Would India and China Align Ever Even after Suceeding Together in Formulating Non Binding COPENHAGEN Accord?

Would India and China Align Ever Even  after Suceeding Together in Formulating Non Binding COPENHAGEN Accord?


Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams, chapter 433

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/

Chapter 1: China, India, and the New World Order

by admin on June 2, 2006

Christopher Flavin and Gary Gardner

China and India are on the verge of becoming far more than economic powers. (See Table 1-1, p. 7.) These two countries are now also planetary powers that are shaping the global biosphere and are therefore central to whether the world succeeds in building a healthy, prosperous, and environmentally sustainable future for the next generation. As China and India become world-class economies, they are set to join already industrialized nations as major consumers of resources and polluters of local and global ecosystems. And while the largest burden of these developments will fall on China and India themselves, the global impact is clear. (See Table 1-4, p. 16.)

The rise of China and India illustrates more clearly than any development in recent memory that the western, resource-intensive economic model is simply not capable of meeting the growing needs of more than 8 billion people in the twenty-first century. Major shifts in resource use, technologies, policies, and even basic values are needed. The political ambivalence toward today's development models that now characterizes China, India, the United States, and most other countries will need to give way to a full-fledged commitment to prosper within the limits imposed by nature.

With their growing economies, expanding ecological footprints, and rising political influence, China and India will need to be a part of any plausible global effort to build a sustainable world economy. But the call for wholesale change in policies needs to sound just as loudly in the United States, whose footprint is the largest of all. Indeed, the prospects for success in this venture are greatest if these three planetary powers pull together to forge a new vision for sustainable economic development in the twenty-first century.

Christopher Flavin is President of the Worldwatch Institute. Gary Gardner is Director of Research at the Institute.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3992

Indo-China's convergence of interests in turbulent times
20 Dec 2009, 0215 hrs IST, Nirmala Ganapathy & Shantanu Nandan Sharma, ET Bureau

After months of turbulence in bilateral ties, India

and China have started preparations to mark 60 years of diplomatic ties next year. President

Pratibha Patil will be visiting China in April next year.

The bid to mark the anniversary can be passed off as soft diplomacy that does nothing to address the contentious issues at the heart of the relationship. But after months of tension over the border dispute and visa issues, it is expected to cool down temperatures.

There is already a perceptible move to improve the atmospherics. India's ambassador to China S Jaishankar in an address at the Sichuan University in China set the ball rolling by listing out New Delhi's expectation from Beijing. "What are Indian expectations of China at this stage? I would sum it up as displaying sensitivity on what matters most to Indians, while accepting that we cannot agree on all issues just yet... It is important as well to keep reminding ourselves that India and China continue

to have a substantial convergence of interests," he said. He further acknowledged the border dispute but says that it should not be "allowed to impede either functional bilateral co-operation or convergence on global issues."

A reciprocal gesture is now expected from the Chinese side. In fact, the importance of Sino-Indian unity, especially on the international stage, has been brought home by Copenhagen where the two countries have demonstrated a strong bonding to ensure that developed countries do not extract unilateral concessions from the developing ones. "India and China have to cooperate. There is no way out. There are global and multilateral issues on which the two countries have to cooperate and not let differences interfere in the main momentum of bilateral ties," says Wang Yaodong, South Asia bureau chief of the Chinese newspaper Wen Hui Daily.

Yes, climate change has broken the ice where India and China have forged common ground. Significantly, the global economic downturn has also forced developed nations to recognise the potential of the two countries bringing them together in some common economic platforms.

Adds Rajat M Nag, managing director general of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), "Already, China and India are important players in G-20. There are issues between them, but keeping in mind the larger picture, we are going to see more co-operation between India and China".

The momentum in trade has not slowed down through the climate of discontentment. China remains the largest trading partner for India with bilateral trade surpassing $40b, and the new target is as high as $60b by 2010.

But the speed at which the trade volume has risen over the years has injected caution on India's part even on initiating a free trade agreement with China. A recent ban on Chinese toys, clampdown on Chinese cellphones in the grey market for security reasons and stricter visa norms have all been part of the growing trade engagement.

But these issues are not seen as stumbling blocks even though experts caution against allowing protectionist tendencies to set in. "We need to make our manufacturing sector globally competitive. Being protectionist is not the right response at this juncture. India's services sector has already been doing well, and it can tap the market in China too," says Dr Rajiv Kumar, the director and chief executive of Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), a non-profit policy research outfit.

But there is a consensus that as the two countries negotiate a political settlement for the border dispute, there is a need to focus on the positive areas. "We have to accept that there are constraints. But at the same time we can't perpetually believe that US is the only landing port for both India and China. We need to depend on each other's economies as well," said strategic analyst C Uday Bhaskar. "We can't have a relationship which is purely black and white."
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/features/the-sunday-et/special-report/Indo-Chinas-convergence-of-interests-in-turbulent-times/articleshow/5357540.cms

India, China GDP expansion dominates third quarter world growth

20 Dec 2009, 0400 hrs IST, John Ross,

India and China, without ambiguity, are the economies which have come most strongly through the financial crisis. Their year-on-year GDP

India's slow road to economic reform Stimulus exit plans for Asia's big 5

expansion, 7.9% and 8.9%, respectively, dominates third quarter world growth. Each slowed significantly only immediately after September 2008. Even then, their growth rates remained high by any standards other than their own.

Such outcomes added the reality that India and China have the greatest counter-cyclical economic strength to the well known one that they have the greatest potential for longer term economic growth. Such a combination is evidently of exceptional practical and theoretical economic importance for other countries to study.

In reality both this counter-cyclical strength and the long-term growth potential are rooted in the same factors. To understand these clearly, however, it is necessary to examine the real macro-economic consequences of the financial crisis as supposed to various myths concerning it.

The present international recession is not driven by a supposed downturn of US consumers — which has factually not occurred. Between the third quarters of 2008 and 2009 US GDP declined by $280 billion.

But US personal consumption fell by only $80 billion. In contrast US fixed investment fell by $552 billion or 196% of the decline in GDP — statistically possible as improvement of the US balance of trade partially offset it.

That what occurred in the international financial crisis is an investment collapse is shown in an extreme form in the US but is also clear in the other major economies. With the exception of Germany, where the biggest factor has been an export drop, fall in investment accounts for the majority of the decline in GDP in all major economies — 52% in the UK%, 53% in Japan, 77% in Italy, and 99% in France. Taking the G7 economies together the figure is 77%.

In contrast, the strength of India and China has been that their extremely high rates of investment have not declined significantly. At 35% and 42% of GDP, respectively, the levels of gross domestic fixed capital formation in India and China are the highest in the world. It is rising rates of investment in India and China, as opposed to declines in Japan and South Korea, that have led the former to replace the latter as Asia's powerhouses.

There is nothing mysterious about this development. Modern econometric research, led by Angus Maddison and Dale Jorgenson, and codified in the revised systems of National Accounts adopted by both the OECD and US, has swept aside the idea that technological change or similar factors are the primary source of economic growth.

It has established that, provided an economy maintains an external facing orientation, it is accumulation of fixed capital that is the single biggest factor in economic growth.

India and China's success in confronting the financial crisis simply confirms that their ability to maintain very high investment rates allows them to resist negative cyclical trends as well as maintain the world's highest growth rates. A second condition for success however will be whether they are able to continue to calibrate the stimulation of domestic demand with the new reality of the external market which their very success has created.

Annual percentage growth in India and China has long exceeded the US (fig 2). Now the combination of India and China has overtaken the US as the primary quantitative source of world growth.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/India-China-dominate-world-growth/articleshow/5357615.cms

Copenhagen Accord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout.

The Copenhagen Accord is the document that delegates at the United Nations Climate Change Conference agreed to "take note of" at the final plenary session of the Conference on 18 December 2009. The BBC immediately reported that its status and legal implications were unclear.^[1]

Contents [hide] 1 Summary 2 The Danish Text 3 Criticisms of the Accord 4 See also 5 References 6 External links 6.1 Texts 6.2 Coverage

[edit] Summary

This Encyclopedias don't include copies of lengthy primary sources. Summarize instead! contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by removing excessive quotations or transferring them to Wikiquote. Help is available.

Text of the Accord

The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of delegation present at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen,

In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2,Being guided by the principles and provisions of the Convention,Noting the results of work done by the two Ad hoc Working Groups,Endorsing decision x/CP.15 on the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Actionand decision x/CMP.5 that requests the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to continue its work,

Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.

2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economywide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Least developed countries and small island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II. These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.

7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.

10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacitybuilding, technology development and transfer.

11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.

12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Convention's ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius. ^[2]

[edit] The Danish Text

At the Conference, a leaked document known as "The Danish Text" started an argument between developed and developing nations. The document was subtitled as "The Copenhagen Agreement", proposes measures to keep average global temperature rises to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Developing countries have reacted over the document saying that the developed countries had worked behind closed doors and made an agreement according to their wish without the consent of the Developing nations. Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, speaker of the G77-group, has said, "It's an incredibly imbalanced text intended to subvert, absolutely and completely, two years of negotiations. It does not recognize the proposals and the voice of developing countries,". ^[3] According to the Guardian, an analysis of the document by developing countries lists the following critical issues: ^[4]

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

[edit] Criticisms of the Accord

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Major opposition to the accord exists, to the extent that most countries participating at the Copenhagen Summit remain opposed to it and have chosen only to "acknowledge/take note of" it. Some of the key criticisms include:

• The accord is not legally binding.
• The accord sets no real targets to achieve in emissions reductions.
• The accord was only drafted by 5 countries.
• The deadline for assessment of the accord was drafted as 6 years, by 2015.
• The mobilisation of USD &100 billion dollars per year to developing countries will not be fully in place until 2020.
• The accord falsely states that all Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of delegation present at the conference, agreed on the accord. It was merely acknowledged by most participants.

It has also been criticised by the head of the G77 as only securing the economic security of a few nations.

[edit] See also

• Kyoto Protocol
• United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

[edit] References

1. ^ Climate summit recognises US deal, BBC News, 2009-12-19, retrieved 2009-12-19.
2. ^ UNFCCC:Text of Copenhagen Accord, 18 December 2009
3. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/09/danish.draft.climate.text.0850/
4. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

[edit] External links

[edit] Texts

• Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement, The "Danish Text"
• NGO Copenhagen treaty - narrative (Vol. 1), Narrative
• NGO Copenhagen treaty - legal text (Vol. 2), Legal text
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), September 15, 2009
• Copenhagen Accord, The New York Times

[edit] Coverage

• Copenhagen: Leaked draft deal widens rift between rich and poor nations, Guardian
• What Copenhagen Climate Treaty Might Look Like, NPR
• Kyoto Protocol seen extended in U.N. climate draft, Reuters

This United Nations-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v • d • e

[show] v • d • e Global warming and climate change [show]   Temperatures Instrumental record · Satellite record · Past 1,000 years · Since 1880 · Geologic record · Historical climatology · Paleoclimatology [show]   Causes Anthropogenic Attribution of recent climate change  · Aviation · Biofuel · Carbon dioxide · Fossil fuel · Global dimming · Global warming potential · Greenhouse effect · Greenhouse gases · Land use and forestry · Radiative forcing · Urban heat island Natural Albedo · Bond events · Cloud forcing · Glaciation · Global cooling · Ocean variability (AMO · ENSO · IOD · PDO) · Orbital variations · Orbital forcing · Solar variation · Volcanism Models Global climate model [show]   Opinion and controversy Global warming controversy · Scientific opinion on climate change · Scientists opposing the mainstream assessment [show]   Politics Politics United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC / FCCC) · Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) · Climate change denial [show]   Potential effects and issues General Climate change and agriculture · Drought · Economics of global warming · Fisheries and climate change · Glacier retreat · Mass extinction · Ozone depletion · Ocean acidification · Sea level rise · Season creep · Shutdown of thermohaline circulation By country Australia · India · United States [show]   Mitigation Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism · Joint Implementation · Bali roadmap Governmental European Climate Change Programme · United Kingdom Climate Change Programme · Oil phase-out in Sweden · Coal phase out Schemes Emissions trading · Personal carbon trading · Carbon tax · Carbon offset · Carbon credit · Carbon dioxide sink (carbon sequestration) · Cap and Share Energy conservation Efficient energy use · Renewable energy · Renewable energy commercialization · Renewable energy development · Soft energy path Other G8 Climate Change Roundtable · Individual and political action on climate change · Climate change mitigation scenarios [show]   Proposed adaptations Strategies Damming glacial lakes · Drought tolerance · Irrigation investment · Rainwater storage · Sustainable development · Weather control Programmes Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change · Land Allocation Decision Support System Category:Global warming · Category:Climate change · Glossary of climate change · Index of climate change articles

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord"

Categories: United Nations stubs

FACTBOX - World set to overshoot 2 Celsius climate limit

Reuters

Promised cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will put the world on a path to exceed a 2 Celsius rise in temperatures sought by a new "Copenhagen Accord" led by the United States and China, according to U.N. calculations.

