-ticket export categories such as pharmaceuticals and smartphones are exempt for now from the US tariffs and may face separate levies. But rating agency Moody’s has warned that if the 50 per cent rate sticks beyond 2025, the yawning tariff gap with the rest of Asia would “severely curtail” India’s manufacturing ambitions and even prompt some foreign direct investors to pull out of the country.

The 50 per cent rate would put US tariffs on Indian imports on a par with Brazil and much higher than China’s 30 per cent and Vietnam’s 20 per cent.

Pratik Patel, chair of Jash Engineering, an Indore-based manufacturer of water systems equipment that generates more than a third of revenues in the US, told analysts that the tariff uncertainty was its “biggest problem today”.

“This puts a lot of pressure on the orders which we have already taken from America. We are talking to our clients,” he said.

Economists at Nomura said the announced tariffs would be “akin to a trade embargo” that could devastate smaller businesses in thin-margin sectors, undermining India’s drive to integrate more deeply into global supply networks.

Ajay Srivastava, a trade policy expert with the Global Trade Research Initiative in New Delhi, said the worst-hit export sectors, including apparel, jewellery, carpets and shrimp, could see US sales fall 50-70 per cent.

The tariff “will essentially cut off most Indian exports to the US”, said Wendy Cutler, vice-president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former deputy US trade representative.

Some Indian companies were under strain even before Trump imposed the extra 25 per cent tariff last week.

“Tariff-related uncertainty is definitely something that nobody has ever experienced before,” Amit Kalyani, vice-chair of automotive components and armaments manufacturer Bharat Forge, told analysts just before the US president announced the additional rate.

Bharat Forge was “engaged with our customers in finding a resolution”, he said.

Sudhir Sekhri, chair of India’s Apparel Export Promotion Council, said the tariffs could cost the sector $5bn in lost sales over the next seven months, equivalent to about half of apparel and textile exports to the US in the 2023-24 financial year.

“The impact would be tremendous,” he said. “We believe that these tariffs are not sustainable, and they do not make any economic sense either.”

Modi has not commented on whether he might reduce or stop oil imports from Russia to appease Trump. But he has insisted that India would “never compromise on the interests of farmers, fishermen and dairy farmers”, signalling a tough stance on India’s highly protected agricultural markets, a sticking point in talks with Washington.

India’s economy, the fastest-growing among major nations, is less reliant on exports than many Asian peers, insulating it somewhat from US trade actions.

Despite high-profile “Make in India” investments from companies such as Apple, manufacturing’s share of GDP has remained stuck at about 14 per cent since Modi took power in 2014, well short of the 25 per cent target he set then for 2025.

That may partly explain why Indian markets have reacted relatively calmly to the new tariffs. One Mumbai banker said many investors saw them as “a negotiating tactic”. Another believed an agreement to avert them would be reached in the crucial final week of August.

The US tariffs presented “near-term headwinds” and companies would now need to explore new markets, said Shradha Suri Marwah, president of the Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India, which represents an industry that sends 27 per cent of its exports to the US.

Richard Rossow, chair on India and emerging Asia economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Indian manufacturers “will attempt to diversify their export markets”.

“Even if we find a pathway through the current trade travails, such tantrums will probably be an ever-present part of US policy for the remaining three and a half years of the Trump administration — and perhaps beyond,” Rossow said.

But Ganapathi at Gokaldas said it would be difficult to swiftly pivot to new markets.

“If we try hard, we could do it in two years, but it’ll come at a cost of margin . . . new buyers would typically tend to ask for lower pricing, they will also sense desperation,” he said, adding he hoped India’s government realised shifting to a manufacturing-oriented economy required “good trade relationships”.

“The US is and will always remain a large market and if that gets excluded . . . then we do have a humongous problem,” Ganapathi said.

Uncertainty, and no little trepidation, surrounds the upcoming Trump-Putin meeting on Friday 15 August in Alaska.

While Trump has (for now) ruled out attendance at the meeting by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, it’s still not clear what is on the negotiating table.

There is a lot at stake – most immediately for Ukraine but also for broader European security – and the auguries aren’t encouraging.

