The heat is on

India’s climate change negotiators were understandably outraged by the contents of a recent confidential note from environment minister Jairam Ramesh to prime minister Manmohan Singh. The note, mysteriously “leaked’’ for public consumption, proposed what would have amounted to a U-turn in India’s negotiating position on climate change.

As storm clouds gathered (one top negotiator wanted to resign immediately and the Congress party refused to endorse the proposals), the PM’s office moved quickly to cap the controversy. It clarified that the note was only a discussion paper, not government policy.

The PMO’s attempt to clear the air has only succeeded in creating confusion. By describing Ramesh’s note as a discussion paper, the PMO seems to be suggesting that the issue is open to debate and review. Is the government then contemplating a shift in India’s position before the December Copenhagen meet where a new roadmap will be drawn to address the critical question of global warming? Was Ramesh’s note a trial balloon, floated to gauge public opinion before making the shift?

Or was the note part of a turf war between a pro-active environment minister intent on grabbing a lead role in the international debate on this century’s most important challenge and diplomats already in the thick of ongoing negotiations?

The questions need answers quickly. As the countdown to the Copenhagen conference begins and negotiators from the developed and developing world move into top gear for the showdown that seems inevitable, it is essential that India is not seen as faltering before the finishing line.

Any misstep at this critical juncture has implications not only for our growth and development as a leading emerging economy but also for our aspirations as a global player of substance.

India’s position in the runup deliberations before the Copenhagen meet places us squarely with the G-77 and China on two key demands: one, that developed countries agree to deep internationally binding cuts in carbon emissions and two, that mitigation targets for developing nations be accompanied by cheap and easy access to green technologies.

The argument of “common but differentiated responsibility’’ flows out of our need to maintain growth trajectory while simultaneously addressing the effects of global warming on our climate, ecology, agriculture and other sectors. The position has evolved after intensive internal debates by successive governments in conjunction with other developing countries, especially the emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and China.
The suggestion, thrown in almost casually at the end of Ramesh’s controversial note, that India “must not stick to G-77 alone and must realise that it is now embedded in G-20’’ is patently absurd and naive. It also betrays profound ignorance of the dynamics of international power equations.

If India has been invited to sit at the international high table of the G-20 today, it’s because we are poised to be an economic powerhouse of the 21st century. If the rich and powerful of the G-20 listen to what we say intently, it’s because we, together with other emerging economies, have carved out an important space for ourselves at the negotiating table by standing united on key issues.

If the developed nations, led by the United States and the European Union, are trying to woo, pressurise and strongarm us into re-aligning our position so that it conforms with theirs, it’s only because prising India out of the G-77 will hobble an important counterveiling force by depriving it of one of its main support pillars.

The diplomatic and political consequences of crossing the floor are enormous. The ongoing climate conference in Barcelona has seen major fireworks as members of the G-77 put up a brave fight to secure their right to economic growth and development.

Abandoning the coalition at this point will be seen a betrayal of everything that India has ever stood for. The inevitable isolation from our traditional constituency will have a spillover effect at other international fora, the most critical of which is the World Trade Organisation where the developed and developing countries are in the throes of the Doha Development Round of negotiations for equitable terms of trade.

It is ironic that China, which is within blinking distance of joining the ranks of the developed nations, is making an aggressive bid to assume leadership of the developing world through huge investments in Africa and Latin America. A section of policymakers here, on the other hand, seems to have bought into the glamour of sitting at the high table and rubbing shoulders with the rich and the powerful at the cost of dumping old friends.

As the Congress attempts to revive Indira Gandhi’s legacy, its government would do well to remember her mastery over international power play. She had many warts but she left behind a strong legacy in the G-77 by honing it into a diplomatic instrument of considerable influence. There is no place for eager-to-please Uncle Toms in the emerging brave new world.