A leaked note by the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat during U.N. talks in Copenhagen from Dec. 7 to18 says current pledges by rich and poor nations to restrain emissions put the world on track for a 3C rise above pre-industrial times.

Promised cuts in greenhouse gases by industrialised nations, mainly from burning fossil fuels, work out as a reduction of 14-18 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, according to Reuters calculations.

That is well short of cuts of between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 outlined by a U.N. panel of scientists in 2007 to avoid the worst of global warming such as droughts, heatwaves, species extinctions and rising seas.

In the same report, the panel also said that developing nations would have to have a "substantial deviation" from projected growth rates in emissions by 2020.

Following is an overview of current plans from the leaked Secretariat note:

INDUSTRIALISED NATIONS:

PERCENTAGE CUT BY 2020 VS 1990

Australia 3 - 23

Belarus 5 - 10

Canada 3

Croatia 6

European Union 20 - 30

Iceland 15

Japan 25

Liechtenstein 20 - 30

Monaco 20

New Zealand 10 - 20

Norway 30 - 40

Russia 22 - 25

Switzerland 20 - 30

Ukraine 20

United States 4

DEVELOPING NATIONS:

The Secretariat says that developing nations' 2020 emissions are harder to calculate because many promises hinge on rates of economic growth by 2020. The Secretariat note, however, gives an estimate of the amount of avoided emissions, compared with what would be "business as usual" without restrictions.

Brazil - reduce emissions by 36.1 to 38.1 percent by 2020 from business as usual, mainly by protecting the Amazon rainforest. Curb: 840-910 million tonnes.

Costa Rica - plans to be "carbon neutral" by 2021. Curb: 18.6 million tonnes

China - cut "carbon intensity" -- the amount of carbon emitted per unit of gross national product by between 40 and 45 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. Curb: 800-2,700 million tonnes

India - reduce carbon intensity by 20-25 percent below business as usual by 2020 from 2005 levels. Curb: 160 million tonnes

Indonesia - reduce emissions by 26 percent below business as usual and by 41 percent with international support. Curb: 800-1,200 million tonnes

Maldives - Aims to become "carbon neutral" eliminating all net emissions -- by 2019. Curb: N/A

Mexico - Plans to reduce emissions by 5 percent below business as usual by 2020. Curb: 20-180 million tonnes

South Korea - plans to reduce emissions by 2020 by 4 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, or 30 percent below business as usual growth. Curb: 160 million tonnes

Singapore - cut emissions by 16 percent below business as usual. Curb: N/A

South Africa - reduce emissions by 34 percent by 2020 below business as usual levels. Curb: 185 million tonnes
Alternative Conference Venue for Observer Organizations (NGOs, IGOs and others) Participating in COP15
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark

The Danish Government in cooperation with the Danish NGO-network Peoples' Climate Action (PCA) is organizing an alternative conference venue at Forum Copenhagen for the observer organizations/NGOs and IGOs  and others who, due to access restrictions introduced by the UNFCCC, will not be able to enter the Bella Center Thursday 17 and Friday 18 December.

The alternative conference venue is at Forum Copenhagen, Julius Thomsens Plads 1, 1925 Frederiksberg (Metrolines M1 and M2 go directly to Forum station. For further transport information please see www.forumcopenhagen.dk/ english/location ). It will be available for NGO representatives with valid UNFCCC badges from Thursday 17 December at 0800 hours. TV links to the Bella Center will be established at the venue as well as wireless internet connection. Catering will be available.

The parallel conference, Peoples' Climate Summit (Klimaforum09) organizes a meeting place as of today at Øksnehallen, Halmtorvet 11, 1700 Copenhagen V. TV links to the Bella Center will also be available here. Peoples' Climate Summit is part of the parallel conference in the DGI town where seminars, exhibitions, concerts etc. are being organized, please see  www.klimaforum09.org  .

For further practical information about the alternative conference venue, access, it-facilities, catering etc. please contact PCA tel. +45 7022 2799 ( www.peoplesclimateaction.dk/ uk /).

Would India and China Align Ever Even  after Suceeding Together in Formulating Non Binding COPENHAGEN Accord?

It  is a Billion Dollar Question which will decide the future of the Troubled galaxy as International Media aligned with Indian TOILET Media and the Enemeies of Aboriginal Inidigenous Communities have waged a SINO India War fresh already and diplomacy scored ZERO status till this date to resolve the Puzzle of the Relationship between Two Tradional Neighbous with Great Peaceful Civilsation BONDED Together with the Heritage of BUDDHISM from which India ruled by Zionist Brahaminical Manusmriti Apartheid rule has departed long back in History. In India , now Lord Buddha Smile on the occasion of a Nuclear Explosion only and the Divided Geopolitics has been CONVERTED into a FREE Zone of Terror, Insurgency, Violence, Trouble, Repression, Military Option, Zero Tolerance, Destability, Disintegration, Alienation and Disorganisation, Nothing relating to the legacy of gatam Buddha, thanks to the US Promoted Free market Democracy!Meanwhile, United Nations' top climate change czar Dr Rajendra Pachauri has been accused of making a "fortune" from his links with "carbon trading" companies dependent on the world body's policy recommendations.

India and China, without ambiguity, are the economies which have come most stronglythrough the financial crisis. Their year-on-year GDP

India's slow road to economic reform Stimulus exit plans for Asia's big 5

expansion, 7.9% and 8.9%, respectively, dominates third quarter world growth. Each slowed significantly only immediately after September 2008. Even then, their growth rates remained high by any standards other than their own.

But it makes no difference with either Diplomacy or Policymaking as the Biliteral relations NEVER improved since 1962 Border clash. The WELL Fed SENSEX FREESEX Ruling Class does everything to highlight ENDANGERED India by China as US Nuclear Weapon Consumer Chemical Corporates targets the Wide markets of both the Countries and widen up systematically the Gap with intense hate Campain.While War and civil war conditions created in South Asia to EXPLOIT Natural resources on the line of Latest Hollywood release AVTAR, US ISRAEL led War Alliance ENSURES that no condition should emerge to stop the Shadow War just because a CHINA India alliance would kill United States of america as well as Israel, both Zionist Leaders aligned with Global Hindutva! CPENHAGEN Accord is a well set Example what India and china may achieve standing together.

India, China should team up for 21st century, rightly writes TK Arun, ET Bureau in Economic Times:

India and China are ancient civilisations, neighbours, the two most populous countries of the world, its two fastest-growing economies, friends in global power talks such as over climate change or world trade, rivals when it comes to winning friends and influencing people around the world, conquering export markets and cornering mineral resources. They tried to be bhai-bhai for some time, then fought a war.

There is no burning desire in either capital today for a mutual relationship as between blood brothers, nor is there any hunger to run a blood feud. The sensible course for both countries is to rid their rivalry of overt friction, extend the many areas of cooperation and share the special place in the sun reserved in the 21st century for those who work economic miracles.

The biggest irritant in India-China relations is a border dispute. The dispute is a colonial legacy. The British negotiated an agreement with Tibet in 1914 in an accord at Simla on the border with India and that border, named after the then British foreign secretary McMahon, is what the government of Independent India chose to uphold.

The Chinese never accepted this boundary, saying that Tibet never had the sovereign authority to negotiate a border. The Chinese claim some 150,000 sq km south of the McMahon line as theirs, while India deems this territory as its own.

It is debatable whether it made sense for New Delhi to view a boundary drawn by the former colonial power as the final word on defining the geographical limits of two territories that were new to nationhood but had coexisted for millennia as great civilisations that respected each other.

The Chinese are not prone to respecting other civilisations. For centuries, they considered their Middle Kingdom as the centre of the universe, as the epitome of human achievement. In early 15th century, legendary admiral Zheng led a naval expedition and explored south-east and south Asia and Africa (some claim he discovered Australia and even the Americas).

He reported back to the peacock throne that the rest of the world did not contain anything worth Chinese attention. But the Chinese had respect for India, as the land of the Buddha and as the land from which they procured valuable knowledge, including that of martial arts.

That culture of respect did not survive the colonial experience. The British left, leaving opium-smoking Chinamen and tea-swilling Indians calling each other names from either side of a border dispute, oblivious of the expiry date on the commercial interests that had made the British get the Chinese and Indians hooked to stimulants from across their disputed boundary.

Emancipation from this colonial hangover took time. The Chinese went through their wrenching experience of the Cultural Revolution followed by the restoration of order and a new game of cat and mouse in which the colour of the cat did not matter so long as it caught billions of mice.

India sent AB Vajpayee to Beijing as the foreign minister of the post-Emergency Janata government, and followed it up with a visit by Rajiv Gandhi as prime minister. Since then, the two countries have quarantined their border dispute to a committee of babus from both sides and proceeded to interact like two normal nations in other matters.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Features/The-Sunday-ET/Special-Report/India-China-should-team-up-for-21st-century/articleshow/5357582.cms

It is not just my vision! Even Economic Times innovates the line. As for me, the peopel who declare death sentence for me to raise the Voices of Indigenous aborigibnal majority Enslaved Masses are just defending the Rotten Hegemony and I hate to take them into any account whatsoever. I have grown amidst Himalayan landslides and Avalances, these threats and hate campaign would not change my stance, mind you!

Ban Ki-moon hailed a controversial accord reached in Copenhagen after all-night talks among world leaders. The agreement has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and poorer nations.U.N. officials, climate experts, environmental activists, and leaders of more than 100 nations gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark for a two-week conference on climate change beginning 7 December.On the other hand, Copenhagen: Top climate scientists said Saturday that the eleventh-hour political deal hammered out at UN talks in Copenhagen falls perilously short of what is needed to stave off catastrophic global warming.What many had hoped would be a planet-saving treaty locking major economies into strong commitments to shrink their carbon footprints came out as a three-page political accord with key numbers yet to be filled in.

More confidence building between "emerging economies, the least developed countries and the developed countries" is needed before a legally binding global agreement on climate change can be reached, says US President Barack Obama.

After a meeting of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Copenhagen summit on Friday Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said that China respects India on the basis of equality and the China-US joint statement on South Asia does not target India.Then, a historic UN climate conference ended with only a nonbinding "Copenhagen Accord" to show for two weeks of debate and frustration. It was a deal short on concrete steps against global warming, but signaling a new start for rich-poor cooperation on climate change.The agreement brokered by US President Barack Obama with China and others in fast-paced hours of diplomacy on Friday sets up the first significant program of climate aid to poorer nations. Although it urges deeper cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming, it does nothing to demand them. That will now be subject to continuing talks next year.

The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) today slammed the deal reached between the US and BASIC countries at Copenhagen, saying it appeared to undermine every principle of effective collective action on climate change.It said the details were still sketchy, but it seemed that the deal would - as with the Australian Proposal - eventually require major developing countries to take on comparable targets to developed countries.

At any rate, the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries would be dissolved. There is no word yet on whether the Kyoto Protocol would - or could - persist, said CSE.

Since it appears to simultaneously destroy the notion of common but differentiated responsibilities, and any hope of setting global targets to avoid dangerous temperature rises, the agreement could deal a fatal blow to any hope of a fair climate treaty.

''It's also unclear why a deal that seems to involve only five countries is being heralded as a successful outcome in international negotiations involving almost two hundred countries,'' said the NGO which was keeping a close watch on developments at Copenhagen with its scientists and researchers stationed there since the climate change conference began on December 7.

The deal, which could not get the endorsement of all the 193 nations gathered in the Danish capital, sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degree
Celsius rise over pre-industrial times and holds out the prospect of 100 billion dollar in annual aid from 2020 for developing nations.

There is no specification in the plan of greenhouse gas cuts needed to achieve the 2 degree Celsius goal, a rise beyond which would result in catastrophic changes in the climate.

The Accord contains no reference to a legally binding agreement, as demanded by some developing countries and climate activists.

Also, there was no deadline for transforming it into a binding deal, though UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said it needed to be turned into a legally binding treaty next year.

It was not clear yet whether it is a formal UN deal.

US President Barack Obama reached a climate agreement on Friday with India, South Africa, China and Brazil. The deal outlined fell far short of the ambitions for the Copenhagen summit.

Here are key points from the agreement, which is titled Copenhagen Accord.

Long-Term Goals

Deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science...with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.

Legally Binding Deal?

A reference in an earlier draft to adopt a legally binding climate agreement by next year was missing in the final draft. This upset the EU and a number of other nations, such as the Pacific island country of Tuvalu, which fears being swamped by rising sea levels.

Financing For Poor Nations

The text says: Developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

Indian Express reports:

A US-brokered deal with four emerging economies, including India, on climate change that places no legally-binding emission cuts on developed countries ran into rough weather on Saturday with a majority of poor countries rejecting it, saying that it was one-sided.