Trump says his objective is to end the fighting, and evidently sees his face-to-face meeting with Putin on Friday as key to this. While talk of possible “land-swaps” and recovering “prime oceanfront land” for Ukraine suggests the US President is in deal-making mode, Trump has also described Friday’s encounter with Putin as just a “feel-out” meeting, suggesting more a preliminary encounter.

Trump’s sudden and unexpected decision late last week to meet with Putin – on the very day his self-imposed deadline to Putin to agree to a ceasefire or face more sanctions was due to expire – was at once characteristic of his mercurial operating style, but also his conviction that only the two leaders themselves could resolve the matter.

For its part, Europe, caught off balance by the announcement of the summit, has been scrambling, fearful of being presented with a done deal.

Perhaps the best outcome that can realistically be expected is for a ceasefire along the current line of contact to end the fighting, at least for now.

European leaders have reiterated their strong support for Ukraine, insisting that Kyiv must be involved in any negotiations concerning Ukraine’s security. Together with Zelenskyy, they plan to hold a “virtual” meeting with Trump on Wednesday this week, 13 August, seeking to shape the outcomes of the summit. Zelenskyy has declared that any agreement reached at the summit without input from Kyiv would amount to “dead decisions”. Kyiv sees no evidence on the battlefield that Russia is ready to end the fighting – indeed warning that any concessions to Putin would only encourage Russia to continue the war.

Yet Kyiv (and its European backers) face a dilemma: while wary of being presented with an unpalatable deal, they don’t want to risk angering Washington by appearing to be the obstacle to a negotiated agreement.

For Putin, Washington’s agreement to hold the summit is itself a gift – an unrequited concession. Such meetings, echoing past US-Soviet high-level encounters, give the Russian leader the status and respect as an equal partner he craves, and accords with Putin’s view of how great powers should dispose of world affairs between themselves, deciding spheres of influence.

Moreover, Washington’s comments to media, suggesting possible “territorial swaps” before the summit has even occurred, and absent any credible signs of Russia’s willingness to stop the fighting, fuels unfortunate speculation that the talks will be held on Moscow’s terms.

To be sure, Kyiv may indeed have to accept Russian de facto control of parts of eastern Ukraine as part of any eventual settlement to end the fighting. But to concede this likelihood up front is a puzzling negotiating tactic. It will alarm those who suspect that Ukraine, and Washington’s European allies, will be presented with a fait accompli, and fuel speculation that the administration’s main objective is to reach a quick deal, and promote normalisation of relations with Russia.

More details may emerge over coming days that provide greater reassurance about how the United States will be approaching Friday’s summit. But perhaps the best outcome that can realistically be expected is for a ceasefire along the current line of contact to end the fighting, at least for now. Such a ceasefire would certainly offer a welcome respite for Ukraine from the constant barrage of damaging missile and drone attacks on its troops, its civilian population and infrastructure.

But the hard work of converting any ceasefire into some kind of longer-term settlement would remain. And there should be no illusions about how challenging this will prove.

Bear in mind that Russia too would benefit from a ceasefire, allowing it to reconstitute its forces and relieve pressure on its overheating economy – especially if it were accompanied by a relaxation of Western sanctions. And given the Kremlin’s near-complete control of the information space within Russia, underpinned by its formidable internal security apparatus, Moscow can spin any outcome to the conflict in Ukraine as a victory for Russia.

Moreover, there are no grounds to suppose that Putin has resiled from his core objective of bringing Ukraine to heel, installing a more pliable government in Kyiv and bringing Ukraine back firmly within Russia’s sphere of influence. This was underscored in May during Russia’s latest (abortive) talks with Ukraine in Istanbul, where Moscow reiterated its maximalist demands: full control of the four territories it has annexed in eastern Ukraine (plus Crimea), Ukrainian neutrality and repudiation of NATO membership aspirations, demilitarisation, and “denazification”.

More broadly, Russia remains intent on revising the post-Cold War European security framework as set out in Moscow’s draft treaties in December 2021 – including the drawdown of forward-deployed NATO forces in its eastern member states.

At best, then, the upcoming summit in Alaska might offer an end to the fighting in Ukraine – at least for now. But this will only be the start of a long and arduous process, the outcome of which will remain crucial, not only for the future of Ukraine but also for wider European and global security.