A spot of trouble in the subcontinent

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, July 20, 2009 - 12:35 PM Share

Yesterday there was a small but very public disagreement between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh:

[T]he clash between developed and developing countries over climate change intruded on the high-profile photo opportunity midway through Clinton's three-day tour of India. Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh complained about U.S. pressure to cut a worldwide deal, and Clinton countered that the Obama administration's push for a binding agreement would not sacrifice India's economic growth.

As dozens of cameras recorded the scene, Ramesh declared that India would not commit to a deal that would require it to meet targets to reduce emissions. "It is not true that India is running away from mitigation," he said. But "India's position, let me be clear, is that we are simply not in the position to take legally binding emissions targets."

"No one wants to in any way stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions more out of poverty," Clinton responded. "We also believe that there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainability that will lower significantly the carbon footprint."

Both sides appeared to be playing to the Indian audience, with Ramesh taking the opportunity to reinforce India's bottom line.

Now, on the one hand, I'm shocked, shocked that the great powers have some disagreement over global warming.  And it should be noted that the rest of Clinton's India trip seems to have gone pretty well. 

That said, I'm also not surprised that the Indians are acting surly towards the Americans.  India did quite well uner the Bush administration on several dimensions.  On the security front, India and U.S. interests converged on anti-terrorism and nonproliferation.  On the economic front, the Bush administration refrained from criticizing the offshore outsourcing phenomenon that helped boost India's growth. 

The Obama administration has not been hostile towards India, but I think they have taken the state of bilateral relations for granted.  They've also committed a series of small blunders that riled New Delhi.  This began with the attempt to have special envoy Richard Holbrooke's remit include India, and includes the administration's appointment of Ellen Tauscher to be the new Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (Tauscher led the fight against the India nuclear accord in the House).

It looks like Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be the first foreign dignitary to be the guest of President Obama for a state, so it's not like relations with New Delhi are being significantly downgraded.  Still, I'd expect little flare-ups like the one between Ramesh and Clinton to occur from time to time -- and it's not just about atmospherics. 

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, HILLARY CLINTON, INDIA, OBAMA, UNITED STATES
 

KXB

1:47 PM ET

July 20, 2009

It's a matter of priorities

It's not that Indians do not have environmental concerns. As the standard of living increases, Indians are demanding a cleaner environment. Except, their demands are for more tangible matters - clean drinking water, preventing the erosion of farmland, curbing the excessive use of fertilizers which seep into water tables, dealing with air pollution, etc. The city of Kolkata still does not have a modern water treat facility for handling waste water - in 2009! Something like climate change, where Western advocates warn of the dangers of a 2 degree rise in temperature, just does not resonate with a population that deals with triple digit summer heat.

 

BLUE13326

2:32 PM ET

July 20, 2009

Can we now call this an

Can we now call this an established pattern?

We apologize for our past sins, whether it's to Latin America, the 'Muslim world', Iran, Russia, and most recently for global warming, and the 'aggrieved parties' takes this as weakness and digs in their heels, taking a harder stance than previous?

It's not like we haven't tried this foreign policy shtick before.

If Obama gets everything else wrong in foreign affairs (as seems very possible), he really needs to get India right.

 

SABER

4:55 PM ET

July 20, 2009

@blue13326

Past sins aside, the "developed" west continues to pollute at a rate 20 times that of India (2004 per capita emissions in metric tons). There is no equity in asking developing nations to cut emissions when what the west is doing is so blatantly wrong. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Developing nations still struggling to find their place in the world will probably bow to wester pressure and make commitments. If you confront stronger developing nations like China with a s(h)tick, they will politely tell you what to do with it.

 

BRETT

6:13 PM ET

July 20, 2009

Past sins aside, the

Past sins aside, the "developed" west continues to pollute at a rate 20 times that of India (2004 per capita emissions in metric tons). There is no equity in asking developing nations to cut emissions when what the west is doing is so blatantly wrong. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.

I'm all in favor of working towards a mandatory convergence on per capita emissions (which, in the case of the Developed Nations, will probably involve steep per capita cuts), but ultimately the per capita emissions don't matter with regards to the climate - the amount of emissions in absolute terms does, and China is the single largest CO2 polluter in the world.

Moreover, you're not going to get a full American commitment to cut emissions drastically without some type of limit on Chinese and Indian emissions, even if it is only a strict per capita emissions limit - it just won't keep political support.

 

BRETT

6:10 PM ET

July 20, 2009

This really isn't a

This really isn't a surprising stance coming from the Indians; they and the Chinese have been pretty forthright in refusing to commit to any binding emissions target. The only real difference is that Bush, who was skeptical at best towards global warming period, never pushed them on it.

 

FOOBARISTA

5:24 AM ET

July 22, 2009

Kyoto-style "management" is silly and should die

The only reasonable stance to AGW is a sort of Pascal's bet that it won't happen. The numerous other benefits to moving to a post-hydrocarbon world such as a vast reduction of the power of petro-dictators/Russia are reason enough for the US and Europe to get away from oil. This is why I support a fairly high gasoline tax, but not a general carbon tax (and certainly not Cap'n Trade, which hasn't worked in Europe and will just make General Electric and Goldman Sachs richer). The gas tax should be offset with a revenue-neutral, front-loaded reduction in the payroll tax to mitigate its regressive nature.

This, together with a drive to build nuclear plants, and research into other tech that makes things cheaper.

Once we've figured relatively cheap post-carbon tech, other countries will adapt it quickly. But they won't and shouldn't consent to the "management" approach of the Kyotians.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More