The deal between the US and BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) bloc is apparently a gain for develop countries which are required under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to take legally binding emission cuts.

The Protocol expires on 2012 and the 194-nation Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations here has apparently failed to get a word on its extension.

Indian negotiators -- Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and Prime Minister's Special Envoy on Climate Shyam Saran -- themselves acknowledged the fact that the deal is not done until it is approved by the plenary. However, Ramesh claimed that it was "a good deal."

"Right now we have a document that says that we continue with negotiations on what to do about the future, including the Bali Action Plan and Kyoto Protocol," Saran said.

Angry delegates of many countries like Tuvalu, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Cuba slammed the US-BASIC deal for showing them great "disrespect" by leaving them out of the drafting process and imposing their document on vast majority.

Cuban delegates said that US President Barack Obama, who brokered the US-BASIC deal, was "behaving like an emperor" and claimed that the draft was a "gross violation principle of sovereign equality."

Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping compared the deal to the "Holocaust." "This document cannot be accepted for adoption by the parties present here," said delegates from Costa Rica, adding that there was an absence of a legally-binding treaty.

"The easiest yardstick to evaluate is the two degree target," said Andrew Watson, a professor at the University of East Anglia in Britain.

"This agreement will almost certainly not be sufficient to enable that target to be met -- legally-binding tough limits in place over the next few years would be needed for that," he said.

The Nobel-winning UN science panel warned in a benchmark 2007 report that if average temperatures increase by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) on pre-industrial levels, it could lead to runaway climate change and severe impact.

We have already travelled 0.7 C along that path.

More recent studies suggest the planet could hot up by a devastating 6.0 C (10.8 F), and that sea levels could rise by more than a metre (3.25 feet) by 2100 unless we slash CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere.

Such a hothouse scenario would create hundreds of millions of environmental refugees.

"Strictly speaking, it is a disappointment. We expected more," French climate scientist Herve Le Treut said of the new accord.

"What we have seen is the diverging interests of nation states and the planet."

Part of the problem is that most of the key mitigation targets have yet to be finalised.

"There is not much here to analyse. The accord doesn't have specific emissions targets for industrial countries, it doesn't have deviation from 'business as usual' goals for developing countries," said Alden Meyer of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists.

"If you look at what is likely going to be listed in the annexes, you are going to be well over a 3.0 C," he said. "The accord also fails to set a target for 'peak year' for global CO2 emissions, ideally around 2015.

"It is very critical that you get a peak and a decline starting soon," he added.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer made much the same point in closing out the 13-day marathon meeting: "The opportunity to actually make it into the scientific window of opportunity is getting smaller and smaller."

The deal does contain a few silver linings, the scientists said.

"At least it may signal that there is some willingness to take action, so that we might have a hope of limiting the rise to 3.0 C - 4.0 C, and avoid the really unknown territory that lies beyond that," Watson said.

In a special report, The Sunday Telegraph said that "although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a (climate) scientist, as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics, he has no qualifications in climate science.

"What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Pachauri has established a worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies that have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's policy recommendations.

"These include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in 'carbon trading' and 'sustainable technologies' which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year."

The report said, "Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies that play a leading role in what has become known as the climate industry."

The newspaper, however, did not carry any reaction of Pachauri on its report.

The report claimed that the potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised on last Tuesday when, after giving a lecture at Copenhagen University, he was handed over a letter by two eminent climate sceptics.

One was Stephen Fielding, the Australian senator who started the revolt which recently led to the defeat of his government's "cap and trade scheme" that would place a limit on emissions.

The other, from Britain, was Lord Monckton, a longtime critic of the IPCC's science, who has recently played a key part in stiffening opposition to a cap and trade bill in the United States Senate. Their open letter first challenged the scientific honesty of a graph prominently used in the IPCC's 2007 report, and shown again by Dr Pachauri in his lecture, demanding that he should withdraw it.

But they went on to question why the report had not declared Pachauri's personal interest in so many organisations that seemingly stood to profit from its findings.

The letter was circulated to all the 192 national conference delegations, calling on them to dismiss Pachauri as IPCC chairman because of recent revelations of his conflicting interests, the paper said.

Head of The Energy Research Institute TERI, Pachuri shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of IPCC with former US Vice President Al Gore.

As delegates wrapped up an exhausting overnight negotiating marathon on Saturday afternoon, to end the 193-nation conference, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer assessed the results for reporters.

It's "an impressive accord," he said of the three-page document. "But it's not an accord that is legally binding, not an accord that pins down industrialised countries to targets."

A legally binding international agreement -- a treaty -- requiring further emissions cuts by richer nations was the goal in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007 when the annual UN conference set a two-year timetable leading to Copenhagen.

A new pact would succeed the first phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose relatively modest emissions cuts by 37 nations expire in 2012. It was hoped a new regime would encompass the US, which rejected Kyoto.

But the hopes for Copenhagen faded as 2009 wore on and the first US legislation to cap carbon emissions worked its way only slowly through Congress. Without a US commitment, others were wary of submitting to a new legally binding deal.

Big polluters, nonetheless, submitted plans for reductions ahead of the UN talks.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed a controversial climate change accord reached in Copenhagen after all-night talks among world leaders. The agreement has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and poorer nations.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that a nonbinding climate change agreement reached with difficulty by world leaders in Copenhagen was nonetheless a real deal.

After doubts, disappointments and feelings that two weeks of climate change talks in the Danish capital were going nowhere, Mr. Ban said bringing world leaders to the table for the final stage of negotiations had paid off. He said progress had been made on four key benchmarks he had laid out in September for Copenhagen to be a success.

"All countries have agreed to work towards a common long-term goal to limit global temperature rise to below two degrees Celsius. Many governments have made important commitments to reduce or limit emissions," he said.

The so-called Copenhagen Accord is a compromise plan spearheaded by the United States and four key emerging economies - China, Brazil, India and South Africa. It sets targets to prevent the planet's average temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and outlines a plan of $100 billion in annual aid to poor nations to deal with climate change, starting in 2020.

But the accord is nonbinding. And it failed to earn universal support from the 193 nations participating at the summit, leaving the conference chair to conclude that participants merely "take note" of the deal.

Mr. Ban also said the accord only marked a beginning - with a lot of work still ahead.

"First, we need to turn this agreement into a legally binding treaty," he said. "I will work with world leaders over the coming months to make this happen. Second, we must launch the Copenhagen Green Climate fund. The UN system will work to ensure that it can immediately start to deliver immediate results to people in need and jump-start clean energy growth in developing countries.

Mr. Ban also said it was important for nations to be more ambitious in fighting climate change, noting country commitments to date fell short of what science said was needed. The Copenhagen agreement leaves lots of details undecided. It sets a January 2010 deadline for all nations to submit their emissions-cutting plans to the United Nations.

 The Copenhagen Accord, the first global agreement of the 21st century to comprehensively influence the flow and share of natural resources, was agreed upon by 26 most influential countries in the wee hours of Saturday morning in the snow drenched capital of Denmark.

The US led the pack of architects with the BASIC four -- China, India, Brazil and South Africa (in that serial order) -- working as sometimes reluctant and sometimes willing but always the key partners in framing the agreement. Global warming, having given rise to the occasion for such a framework, itself became an orphaned issue though as most of the other 192 countries, by keeping silent, accepted that this was the template for climate negotiations from now on.

The Accord demands that increase in global temperatures be kept below 2 degrees on the basis of equity. It requires global emissions as well as all national emissions peak at a certain time but is mindful of concerns for economic development. It asks industrialized countries, except the US, to take emission cuts in future but not necessarily under the Kyoto Protocol.

It lays out up to US $30 billion of quick start finance

and US $100 billion starting 2020 using all the routes of transfer possible -- private or not. It requires mitigation actions from developing countries for the first time to be listed in an international agreement.

The agreement, a compromise, as every head of state characterized it, came about after hardnosed hour-long negotiations between Obama in a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao. amd Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Jacob Zuma, Presidents of Brazil and South Africa, respectively, on Friday night. The rules of multilateral engagement got rewritten as new alignments created a coterie of the powerful that brokered deals in closed rooms: each working at the end to preserve if not improve its immediate economic status.

The pact they forged did cause heartburn as less powerful economies felt left out. They complained. Angry reaction from Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela from Latin America, Pakistan and Malaysia form Asia and Sudan from Africa ensured the accord did not get stamped officially under the UN climate convention.

The low ambition deal was seen as a triumph of the US which defied estimates to influence the outcome. But the negotiations also saw the Chinese leveraging their clout in the resource rich African continent in a multilateral forum.

On Saturday at 4:15 pm, when the meeting finally ended, even as delegates walked out, many wondered loud had China played its cards the best, played the good cop to get on the high table and let countries like Sudan balance that out in public by annulling the power of the Copenhagen accord.

The meeting that led to the Copenhagen Accord was called as talks of five countries with the larger group of 26 countries including the European and rich country power-packs and representatives of all other country blocks -- the Africans, the small island states and least developed countries -- were getting logjammed.

The other developed countries had been asking for peaking of emissions and international scrutiny of emerging economies, and the small island states wanted to have a global target of 1.5 degrees embedded in the document which the others were not to keen upon. As the talks got stuck, those who mattered proved they did.

India found its place at the high table, many in India would believe rightly so, but it was asked to book some future costs against the seat it was filling.

The emerging four economies, for this once, found common cause in protecting their energy base. Their economic strength lent greater radius to their circle of influence as they emerged the power brokers for the developing world. At the end, many would assess, that they may have sacrificed the interests of those smaller developing countries they rode on to enter the hallowed portals but, at least this once, they altered the climate game.

Till now some small island countries and some least developed countries, with their moral persuasion but economic dependence, had played spoil sport in the G77 camp, causing heartburn to developing economies. This time, the big four emerging economies made some common cause with the US at the cost of smaller players in the developing country block.

The block, always divergent and rancorous, would not be less or more fractured than before after this shift, but it did feel the tremors from the tectonic shift in geopolitics.

U.S-India Security Relations
Implications for China
Zhang Guihong^*

Remarkable changes have taken place in the framework of US-India security relations in recent years. During the Cold War, estrangement characterized the two democracies because of India's non-aligned policy, close relations with the erstwhile Soviet Union and tensions with Pakistan, coupled with the US containment policy towards the Soviet Union, and the US alliance with Pakistan. Based on common strategic, economic and political interests after the end of the Cold War, the US and India have moved from being "estranged democracies"1 to "engaged democracies". Such a change is primarily due to America's adjustment of its strategy and policy toward India as well as South Asia and the Asia-Pacific. The changing US-Indian security relations will have a great impact on China's security environment. This paper focuses on the implications of these changes for China from three perspectives: the emergence of a Sino-US-India strategic triangle; the complicated security situation in South Asia; and the America factor in Sino-India relations. The increasing attention being paid to the relationship between the Indian and the US security apparatus – particularly over the last couple of years – is no longer a matter that can be dismissed as mere speculation. Indeed, after India's five under-ground nuclear tests at Pokhran in May 1998, the US initiated a series of strict sanctions under the aegis of the US Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994. The security relationship between Washington and New Delhi had ebbed and suspicion seemed to characterize the bilateral agenda. President Clinton's visit to India in March 2000, which was the fourth presidential visit in the history of the two countries and the first in the last 22 years, was a turning point in the ambivalent US-India relations of yesteryears. On May 1, 2001, not long after he took office, President George W. Bush made a speech to announce his security policy and plans for developing a missile defence system2 India had expressed its approval of this programme earlier, and was, indeed, seen to be even more supportive than the US' traditional allies. Later, in order to win India's support in the fight against terrorism, the US lifted its sanctions on India and the two nations agreed to comprehensively co-operate in the field of the global war against terrorism.3 Indeed, in May 2002, US Special Forces were flown into India and took part in a two-week military manoeuvre in north India, in the historical city of Agra. This manoeuvre was the first between the two countries in 39 years and demonstrated that their military cooperation had reached a high level.4 What are the changes in US-India relationship? Why are these changes occurring? What are the implications of these changes for China's security, and how will these affect Sino-India relationships and Sino-US relationships? This paper attempts to examine these questions. US-India Relations: From Estrangement to Rapprochement With the beginning of the Cold War, the primary US goal with regard to countries in South Asia was "to orient those nations toward the United States and the other Western democracies and away from the Soviet Union."5 However, India's geo-strategic interests and considerations were different from those of the US. As opposed to Pakistan, who joined the US led BTO (Baghdad Treaty Organization, later the Central Treaty Organization, CENTO) and SEATO (the South East Asia Treaty Organization), India initially supported the principles of self-government and non-alignment – resulting in its refusal to participate in the US-led strategic alliance against the Soviet Union. India was also opposed to the setting up of a defensive alliance in order to contain China. It recognized the new Communist-led government of China in December 1949, regarded Taiwan as a part of China, and criticized the US for its official stance against the People's Republic. In January 1951, India was the only non-Communist state that voted against a resolution sponsored by the United States in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly labelling China as an aggressor.6 As a third corollary, India began to receive military, political, and economic assistance from the erstwhile Soviet Union from the 1960's – an alliance which brought about further estrangement in Indo-US relations. Indeed, India still depended on Moscow for military and political support, and when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 – which made the US and China stand by Pakistan's side – India complained that the US did not try to find a political method to resolve the Afghanistan crisis. On the other hand, US did not punish India for its close relationship with Soviet Union in the 1980's. The other important factor was the India-Pakistan War of 1971. The US sent its Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal and this act was regarded as a threat by India and it pushed the already ebbing Indo-US relationship to an all-time low. By supporting Pakistan, New Delhi argued that America had forced India into an unnecessary and costly arms race, that American assistance gave Pakistan the means and the inspiration to challenge New Delhi, and that the Pakistan-US relationship came to be seen as not directed against communism, but against India.7 During the Cold War, America's policy toward India was different from its policy toward the two other big Asian nations – China and Japan. America did not include India as its strategic alliance partner nor did it include India as a possible containment target. And just as the United States did not approve of India attempting to balance power between United States and the Soviet Union, India did not endorse the United States' attempt to balance power between India and Pakistan. In sum, with India implementing the policy of non-alignment, maintaining friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and engaging Pakistan; and, the contrasting United States' policy of forming alliances in order to deter the Soviet Union, made it difficult for the US and India to work together. With the end of the Cold War, myriad factors began to push the United States and India to change their relationship from estrangement to one of convergence. The United States and India are two of the largest democracies in the world and, furthermore, they have similar egalitarian values. The US also hopes that India will play an active role in the process of democratisation in Russia. Starting from the 1990s, with India beginning to implement policies to create an open market economy, the United States has been treating India as a newly developed market; United States has progressively emerged as India's greatest source for foreign investment supplies and trading partner. Up to 1998, it seemed that the two countries attempted to form a new relationship that would bring them closer and engender a more robust co-operative relationship. Even though this relationship was damaged in 1998, when India exploded its nuclear bombs and the Americans responding with an embargo, the relationship that had taken off after the Cold War had not ended. Indeed, with eight rounds of security dialogue between US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, and the then Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, the security relationship between the two countries normalised. During the Kargil crisis of 1999, India successfully won sympathy and support from the US. In stark contrast, the US initially cold-shouldered Pakistan's new regime when General Pervez Musharraf rode to power through a military coup. The two situations in 1999 led United States' South Asian policy shift to 'focusing on India and reducing on Pakistan.' President Clinton's India visit was the first turning point in the Indo-US security relationship. During his visit, President Clinton admitted that the US had ignored India over the preceding 20 years and indicated that it would end the passive impact caused by nuclear issues in future.8 In a joint communiqué which was termed 'India-US relations: A Vision for the 21st Century', the Indo-US relationship was termed a 'continuous, constructive in political area, and beneficial in economic arena' style of new partnership.9 This new style of partnership, according to certain independent analyses, was formed on the basis of both the sides deriving mutual strategic benefits, economic benefits, and socio-political benefits.10 President George W. Bush continued the policy after he took office. When the then Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, visited Washington in April 2001, Bush told him that the new administration would continue and strengthen its predecessor's policy to promote bilateral relations. After Bush declared his new Missile Defence plan on May 1, 2001, Condoleeza Rice, then Special Assistant to the President on National Security Affairs, broke protocol and took an initiative to call Singh and introduce the U.S. missile defense policy to him; US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, also visited India in order to muster support. This is the first time that the US has valued India as an important partner in its strategic agenda. The September 11, 2001, attack and the war on terrorism that followed provided a chance for the US and India to forge an even closer strategic cooperation. It has become a turning point in the Indo-US security relationship. The two countries together implemented a co-operative framework of relationships based on three dimensions: democracy, economy, and security. In the security field, the United States felt that India, as a de-facto nuclear state, had co-operative potential with the US on the proliferation issue. India actively supported the US missile defence plan as well as that on counter-terrorism. With the end of the US sanctions on India,11 the two countries improved and increased high level leadership communications, military contact, and economic co-operation. On November 9, 2001, President Bush told the visiting Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, that his administration was committed towards developing a fundamentally different relationship with India, based upon both trust and mutual values.12 After the meeting of the two top leaders, in a joint statement signed by both the countries, expressed their desire to enhance bilateral co-operation in the war against terrorism, and agreed to renew the activities of the Joint Working Group on Counter-terrorism. The Joint Working Group on Counter Terrorism was established in January 2000 as a first step towards increasing exchange and technology co-operation in the field of defense and security.13 Thereafter, the two countries maintained a high-level contact frequently and formulated a comprehensive co-operative agenda. Mohammed Ayoob believes that the United States and India can begin close co-operation in the following security arenas: (1) improve the region's security and stability; (2) counter terrorism; (3) promote democracy; (4) prevent nuclear proliferation, and (5) contain China during the first 10 years of the new century.14 As Stephen Cohen, the celebrated US specialist on South Asia security issues has commented, the United States and India's relationship was 'structurally changing'.15 However, the partnership between the United States and India has not developed into a possibility of creating an alliance similar to that of the US-Japan or US-UK Alliance. The reasons are as follows: First, India's five nuclear tests in 1998 greatly damaged the US-led international non-proliferation regime. Though the United States has adjusted its non-proliferation policy to some measure after Bush's taking office, India's nuclear tests and the United State's embargo afterward continue to have some negative effects on the Indo-US relationship. After 9/11, the US pressure on India to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has lessened, although it is still to disappear. This has been perceived as a bargaining chip for the co-operation the United States seeks from India in its fight against terrorism. Secondly, America realized that India and South Asia is the "most dangerous region in the world". In considering facts such as territorial disputes, the ethnic and religious divergence, and the nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan; the need for Pakistan to support the United States in its counter-terrorism campaign; and South Asian and American relationships with other major countries in the region, the United States will not create an alliance in the region with any third country. Creating such an alliance to counter a third party does not benefit US interests. Thirdly, Americans and Indians have very different views of a just international order. These differences have led to specific Indian-American disagreements in three important areas: the limits of humanitarian peacekeeping; the make-up of the UN Security Council; and the emergence of China.16 Most Indians have trouble accepting the principle of humanitarian interventions and fear that the US would extend the principle to South Asia – which means the United States would support the principle of 'self-determination' and press for a plebiscite in Kashmir. Similarly, the United States is unwilling to accept the Indian demand for a UN Security Council seat. Some Americans would regard it as a 'reward' for India's nuclear programme, and fear that this would further accelerate the trend towards nuclear weapons. Finally, India and the United States are each groping for a strategy to cope with the emergence of China as a major world power.17 The United States is especially concerned about China's challenge to its world leadership, while India is especially concerned about China's future relationship with Pakistan. For India, creating or joining an alliance against China does not suit its national interests. One Chinese scholar pointed out that if India does not participate in the containment of China, China's development would lighten US strategic pressure on India. If India joins forces with the United States to contain China, the future of the 21st century will not belong to India.18 An Indian scholar argued that, as a developing country, India's priority is economic development. India has always attached the highest value to maintaining independence in making her foreign policy and sovereignty and avoided becoming part of an US or western agenda towards China. The United States is also unlikely to be willing to underwrite the costs of guaranteeing Indian security, and it would be foolish for India to entrust her security to a superpower with global interests. Furthermore, The United States and India both have substantive interests in China. Both within the United States and India, there are significant numbers of people that believe that China is a 'threat' to the interests of the two countries. Both countries also have people that advocate close engagement.19 United States' South Asia Policy: Beyond Balance of Power United States and India's relationship has changed in these various ways because the US has adjusted its strategy and policy in South Asia. The adjustment is demonstrated in the following areas: A change in the United States security policy towards India In terms of non-proliferation, the US urges India not to carry out nuclear tests, not to produce fissile materials, not to deploy missiles with nuclear warheads, to stop a dangerous nuclear and missile arms race and to control the export of sensitive materials. As anti-terrorism become the United States' greatest concern, it has reduced the pressure on India in the area of halting the spread of nuclear arms. In terms of Kashmir, there is a change from supporting Pakistan's policy which is implementing United Nations policy of giving the residents of Kashmir the right of plebiscite for its future to supporting India's policy of solving the problem through negotiation while respecting Kashmir residents' view. In terms of its relations with India and with Pakistan, the United States, in accordance with its own advantage, and comparing the power of different nations in South Asia, has slowly changed its focus to India. An article published in Washington Times, quoting the Executive Director of US–India Commercial Committee, Michael Clark, stated that, for an American company, the most important thing was not the rising of the Indian middle class, but undoubtedly the information technology corporations in India, which have extraordinary potential.20 Some scholars in China concluded that the US policy toward India had changed from 'paying equal attention to India and Pakistan' in the early period of the post-Cold War era to 'focusing on India and reducing Pakistan' during the Clinton administration. The focus was once again changed to 'raising India and curbing Pakistan' when Bush took over and 'regarding Pakistan while respecting India' after the 9/11 attacks and the Enduring Freedom campaign in Afghanistan.21 United States changed its security policy towards South Asia from balance of power to power advantage The advantage is demonstrated in the following manner: (1) US obtains more influence in South Asia, compared to Russia and China; and (2) India wins the dominant position in the Indian sub-continent, compared to the other South Asian countries. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the eminent American strategist, recognized India as "the strongest state in South Asia and to some extent the regional hegemon." But at the same time, he thought that, "as a geo-strategic player, India is not – at least, not to the same degree as either Russia or China – a source of geopolitical concern."22 However, this kind of judgment undervalues India's position and capability. The US recognizes India as the largest democracy in the world. India's economy increased by six per cent annually in the 1990's and it also has a growing information technology industry. The United States is India's largest trading partner, its biggest investor and its biggest provider of advanced technology.23 Besides, Indian Americans are playing an important role in shaping the United States' South Asia policy.24 During his trip to South Asia in March 2000, President Clinton visited India for seven days while halting symbolically in Pakistan only for some hours. It is obvious that U.S. places its relationship with India on the top of its South Asia policy framework. Compared with Pakistan, which experiences economical trouble and political turbulence and has only one-seventh of India's territory, Washington regards New Delhi as the largest democracy and a potentially important economic partner. Nevertheless, the United States is unlikely to discard its Cold War ally – Pakistan. Contrarily, the United States needs Pakistani support and co-operation as an Islamic 'frontline state' in the war against terrorism. In sum, against the backdrop of the its preferential values in favour of democracy and its long-term benefits, and the comparison of power between different countries in South Asia, the United States changed its strategic policy of focusing on the balance of power during the Cold War to define and implement a new policy in South Asia: 'Focusing on India and Reducing on Pakistan.' This new policy attempted to go beyond the balance of power. However, judgments based on past traditions, concerns regarding the anti-terrorism efforts and the dangerous situation in South Asia, have diluted this perspective to one within which there is a 'focus on India while respecting Pakistan.' Thus, despite the initial intent, the US policy has not entirely gone beyond the balance of power. United States changed its security policy for the Asia-Pacific region This is primarily demonstrated in the United States' increasing focus on the Asia-Pacific region or, more accurately, in the emergence of an integrated military strategy for the Europe-Atlantic region and the Asia-Pacific region. India and the Indian Ocean are expected to play an important role in such a geo-strategy. In the closing days of the Clinton administration, the containment of China gradually increased in importance as a factor influencing America's Asia-Pacific strategy. In addition to causing trouble on the Taiwan issue, the strategy of containment included reliance on Japanese and Indian Forces, and especially on the trend of enhancing India's capabilities to contain China. Giving the fact that counter-terrorism has became the primary issue in American strategy, the United States intends to use the war on terrorism to implement its military strategy in the Asia-Pacific region in addition to strengthening homeland security. The US military strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, consequently, includes securing influence and location in Central Asia; the limiting of Western Asia's development; and a return to South East Asia. Within this context, India and the Indian Ocean constitute the bridge for the United States in its regional military strategy. The change in United States and India's relationship is also affected by Pakistan, China, and Russia While Pakistan has attempted to balance Indian superiority by seeking external ties, India has perceived this as a way of upsetting the natural balance of power in South Asia.25 For America, Pakistan's role in the United States' military strategy is especially important when America's personal interests are in jeopardy (anti-communism, containment of the erstwhile Soviet Union, and counter terrorism). As Pakistan is a traditional ally of the United States and a frontline state in fighting terrorism, without a more normal India-Pakistan relationship, the India-US relationship will remain highly sensitive to Indian perceptions of Washington's relationship with Islamabad. It is widely accepted both in the United States and India that China is likely to pose a long-term strategic challenge to them. How will China deal with the outer world after it consolidates its economic and technological ascent? There are different assumptions in the United States and India. Some believe that the future role of China in the Asia-Pacific region will be stable and defensive, rather than destructive and offensive. Others assume that – based on aspects of its strategic culture – China may undertake an offensive foreign policy at the point of time when Chinese leaders think the international balance of power is in their favor.26 The United States and India have mutual interests, but different policies, in terms the nature of their future dealings with a rising China. There are also essential divergences on issues such as Taiwan and human rights between China and the United States. There are also basic differences on issues including border problems and non-proliferation between China and India. With the end of the Cold War, the balance of power in South Asia has been upset, and the influence of Russia in South Asia has weakened. Russia still maintains a stable co-operative relationship with India, especially in the field of defense. In the joint statement of Russia-India strategic partnership issued on October 3, 2000, the two parties claimed "democratization of international relations" which is obliviously aimed at hegemonies.27 During President Putin's three-day visit to India in early December 2002, both sides signed the Delhi Declaration on Further Consolidation of Strategic Partnership, which heightened the bilateral relations to a new level.28 In conclusion, based on the rise of the Indian power, the importance of South Asia and the emergence of an Asia-Pacific perspective, the United States has gradually changed its balance of power policy. America is using the balance of power (method) to secure a power advantage (goal). U.S.-India Security Relationship and China's Security Environment: Opportunities and Challenges The India-China-U.S. Triangle: Malign Competition or Benign Interaction? There are two defining characteristics of the security environment in the Asia-Pacific region after the end of Cold War: (1) The United States has become the only superpower in the world today. It is also the most important external power in Asia, and plays a key role in South Asian security; (2) China and India are emerging Asian powers. Each has a population of over a billion, possess nuclear weapons and numbers among the fastest growing economies in the world. Relations among these three countries will undoubtedly dominate the course of events within the Asia-Pacific region in the 21st century. Their interactions, and how they deal with the triangle will, to a large extent, influence future peace and stability in the region. China and India, the two largest developing countries in the world, have a commonality of history, culture, economy and social characteristics, and profiles of development. Each applies itself to internal economic development, carries out an independent foreign policy and strives for a peaceful international environment. China and India are among what Brzezinski described as "five geo-strategic players"29, what Henry Kissinger listed as the "six big powers",30 and what Samuel Huntington31 pointed out are "core states of seven civilizations." China is a big power in East Asia while India is a big power in South Asia. Each has advantages and influence in their respective regions. However, they are not world powers that have global influence. In terms of institution and comprehensive strength, they cannot even be ranked as strong powers. For America, China and India, at one end, are two emerging markets offering economic benefits and developing opportunities. At the other end, China and India are also two transitional countries demonstrating uncertainty, from the United States' strategic point of view. What Washington fears most is the possibility of China and India, with Russia, forming an alliance based on a common understanding and interests of a new international political and economical order and a multi-polar world. The United States and India, the largest democracies in the world, share common political values and strategic interests. Their common geo-political, economic and socio-political interests are advancing a co-operative agenda (which their differences over nuclear proliferation may not be able to halt).32 With the US–India relationship moving forward over the past two years, the two countries have developed a comprehensive co-operative framework covering democracy, economy and security. The United States now pays more attention to India's role as the largest democracy than it did before. India's continuous and fast-growing economy, especially its information technology industry, attracts great investment from transnational corporations based in America. In the security arena, the U.S. leadership has gradually begun to 'forget' India's nuclear tests and has come to recognize India as a de facto nuclear power, as also its preponderant position in South Asia. With India's support for America's unilateral action in missile defense, the US and India moved from divergence to co-operation in the field of non-proliferation. After 9/11, counter-terrorism has been a new field of strategic co-operation for U.S. and India. In a related development, Pakistan turns out to be less of an 'obstacle' for the US–India framework of relationships. China and the United States, the largest developing and developed countries respectively, also have comprehensive common strategic interests. Besides large potential economic cooperation, they also share broad interests in other fields such as regional stability and the role and reform of the United Nations. What is more likely is the emergence of a "soft balance of power" system among the three countries.33 Alternately, at one end, a vicious competitive relationship among the three countries may emerge, and the "soft balance of power" may be changed into a "hard balance of power" similar to that in the Cold War era, if one of them regards the development of relations between the two other countries as a challenge to its national interests, or if any two in this triad forge a relationship as a means to contain the third country. At the other end, it is possible for China, the US and India to establish a relatively harmonious relationship if they can seek out common views and interests, and push their differences aside to deal with bilateral and trilateral relations within a strategic perspective. South Asian security and China's security environment: stability or instability? South Asia is one of the most unstable regions in world today. Focusing on the Kashmir issue, the conflict between India and Pakistan has lasted for more than half a century, during which three wars have been fought. The Kashmir issue includes many conflicting factors: territorial dispute, ethnic and religious divergence, political opposition and nuclear confrontation. One can also find in the Kashmir issue three threats for today's world: national separatism, religious extremism and cross-border terrorism. India and, immediately thereafter, Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons and then became de facto nuclear powers in the year 1998. The United States has initiated a counter-terrorism campaign after 9/11, which focuses substantially on this region. These various elements are new factors in the conflict over Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Nuclear proliferation in South Asia makes the Kashmir issue more dangerous. According to the assessment of the Institute for Science and International Security, if all of the plutonium available to it is made into nuclear weapons, India can produce 45-95 warheads; while if all of the plutonium and weapon-grade uranium available to Pakistan is converted to nuclear weapons, this could produce 30-50 warheads.34 A May 2002 report published in The New Scientist pointed out that, if a limited nuclear war were to break out between India and Pakistan, 10 small warheads used in the five biggest cities of each of these countries, respectively, would kill three million people and injure even more.35 The international community at large fears that a war between the two nuclear countries could open a Pandora's box and lead to the world's first nuclear war. The struggle against terrorism makes the Kashmir issue even more complicated. After 9/11, India has sought increasingly and far more vigorously to establish the connections between terrorism and Pakistan. India has condemned the two Pakistan-based groups, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, that led the terrorist attack on India's Parliament on December 13, 2001, and that are also responsible for cross-border terrorist activities. Pakistan, on the other hand, actively works with the United States in the military campaign against terrorism in Afghanistan and claims that it is opposed to any fundamentalist organization or individuals who engage in terrorist activity in the name of Kashmir at home or abroad. However, President Musharraf has also declared that Pakistan would continue to support the Kashmiri struggle for independence 'morally, politically and diplomatically'. In conclusion, nuclear tests and counter-terrorism make South Asia an international hotspot and a focus of global attention. In terms of non-proliferation and anti-terrorism, China and the South Asian countries share common interests and a potential for co-operation. China borders most South Asian countries. Regional stability in South Asia is, consequently, an important guarantee for China's west and southwest security environment. China hopes that both India and Pakistan will try to solve their problems by political and diplomatic means. China's President, Jiang Zemin, recently made mention of an old Chinese saying, 'peace favours both and conflict injures either', when he attended the First Summit of the Member States of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA)36 which was convened in Almaty, Kazakhstan, on June 3-5, 2002. The America factor in Sino-India relationships: positive or passive? India, in the assessment of one Indian scholar, has always viewed close US-China relations with misgivings and feared that they might adversely affect her interests.37 Three factors dominate this evaluation: (1) During the 1971 India-Pakistan war, the US and China jointly supported Pakistan. The US had sent its Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. (2) In India's perception, the United States was guilty by omission of ignoring China's actions in actively building up Pakistan's nuclear deterrence against India through the nineteen eighties, because both China and Pakistan were US allies in fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. (3) Soon after India's nuclear tests in 1998, the United States and China issued a Joint Communiqué to condemn these.38 In comparison to the up-and-down Sino-U.S. relationship framework, the US-India relationship has witnessed an upswing after the end of the Cold War. The perception that regards an 'emerging China' as a threat is beginning to dominate policy-making circles in both the US and India. This will be harmful for both Sino-US and Sino-India relations. For America, China and India are two major powers that can influence security affairs in the Asia-Pacific, especially in East Asia and South Asia. China and India are also populous, transitional and emerging big powers. Both China and India regards their relations with the US as their most important external relationship. The economic development of China and India needs America's cooperation and support. At the same time, America needs the huge markets of the two big Asian countries. The United States could be a positive factor for Sino-India relationships – if it tries to promote regional stability in South Asia and help China and India's economic modernization. It could, as well, cast itself in a negative role – when it plays the 'India card' in its dealings with China; or plays the 'China card' in developing its relations with India. Within China, in recent years, there has been a fundamental reassessment of South Asia and its importance in geo-politics, as well as of India and its role in regional affairs. The nature of Sino-Indian relationships should be "good neighbors in geo-politics, good friends in economic cooperation, and good partners in international affairs."39 Such a relationship must be established on the basis of their common sense and understanding of mutual interests. Through economic co-operation and regional stability, China, the US and India should and would be able to reach a 'win-win-win' situation. NOTES * Zhang Guihong is Deputy Director and Associate Professor at the Hangzhou-based Institute of International Studies of Zhejiang University, and a Doctoral candidate at the Center for American Studies of Fudan University. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, D.C., conducting research on "US security policy towards India and Pakistan after 9/11 and its implications for China". Dennis Kux, India and the United States: Estranged Democracies, 1941-1991, Washington, D. C.: National Defense University Press, 1993. See "Bush tears up missile treaty", www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/05/02/wbush02.xml. In a memorandum to the Secretary of State from Camp David, the U.S. President, George W. Bush, said the continuation of the punitive measures "would not be in the national security interests of the United States." See "U.S. lifts sanctions against India, Pak", The Hindu, Chennai, September 24, 2001. Combined air-ground exercises were held in Agra in May and in Alaska in September-October 2002. Further, air transport exercise was conducted in Agra in October 2002. For details see, "Military Exercises: Waltzing with arms", The Week, Kochi, November 10, 2002. Also available at www.the-week.com/22nov10/events2.htm. Robert J. McMahon, The Cold War on the Periphery: The United States, India, and Pakistan, 1947-1965, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 17. M. Srinivas Chary, The Eagle and the Peacock: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward India Since Independence, Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1995, pp. 74- 84. Stephen P. Cohen, India and America: An Emerging Relationship, A paper presented at the Conference on "The Nation-State System and Transnational Forces in South Asia", December 8-10, 2000, Kyoto, Japan. Opening statement by President Clinton in the Joint Press Conference held in Delhi, March 21, 2000. India-U.S. Relations: A Vision for the 21st Century. For full text of the communiqué, see www.indianembassy.org/indusrel/clinton_india/joint_india_us_statement_mar_21_2000.htm. Kanti Bajpai, "India-US Foreign Policy Concerns: Cooperation and Conflict" in Gary K. Bertsch, Seema Gahlaut, and Anupam Srivastava, eds., Engaging India: US Strategic Relations with the World's Largest Democracy, New York: Routledge, 1999, p. 194. See President Waives Sanctions on India, Pakistan, September 22, 2001, www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010922-4.html. Remarks by the U.S. President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee at the White House, Washington, DC, November 9, 2001, www.indianembassy.org/indusrel/2001/vajpayee_bush_nov_9_01.htm. Joint Statement Between the United States of America and the Republic of India, November 9, 2001, www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011109-10.html. Mohammed Ayoob, "India Matters", The Washington Quarterly, Cambridge, MA, Winter 2000, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 29. Cohen, "India and America: An Emerging Relationship". Ibid. Ibid. Zhang Wenmu, "Global Geopolitics and India's Future Security", Zhan Lue Yu Guan Li Strategy and Management, June 2001, pp.43-52. Author's own translation. Venu Rajamony, India-China-U.S. Triangle: A 'Soft' Balance of Power System in the Making, Center for Strategic and International Studies Report, Washington, D.C., March 2002, p. 40. See www.csis.org/saprog/venu.pdf. Jasmin Fischer, "After Cold War, India, U.S. find common ground", The Washington Times, August 7, 1999. Ma Jiali, "The Adjustment of U.S. Policy toward South Asia after Sept 11" Nan Ya Yan Jiou (South Asia Study) vol. 2, 2001; Jiang Yili, "Why does Pakistan–U.S. Relationship get more estrangements" Dong Dai Ya Tai (Contemporary Asia Pacific), vol. 10, 2001. Author's own translation. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primary and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Chinese language edition, Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1998, p. 61; see also, the English Edition, New York: Basic Books, 1997, p. 46. Bajpai, "India-US Foreign Policy Concerns", p. 198. Robert Hathaway, "Unfinished Passage: India, Indian American and the U.S. Congress", Washington Quarterly, Cambridge, MA, Spring 2001, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 21-34. Milind Thakar, "Coping with Insecurity: The Pakistani Variable in Indo-US Relations" in Gary K. Bertsch, Seema Gahlaut and Anupam Srivastava, eds., Engaging India: US Strategic Relations with the World's Largest Democracy, New York: Routledge, 1999, p. 223. Amitabh Mattoo, "Shadow of the Dragon: Indo-US Relations and China" in Gary K. Bertsch, Seema Gahlaut and Anupam Srivastava, eds., Engaging India: US Strategic Relations with the World's Largest Democracy, New York: Routledge, 1999, pp.217-8. Declaration on Strategic Partnership between Republic of India and the Russian Federation, October 3, 2000. See http://meadev.nic.in/speeches/declaration-3oct2000.htm. For full text of the Declaration, see South Asia Terrorism Portal; India; Documents; Delhi Declaration on Further Consolidation of Strategic Partnership between the Republic of India and the Russian Federation. www.satp.org. Brzezinski identifies five "key geostrategic players" that are actively pursuing geopolitical interests (such as greater regional hegemony), which might conflict with the interests of the United States: France, Germany, Russia, China, and India. See his The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York: Basic Books, 1997. Henry A. Kissinger, Diplomacy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994, p. 23. See Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. Kanti Bajpai, "India-US Foreign Policy Concerns: Cooperation and Conflict", in Gary K. Bertsch, Seema Gahlaut, and Anupam Srivastava eds., Engaging India---US Strategic Relations with the World's Largest Democracy, New York: Routledge, 1999, p. 194. Rajamony, India-China-U.S. Triangle, p. 8. http://www.isis-online.org/ "Three million would die in "limited" nuclear war over Kashmir," www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992326. The 16 member states of the CICA are Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Palestine, Tajikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan. Rajamony, India-China-U.S. Triangle, p. 37. Ibid, pp. 37-39. Ma Jiali, Focusing on India-A Rising Power, Tianjing: Tianjing People's Publishing House, 2002, p. 222. Author's own translation.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume14/article2.htm
Climate leaders: The rhetoric vs the reality
COPENHAGEN: They had been urged to side with the angels but ultimately, base political instinct seems to have prevailed among the world's most

A date with Copenhagen Delhi's CNG rings bell at Copenhagen Climate spotlight: Living with pollution World's biggest polluters

powerful leaders as they sealed a climate

pact among themselves, sparking fury elsewhere.

From the eve of the 12-day marathon right until its finale, the overwhelming message in Copenhagen was that it was time to put aside national self-interest for the greater good of saving the planet for future generations.

But a survey of the wreckage from the negotiations indicated that none of the world's economic powerhouses was willing to make the leap of faith.

Instead, they opted for a lowest common denominator accord -- devoid of targets for greenhouse-gas emissions cuts and not legally binding.

Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said a delay in wide-ranging action to limit emissions had "condemned millions of the world's poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life."

Also Read

→ Investors give cautious thumbs up to climate deal

→ UN climate talks acknowledge Copenhagen accord

→ Copenhagen, RIP: Time to look beyond climate summit

→ For common man, climate disaster still his neighbour's problem

An editorial published in 56 newspapers around the world as the gathering kicked off nearly a fortnight earlier, invoked Abraham Lincoln by imploring the leaders to embrace "the better angels of our nature".

"The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it."

In their speeches from the floor, many of the leaders spoke of their encounters with school pupils or name-checked grandchildren.

"When I arrive home at the end of this week, will I be able to sit down, look my children in the eyes and tell them in clear conscience that I did absolutely everything I could to achieve an outcome to tackle climate change?" Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd asked rhetorically.

US President Barack Obama likewise urged his peers to be "part of a historic endeavor -- one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren."

Tip of a new climate order A weak deal plus a model with US and India role

JAYANTA BASU IN COPENHAGEN AND G.S. MUDUR IN NEW DELHI

NATURE'S REMINDER: From the climate storm in Copenhagen, Barack Obama landed in a blizzard in Washington on Saturday. The snowstorm forced Obama to ride in a motorcade, instead of taking a helicopter, to the White House. AFP picture shows snowflakes falling on the White House. Dec. 19: The world's biggest greenhouse gas polluters have crafted and proposed a new "accord", signalling a controversial shift in climate change politics that many countries have rejected. India and China were part of a dramatic meeting seized upon by President Barack Obama to set the stage for "the Copenhagen Accord" — a non-binding political pact. But the two countries later desisted from formally associating themselves with the text that has only been "taken note of" at the Copenhagen summit, reflecting the bitter opposition from smaller countries. The public posture did not prevent analysts — and some critics — from suggesting that India and China had become part of what looked like an emerging global climate order, almost breaking ranks with their traditional allies in the G77 developing countries group, including African and small island countries, to join America in efforts to find ways to tackle the climate challenge. The "new order" appeared to portend a diminishing role for the UN and underscore the vulnerability of a consensus-dependent process the world body has been following so far. The principal negotiations took place among about 30 countries and the accord "breakthrough" involved just five — the US, China, Brazil, South Africa and India. These countries account for almost 60 per cent of global pollution. That grouping whittled down to the largest economies, a climate negotiating group reminiscent of the Major Economies Forum originally convened by former President George W. Bush as a parallel track to the UN talks. "I don't think it's the end of the UN's climate role but it's a new model inside of it," Jennifer Morgan, the director of the World Resource Institute's climate and energy programme, told Reuters. She "absolutely" supported the role of heads of government. The eleventh-hour meeting attended by Obama, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the leaders of China, Brazil and South Africa had provided the decisive thrust. "I think that's the story of this conference. Heads of state came in and crafted a deal a bit independently of the UN process," she said. But others said any scaling down of the UN's role was "not correct from an equity or from an environmental point of view" because that would exclude many countries "already on the front lines of impacts of climate change". Several developing countries vehemently supported the role of the UN, exactly because it preserved their voice. The sharpest opposition emerged from a section of developing countries objecting to the document's goal of holding down the rise in the average global temperature to below 2°C. These countries, including the small island states, believe even a 1.5-degree rise would be catastrophic. The Copenhagen Accord, labelled a "bare minimum" by critics, articulates the need for multiple sets of actions to fight climate change and is expected to drive future talks to give it a legal form. Leaders and delegations from about 190 countries were sharply divided over the accord's content and the manner in which it was produced. The divisions forced the Chair to declare that the parties would "take note" of the document. India tightrope walk India's role reflected its tightrope walk in the face of conflicting pulls from the reality of pollution and domestic pressures that tend to label any shift a "sellout". On Friday noon, the country's special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, had expressed dissatisfaction that India and China had not been invited to be part of the consultative group to produce the text. But matters changed quickly after Obama had a dramatic meeting with the leaders of India, China, Brazil and South Africa (the BASIC group), asking them to join the document-crafting process. "The BASIC countries have worked out the political agreement with the industrialised countries — President Obama played the bridge between us and the European countries," environment minister Jairam Ramesh said close to midnight in Copenhagen. He indicated that India and the other countries had largely agreed with America on the issue of scrutiny of domestic emission-curbing actions in exchange for funding support. Ramesh, however, avoided responding to questions about how India stood in relation to the African and small island countries. Minutes later, G77 representative Lumumba Di-Aping rejected the accord. "We are not part of any such political agreement -- in fact, nobody has shown us the document yet. We cannot be a party to any document that will allow us a 2-degree rise as that will put our existence in jeopardy" Di-Aping told The Telegraph in Copenhagen. Asked whether India and China had betrayed the G77, Di-Aping said the group would not break but those who were part of such an agreement "would repent". As nation after nation spoke in favour of or against the accord, India remained quiet. However, when the Danish Prime Minister wanted the agreement placed in the house on behalf of the countries who prepared it, India's envoy backed out, citing a technicality. Subsequently, when the time came to put up the names of countries supporting the accord in an annexure, India desisted, not wanting to be bracketed publicly with the biggest polluters like the US and China. "Overnight, from a leader of G77, it turned into an ally of America and the developed countries but still does not want to show itself as being in that company," said Chandra Bhushan of the non-government Centre for Science and Environment. But other climate policy analysts feel India has done no wrong by helping craft a document that is in any case not legally binding. "I think the BASIC countries have played their card well in a difficult situation — keeping in mind the opinion of other G77 developing countries," said T. Jayaraman, a climate policy analyst at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. A key contentious issue was whether the Kyoto Protocol -- which imposes emission cuts only on developed countries -- would be replaced by a new treaty. "The Kyoto Protocol is still in danger, but the language of the Copenhagen Accord has preserved references to the Kyoto Protocol," said Jayaraman. "What this means is that negotiations in the coming months are likely to be as tough as they were in Copenhagen," said an energy policy expert. With Reuters inputs

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091220/jsp/frontpage/story_11888740.jsp

No-drama Obama? Not this time

US President Barack Obama (third from left) at the meeting with developing nations in Copenhagen. (AP) Dec. 19: A dramatic entry by Barack Obama into a room where the US President found no chair for himself but four probably startled heads of government set the stage for the "political accord" in Copenhagen. The jury is still out on who were more taken aback: Obama or the room's four occupants — Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabao (China) and Presidents Jacob Zuma (South Africa) and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Brazil). It is not clear whether Obama barged into the room to break up the "secret meeting" among the four nations or he turned up for a bilateral meeting with Wen and found to his surprise parleys were already going on among the four developing countries. According to a last-ditch schedule drawn up by the US team after almost giving up on a deal, Obama was supposed to meet Wen and then the three other leaders jointly. But the way the events unfolded, it appeared that the Chinese, Brazilian, Indian and South African leaders wanted to meet Obama together, rather than in separate sessions. Manmohan Singh had either reached the airport to fly back to India or was about to leave his hotel when word was passed on that Obama wanted to take one more shot at an accord. Sergio Serra, Brazil's senior climate negotiator here, confirmed that the US President had joined the meeting of Brazilian, Indian, Chinese and other officials. But he did not say that Obama had walked in uninvited to the room at Bella Centre, the venue of the summit. The US President had met Wen privately once. But Wen did not attend two smaller, impromptu meetings during the day that Obama and US officials conducted with leaders of other world powers, an apparent snub that infuriated the Americans and the Europeans. The two sides then scheduled the bilateral meeting that eventually became a multilateral event. Obama, while entering the room with secretary of state Hillary Clinton, said: "Can I join you now? Are you ready to talk to me or do you need more time? I can go back and come again." He was told by the leaders that he was welcome to join them which Obama did, although at one point he threatened to walk out if no deal was reached. There, the final stages of the agreement came together, sources close to the talks said, with Obama discussing specifics. Later, a US official said: "The only surprise we had, in all our history was... that in that room it wasn't just the Chinese having a meeting... but all four countries we had been trying to arrange meetings (with).… The President's viewpoint was, 'I wanted to see them all and now is our chance'." The Chinese told the White House that it was going to be a bilateral meeting and did not give an impression that all these leaders were also in the same room, a US official said. "The President's viewpoint was 'I'm going to make one last run'. When it appeared we couldn't get the Chinese earlier in the day, the President said 'Well, if we can't get the Chinese then let's get the next three (India, South Africa and Brazil) that are working as a team. They've got similar interests, there's no doubt about that'," the official said. "We weren't crashing a meeting. We were going for our bilateral meeting. We found the other (India, South Africa and Brazil) people there," a US official said, referring to suggestions that the Americans had got wind of the "secret meeting" and did not want to be left out. When Obama entered the room, there was no chair for him. Obama himself was reported as saying that there weren't any seats. Obama said, "No, no, don't worry, I am going to go sit by my friend Lula," and said, "Hey, Lula." He walked over, moved a chair and sat down next to Lula. Clinton sat next to him. The meeting started at 7pm local time and concluded at 8.15-8.20pm (about 12.45-12.50am in India on Saturday). An American official later said: "I will assume that their meeting was to get their ducks in a row. Because at this point, certainly, our impression was that a number of these people were either at or on the way to the airport." The Chinese team, which had been initially reluctant about the meeting, had told White House officials that most of the team were already at the airport while Wen was in his hotel, getting ready to leave, the US official said. When they called the Indian team, the US officials were apparently told that Singh was already at the airport. This was around 4pm local time (8.30pm Indian time on Friday). Another version said Singh was about to leave his hotel but turned back after receiving the call. Indian sources said a call also came from a top UN official. "When they (White House officials) called Brazil, they were told there would be no meeting without India as they knew that Singh was on his way back. Zuma agreed as he did not have the latest information about Singh," a US official said. "Brazil told us they did not know if they could come because they wanted the Indians to come. The Indians were at the airport. Zuma was under the impression that everybody was coming," the US official added. "When Zuma came to know that Singh was at the airport, he also backed out of the meeting. He said: 'If they (India and Brazil) are not coming, I can't do this'." The White House then received a call from the Chinese team that Wen wanted to move the bilateral meeting from 6.15pm (10.45pm in India) to 7pm local time (11.30pm in India). Obama, who was personally involved in all this, agreed to the Chinese request and went into a huddle with European leaders, which lasted about 45 minutes. At the "accidental" five- nation meeting, Prime Minister Singh told Obama that international review of voluntary mitigation action was unacceptable as he was answerable to Parliament. Any international review of India's voluntary mitigation actions would go against public opinion, he said. Wen also had similar views, while Lula voiced concerns over imposition of trade barriers on developing countries under the garb of environment protection. Obama told them that the US recognised the development challenges of the countries and wanted to be a partner and not an impediment to their progress. The group stuck to its stand on review of voluntary mitigation action, which it said would be an intrusion on members' sovereignty. The talks then veered to formulation and words to be used to reach an agreement. After some rounds of talk, the leaders agreed on having "international consultations" on the line of WTO talks as the accepted phrase.

PTI AND NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091220/jsp/nation/story_11888428.jsp

China praises Copenhagen's international climate talks' outcome as 'significant and positive'

GILLIAN WONG Associated Press Writer

1:27 PM GMT, December 20, 2009

EIJING (AP) — China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, lauded Sunday the outcome of a historic U.N. climate conference that ended with a nonbinding agreement that urges major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts — but does not require it.

The international climate talks that brought more than 110 leaders together in Copenhagen produced "significant and positive" results, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said.

Disputes between rich and poor countries and between the world's biggest carbon polluters — China and the United States — dominated the two-week conference. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to demand action to cool an overheating planet.

The meeting ended Saturday after a 31-hour negotiating marathon, with delegates accepting a U.S.-brokered compromise. The so-called Copenhagen Accord gives billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations but does not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the much-criticized outcome as a first step that paves the way for action. Merkel was quoted Sunday as telling the Bild am Sonntag newspaper that "Copenhagen is a first step toward a new world climate order — no more, but also no less."

Merkel said that "anyone who just badmouths Copenhagen now is engaging in the business of those who are applying the brakes rather than moving forward."

Yang said the positive outcomes of the conference were that it upheld the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto Protocol, and made a step forward in promoting binding emissions cuts for developed countries and voluntary mitigating actions by developing countries.

"Developing and developed countries are very different in their historical emissions responsibilities and current emissions levels, and in their basic national characteristics and development stages," Yang said in a statement. "Therefore, they should shoulder different responsibilities and obligations in fighting climate change."

He said the conference also created a consensus on key issues such as long-term global emissions reduction targets, funding and technology support to developing countries, and transparency. He did not go into details.

"The Copenhagen conference is not a destination but a new beginning," Yang said.

China has said it will rein in its greenhouse gas output, pledging to reduce its carbon intensity — its use of fossil fuels per unit of economic output — by 40 to 45 percent.

The Copenhagen Accord emerged principally from President Barack Obama's meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and the leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa. But the agreement was protested by several nations that demanded deeper emissions cuts by the industrialized world.

Its key elements, with no legal obligation, were that richer nations will finance a $10 billion-a-year, three-year program to fund poorer nations' projects to deal with drought and other impacts of climate change, and to develop clean energy.

A goal was also set to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 for the same adaptation and mitigation purposes.

In a U.S. concession to China and other developing nations, text was dropped from the declaration that would have set a goal of reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2050. Developing nations thought that would hamper efforts to raise their people from poverty.

Related links

• Photos: Hundreds arrested outside U.N. climate talks Photos
• Climate Conference in Copenhagen Photos
• Graphic: Top 12 dirty nations Graphic
• Graphic: Hot decade Graphic
• Graphic: Copenhagen climate summit Graphic
• Activities that produce greenhouse gases Graphic
• CO2 concentrations Graphic
• Graphic: Extreme weather Graphic
• Types of greenhouse gases Graphic
• Emissions goals Graphic
• China praises Copenhagen's international climate talks' outcome as 'significant and positive'

http://www.fox40.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-climate,0,2911325.story

Germany's Merkel defends climate accord

Posted on December 20, 2009 at 4:03 AM

BERLIN (AP) — German Chancellor Angela Merkel is defending the much-criticized outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit as a first step that paves the way for action.

Merkel was quoted Sunday as telling the Bild am Sonntag newspaper that "Copenhagen is a first step toward a new world climate order — no more, but also no less."

The climate conference ended Saturday with only a nonbinding "Copenhagen Accord" that was short on concrete steps against global warming but signaled a new start for rich-poor cooperation on climate change.

Merkel said that "anyone who just badmouths Copenhagen now is engaging in the business of those who are applying the brakes rather than moving forward."

She added that the Copenhagen accord "must now be built upon."

Copenhagen Accord: half-baked text and unclear substance - WWF

21 Dec 2009

The UN climate talks in Copenhagen have ended with a weak Accord being accepted by most parties, but the present ambition is far too low to tackle dangerous climate change, WWF said today.

"Copenhagen was at the brink of failure due to poor leadership combined with an unconvincing level of ambition", said Kim Carstensen, Leader of WWF's Global Climate Initiative.

WWF analysed the conference outcome against 10 performance criteria, finding that none of the objectives needed to fulfil the aim of keeping average global warming below the 2 degree C high risk level had been met, although some had been partly fulfilled.

"Well meant but half-hearted pledges to protect our planet from dangerous climate change are simply not sufficient to address a crisis that calls for completely new ways of collaboration across rich and poor countries," said Mr Carstensen.

"Millions of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and a wealth of lost opportunities lie in the difference between rhetoric and reality on climate change action."

Politicians around the world seem to be in agreement that we must stay below the 2 degree C threshold of unacceptable risks of climate change - in theory. However, practically what leaders have put on the table adds up to 3 degrees C of warming or more, according to WWF estimates.

Attention will now shift to follow up negotiations which need to fill out many details in the often vague accord - and, on a more positive note, to a host of initiatives by countries, cities, companies and communities that are starting to build low carbon economies from the base up.

The draft Copenhagen Accord is a long way from developing into a legally binding framework for decisive action on climate change.

"We needed a treaty now and at best, we will be working on one in half a year's time," said Carstensen.

"What we have after two years of negotiation is a half-baked text of unclear substance. None of the political obstacles to effective climate action have been solved with the possible exception of the beginnings of financial flows.

The lack of clarity is illustrated by a call for a global peak in emissions "as soon as possible", in contrast to the 2007 call of the IPCC for emissions to peak in 2017.

Emissions reductions pledges remain far lower than what is required, with a leaked analysis by the UNFCCC secretariat showing a shortfall that would lead to 3 degrees C of warming even without considering extensive loopholes.

"We are disappointed but the story continues," said Carstensen. "Civil society was excluded from these final negotiations to an extraordinary degree, and that was felt during the concluding days in Copenhagen."

"We can assure the world, however, that WWF and other elements of civil society will continue engaging in every step of further negotiations."

http://wwf.org.au/news/copenhagen-accord-half-baked-text-and-unclear-substance-wwf/

digg Huffpost - COPENHAGEN ACCORD DETAILS: What's Known About The Climate Change Deal stumble reddit del.ico.us

First Posted: 12-18-09 10:02 PM   |   Updated: 12-19-09 02:07 AM

What's Your Reaction?

Inspiring
Enlightening
Infuriating
Scary
Helpful
Amazing
Innovative
Adorable

Read More: #cop15, Brazil, China, Climate Change, Copenhagen, Copenhagen 2009, Copenhagen Accord, Copenhagen Agreement, Copenhagen Deal, Copenhagen Details, Copenhagen Pact, Emissions, Global Warming, Greenhouse Gases, Non-Binding, Read The Deal, Us, Green News

Get Breaking News Alerts

never spam

• 
  Share
• 
  Print
• 
  Comments

***Click here to read the document released to the media***

Here is what's known about the broad, nonbinding accord reached by the U.S., China, India, Brazil, South Africa and several other countries at the U.N. climate talks – along with current elements in place earlier:

Greenhouse gas emissions

The deal does not commit any nation to emissions cuts beyond a general acknowledgment that global temperatures should be held along the lines agreed to by leading nations in July. There are no overall emissions targets for rich countries.

The already agreed-upon emissions cuts fall far short of action needed to avoid potentially dangerous effects of climate change. These cuts are to be made by 2020:

_U.S., a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels (or 3-4 percent from 1990 levels).

_China, a cut of 40 to 45 percent below "business as usual," that is, judged against 2005 figures for energy used versus economic output.

_India, 20 to 25 percent cut from 2005 levels

_European Union, 20 percent cut from 1990, and possibly 30 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/copenhagen-accord-details_n_397879.html

Obama forges semblence of an accord mydigitalfc.com - Hardev Sanotra - ‎20 hours ago‎ to cobble together an agreement with India, China, South Africa and Brazil or what's called the Basic nations, ... PM extends stay for elusive Copenhagen accord Gaea Times (blog) - ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ The announcement came amid dimming prospects for a new global climate-change pact at next month's UN November 16th, 2009 Summit urged to set climate accord ... US-BASIC 'Copenhagen Accord' disappoints poor nations Indian Express - ‎12 hours ago‎ US-Basic AccordBy: Ashok K Gupta | 19-Dec-2009 Reply | Forward India has some scope in per capita & per unit GDP emission.But need to focus more on the ... PM returns from Copenhagen Gaea Times (blog) - ‎Dec 19, 2009‎ December 18th, 2009 COPENHAGEN - Leaders of major economies finalised a Copenhagen accord to tackle climate change late Friday night. The accord, which is ... Contentious Trade Issue Arises in Copenhagen As Obama Arrives at Divisive ... CNSNews.com - Patrick Goodenough - ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ 16, 2009. (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) – As President Obama joins other world leaders at the Copenhagen climate conference on Friday, the subject of carbon ... Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner: Don't be fooled in Copenhagen Washington Examiner - ‎Dec 17, 2009‎ My opposition to these latest proposals from Asia is essentially for the same reasons as my opposition to the original Kyoto climate accord: It puts the ... 5 nations forge climate pact San Jose Mercury News - John M. Broder - ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ Obama said before he left Copenhagen that he was confident that a final accord would be reached here. He looked weary, and his eyes were bloodshot as he ... Climate talks may fail; PM, Obama, China stick to their guns Rediff - ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ Earlier, US President Barack Obama said at the Copenhagen meet: "It is in our mutual interest to achieve a global climate accord. There is no time to waste, ... PM extends stay for elusive Copenhagen accord Online Latest News (blog) - ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ by Pankaj Akhori on December 19, 2009 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh extended his stay here another night Friday as consensus on a Copenhagen accord ... PM stuck in Copenhagen as accord stalls again Online Latest News (blog) - ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ As the drafting of the Copenhagen Accord stalled yet again due to differences between rich and poor countries, Denmark's Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen ... India: Kyoto in intensive care if not dead COP15 Copenhagen - ‎Dec 16, 2009‎ 16/12/2009 14:33No-one has the right to pollute the world, rich, poor, developed or emerging nations. Developed Nations now have the responsibility to clean ... India says Kyoto climate pact in intensive care Bernama - ‎Dec 16, 2009‎ Protestors carry a banner as they march towards Bella Center where the UN Climate Change 2009 Conference takes place to disrupt proceedings in Copenhagen ... Climate deal good for the developing world: India Gulf Times - ‎17 hours ago‎ The so-called Copenhagen Accord had been brokered by the US and China and endorsed by the European Union, India and South Africa . ... INTERVIEW - India says climate talks lack clarity, may break down Malaysia Star - Krittivas Mukherjee, Dominic Evans - ‎Dec 15, 2009‎ COPENHAGEN Reuters) - Global talks on climate change still lack clarity and could even break down over "serious" outstanding issues ...

• Environment
• Copenhagen climate change conference 2009

Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure

Deal thrashed out at talks condemned as climate change scepticism in action

• Comments (437)
• Buzz up!
• Digg it (135)

• John Vidal, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg in Copenhagen
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009 00.47 GMT
• Article history

Onlookers stretch to shake the hand of the US president, Barack Obama, as he walks through the press conference room at the Bella centre. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement in Copenhagen tonight, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come.

After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.

American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This progress is not enough."

"We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he added.

Gordon Brown hailed the night as a success on five out of six measures.

In a press conference held after the talks broke up, Brown said the agreement was a "vital first step" and accepted there was a lot more work to do to get assurances it would become a legally binding agreement. He declined to call it a "historic" conference: "This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. But like all first steps, the steps are difficult and they are hard."

"I know what we rally need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."

The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night it was unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session. The deal aims to provide $30bn a year for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year by 2020.

But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries which had been holding out for deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C in past drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO₂ emissions by 80% was also dropped.

The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the US and others demanded.

Obama hinted that China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press conference he condemned the insistence of some countries to look backwards to previous environmental agreements. He said developing countries should be "getting out of that mindset, and moving towards the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move together".

This was a not-so-veiled reference to the row over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol and its legal distinction between developed and developing countries. Developing nations saw this as an attempt by the rich world to wriggle out of its responsibility for climate change. Many observers blamed the US for coming to the talks with an offer of just 4% emissions cuts on 1990 levels. The final text made no obligations on developing countries to make cuts.

Negotiators will now work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and finance – but, without strong leadership, the chances are that it will take years to complete.

Obama cast his trip as a sign of renewed US global leadership: "The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek; that is why I came to Copenhagen."

But the US president also said he would not be staying for the final vote "because of weather constraints in Washington".

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, said the deal had "the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush."

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Ed Miliband [UK climate change secretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit." It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen."

Lydia Baker of Save the Children said world leaders had "effectively signed a death warrant for many of the world's poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

Is the Copenhagen Accord a meaningful agreement?

Paul Woodward, Online Correspondent

• Last Updated: December 20. 2009 2:49PM UAE / December 20. 2009 10:49AM GMT

As two weeks of contentious negotiations on tackling climate change concluded with the declaration of the Copenhagen Accord - which the US President Barack Obama described as a "meaningful" agreement - it was unclear in what sense the accord actually constituted an agreement.

"The climate deal reached between US, China and other great powers on Friday night is so vague, hastily hatched and non-binding President Obama isn't even sure he'll be required to sign it," Politico reported.

" 'You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there's actually a signature... It's not a legally binding agreement, I don't know what the protocols are,' said a bleary-eyed Obama, before hopping in Air Force One for the trip back to Washington."

As The New York Times noted: "The three-page accord that Mr Obama negotiated with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa and then presented to the conference did not meet even the modest expectations that leaders set for this meeting, notably by failing to set a 2010 goal for reaching a binding international treaty to seal the provisions of the accord.

"Nor does the plan firmly commit the industrialised nations or the developing nations to firm targets for midterm or long-term greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The accord is nonetheless significant in that it codifies the commitments of individual nations to act on their own to tackle global warming.

" 'For the first time in history,' Mr Obama said, 'all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.'

"The accord provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward those national pollution-reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over which China bargained hard. It calls for hundreds of billions of dollars to flow from wealthy nations to those countries most vulnerable to a changing climate. And it sets a goal of limiting the global temperature rise to 2C above preindustrial levels by 2050, implying deep cuts in climate-altering emissions over the next four decades.

"But it was an equivocal agreement that was, to many, a disappointing conclusion to a two-year process that had the goal of producing a comprehensive and enforceable action plan for addressing dangerous changes to the global climate. The messy compromise mirrored the chaotic nature of the conference, which virtually all participants said had been badly organised and run."

The accord that Mr Obama helped negotiate would have been almost worthless without recognition by the plenary session of all the delegate nations at the summit. But as The Guardian recounted, when the Danish chairman, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, gave delegates just an hour to consider the accord, he was assailed by a storm of criticism.

"The Venezuelan representative raised a bloodied hand to grab his attention. 'Do I have to bleed to grab your attention,' she fumed. 'International agreements cannot be imposed by a small exclusive group. You are endorsing a coup d'état against the United Nations.'

"While the debate raged, China's delegate, Su Wei, was silent as Latin American nations and small island states lined up to attack the accord and the way it had been reached.

" 'We're offended by the methodology. This has been done in the dark,' fumed the Bolivian delegate. 'It does not respect two years of work.'

"Others resorted to histrionics. The document 'is a solution based on the same very values, in our opinion, that channelled six million people in Europe into furnaces,' said Sudan's Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping.

"It was too much for Rasmussen, who looked strained and exhausted after a week spent vainly trying to bridge the schisms between the parties. He raised his gavel to close the debate, which would have aborted the Copenhagen accord and condemned the summit to abject failure.

"The document was saved at the last second by [Britain's secretary of state for energy and climate change, Ed] Miliband, who had rushed back from his hotel room to call for an adjournment. During the recess, a group led by Britain, the US and Australia forced Rasmussen out of the chair and negotiated a last-minute compromise. The accord was neither accepted or rejected, it was merely 'noted'. This gave it a semblance of recognition, but the weak language reflected the unease that has surrounded its inception."

Andy Atkins, the executive director of Friends of the Earth, responding to a speech by Mr Obama said: "The president is right that the endeavours in Copenhagen will go down in history - but unless we see a massive shift in the US position, it will be for all the wrong reasons.

"If the president's idea of action is to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels then we're heading for climate catastrophe. Barack Obama should have taken the opportunity to up his proposed cuts to at least 40 per cent by 2020 and ditch carbon offsetting.

"Obama has deeply disappointed not just those listening to his speech at the UN talks - he has disappointed the whole world."

Tim Jones, climate policy officer at the World Development Movement said: "This summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that has condemned millions of people around the world to untold suffering. The leaders of rich countries have refused to lead. They have been captured by business interests at a time when people need leaders to put justice first.

"Rich countries have failed the poorest people in the world and history will judge them harshly. They have failed to offer the emissions cuts that science and justice requires. To say that this 'deal' is in any way historic or meaningful is to completely misrepresent the fact that this 'deal' is meaningless."

The Guardian reported: "The blame game over the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks started last night with countries accusing each other of a complete lack of willingness to compromise.

"The G77 group of 130 developing nations blamed Obama for 'locking the poor into permanent poverty by refusing to reduce US emissions further.'

" 'Today's events are the worst development for climate change in history,' said a spokesperson.

"Pablo Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the UN, blamed the Danish hosts for convening only a small group of countries to prepare a text to put before world leaders. 'This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of the 190 nations.'"

The New York Times noted: "Even President Obama, a principal force behind the final deal, said the accord would take only a modest step toward healing the Earth's fragile atmosphere.

"Many participants also said that the chaos and contentiousness of the talks may signal the end of reliance on a process that for almost two decades had been viewed as the best approach to tackling global warming: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a series of 15 conventions following a 1992 climate summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro.

"The process has become unworkable, many said, because it has proved virtually impossible to forge consensus among the disparate blocs of countries fighting over environmental guilt, future costs and who should referee the results.

" 'The climate treaty process isn't going to die, but the real work of coordinating international efforts to reduce emissions will primarily occur elsewhere,' said Michael Levi, who has been tracking the diplomatic effort for the Council on Foreign Relations.

"That elsewhere will likely be a much smaller group of nations, roughly 30 countries responsible for 90 per cent of global warming emissions."

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091220/GLOBALBRIEFING/912209991/1009?template=globalbriefing

Thirteen-day talkathon delivers 'horrible agreement' DAWN.com - Rina Saeed Khan - ‎43 minutes ago‎ 'Copenhagen was supposed to deliver a binding treaty, not hollow promises': Pakistani negotiator. Above: Workers remove an exhibit at ... Climate summit most chaotic show on earth - Miliband BBC News - ‎49 minutes ago‎ The UK's climate change secretary has said the UN Copenhagen summit was the "most chaotic show on earth" and arguments "strangled" negotiations. ... Miliband blames China over deal The Press Association - ‎1 hour ago‎ Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband acknowledged that the results of the Copenhagen conference were "disappointing" but insisted that important progress ... China says communication with other developing countries at Copenhagen summit ... Xinhua - Xiong Tong - ‎1 hour ago‎ BEIJING, Dec. 20 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said here Sunday that China's communication with other developing countries at the ... China: Climate talks yielded 'positive' results The Associated Press - Gillian Wong - ‎1 hour ago‎ BEIJING — China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, lauded Sunday the outcome of a historic UN climate conference that ended with a nonbinding ... One cheer for Copenhagen Sydney Morning Herald - ‎1 hour ago‎ NOWHERE near good enough, but much better than nothing. That is the kindest, and fairest, verdict that can be passed on the Copenhagen climate-change summit ... The day the Earth stood still Sydney Morning Herald - Marian Wilkinson - ‎1 hour ago‎ IN a faltering step that nearly all concede is too little to avert a climate crisis, the majority of world leaders will adopt the first international ... Clearly the accord is not enough, but at least it's a start Sydney Morning Herald - Ben Cubby - ‎1 hour ago‎ THE Copenhagen Accord, already derided as a betrayal of the world's most vulnerable people, still signals a new dawn in the world's approach to climate ... Match words with deeds, and time is ticking: scientists Sydney Morning Herald - Deborah Smith, Ben Cubby - ‎1 hour ago‎ DESPITE the best efforts of climate change campaigners to distribute ticking alarm clocks to delegates at Copenhagen, and the enormous stopwatch carried ... New approach on global warming needed now The Australian - ‎1 hour ago‎ THE Copenhagen climate change conference generated much heat and little light on ways the world can unite to reduce carbon emissions. ... All 11,203 related articles »

Related Copenhagen Barack Obama Climate change China Global warming Greenhouse gas Timeline of articles Number of sources covering this story Climate summit most chaotic show on earth - Miliband ‎49 minutes ago‎ - BBC News Climate talks go into overtime, PM Manmohan called back ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ - Times of India New climate draft drops 2010 deadline for treaty ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ - The Associated Press Obama Tries to Rally UN Climate Conference, but Deadlock Persists ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ - New York Times Chinese premier: Will honor climate commitments ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ - The Associated Press Obama hopes to seal the climate deal in Copenhagen ‎Dec 18, 2009‎ - The Associated Press Copenhagen climate talks in quotes ‎Dec 17, 2009‎ - BBC News Hillary Clinton Pledges $100B for Developing Countries ‎Dec 17, 2009‎ - New York Times Obama will be in climate spotlight in Copenhagen ‎Dec 17, 2009‎ - Los Angeles Times Final reckoning: What the leaders must do to thrash out a deal in Copenhagen ‎Dec 16, 2009‎ - guardian.co.uk Images DAWN.com BBC News The Associated ... Sydney Morning ... East African RadioFreeEurope... AFP BBC News Aljazeera.net All related images » Videos Finally an agreement at Copenhagen NewsX  -  23 hours ago Watch video White House Tries to Save Copenhagen Summit The Associated Press  -  Dec 17, 2009 Watch video US, China Edge Closer at Climate Talks The Associated Press  -  Dec 17, 2009 Watch video Climate Change March Reaches End Of Line The UpTake  -  Dec 12, 2009 Watch video Mobile Party Machine At COP15 March The UpTake  -  Dec 12, 2009 Watch video All related videos »

Rudd :Copenhagen Accord- A Real Challenge PR-inside.com (press release) - ‎7 hours ago‎ Foundations now laid in the Copenhagen climate change Accord. We need national & global action for our kids. Kevin Rudd Prime Minister of Australia tweeted ... Washington Post Bright REDD Spot in Otherwise Dismal Copenhagen Accord Ecosystem Marketplace - Steve Zwick - ‎15 hours ago‎ 19 December 2009 | COPENHAGEN | That's the good news on REDD from the otherwise disappointing Copenhagen Accord, which was recognized in the wee hours of ... REDD Forestry Deal Close, But May Not Have Money to Pay for It SolveClimate (blog) The US will meet the climate challenge Stabroek News Forest plan gets the ax at UN climate talks Washington Post PBS FRONTLINE/World all 661 news articles » Email this story Khaleej Times Copenhagen failures strike at heart of UN system Channel News Asia - ‎10 hours ago‎ In Copenhagen last week, there were moments when that crash finally - horribly - appeared to have happened. The United Nations had billed December 18 2009 ... GLOBAL: Goodbye Copenhagen, hello Mexico? Reuters AlertNet all 12 news articles » Email this story Straits Times Copenhagen Accord useful in taking climate talks forward: PM Lee Channel News Asia - May Wong - ‎Dec 19, 2009‎ COPENHAGEN: Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Saturday that he is ... Singapore - PM Lee Hsien Loong in Copenhagen ISRIA all 3 news articles » Email this story SUMMIT IS A GREENWASH Mirror.co.uk - Lesley Yarranton - ‎8 hours ago‎ The 1 1th-hour Copenhagen Accord was pieced together by US President Barack Obama, who called it "meaningful". But it has been roundly condemned by ... ABC News Germany's Merkel Defends Climate Accord ABC News - ‎4 hours ago‎ 18, 2009. (AP Photo/Heribert Proepper) German Chancellor Angela Merkel is defending the much-criticized outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit as a first ... Daily Mail Sudan climate negotiator 'Holocaust' remarks prompt angry response Sudan Tribune - ‎9 hours ago‎ UN climate talks ended with a bare-minimum agreement on Saturday when delegates "noted" an accord struck by the United States, China and other emerging ... Chief G-77 Negotiator Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping: US-Backed Proposals Mean ... Democracy Now all 17 news articles » Email this story UN climate change conference issues Copenhagen Accord CCTV - Zhang Pengfei - ‎14 hours ago‎ People walk past a globe at the venue of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, capital of Denmark, December 19, 2009. ... Stay up to date on these results: Create an email alert for copenhagen accord 2009 Add a news gadget for copenhagen accord 2009 to your Google homepage Search blogs for copenhagen accord 2009

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Next