The results of these two crucial events are likely to be on the expected lines. At this particular time of global financial crisis and accompanying recession the developed nations are unwilling to make any substantial commitments that would ensure free and fair practices in the multilateral trading system and give a level-playing field to the developing and least developed countries. The developed nations, with a view to save themselves from the impact of the global crisis, have become more protectionist in trade. The US Administration under President Obama has recently initiated several measures that directly and indirectly restrict free and fair trade. Apart from fostering protectionism in trade, the developed countries are aggressive for opening up of markets in developing countries.

Similarly is the case for cutting down greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels by the developed countries. Climate politics is taking a new turn. The developed countries are unwilling to reduce their energy consumption and effect a change in their life style as they believe that this existing order would help to keep their economies intact – no matter what happens to the rest of the world. A commitment for a drastic cut in their emission level can, however, save the warming world from a catastrophe!

The climate politics of the developed countries, particularly that of US is to focus more on carbon trading, trade in green goods and services and less on emission cuts. Though under ‘the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’, the developing nations are not required to make commitments for emission cuts, the pressure is mounting on them to do so with a mechanism for global monitoring of compliances. Plot is being hatched to rope in developing countries by suggesting black carbon emission as one of the cause for global warming, while there is no conclusive scientific evidence for it. The recent UNFA report has shamelessly mentioned black carbon emission in developing countries as a cause for global warming. However. Some developing countries have, on their own, taken some initiatives to contain their GHG emission.

If the developed countries are interested in roping in developing nations in commitments for emission cuts, it would be better to suggest a global norm for per capita energy consumption and fix the emission cut on per capita basis. This judicious formula may not be agreeable by the developed nations as their per capita energy consumption and emission are much higher than in the developing world.

The developing countries have the right to the development process for lifting millions of people out of poverty. They are in search of appropriate technology transfer and adequate finance from the developed world so that they can carry on their development process as usual without much burdening the global atmosphere with GHG emissions. A trap is being carefully laid in Copenhagen to allure the developing countries with sops like technology and finance transfer and modifications in carbon trading mechanism so that the developed countries can bypass their commitments for effecting their emission cuts.

Technology transfer is likely to carry a tag of stringent intellectual property rights, the price of which the developing countries would have to pay. It would better in the interests of the world as a whole that intellectual property regime do not come in the way of green technology transfer and green goods and services become affordable. Or else the Copenhagen conference is likely to only boost the prospects of the developed world in trade of green goods and services.

The warming world now needs some soothing effect which can come primarily from the commitments from the developed countries to drastically cut their emission levels. If this does not happen then the Copenhagen conference would mean nothing in terms of climate justice. On the whole the developing countries would continue to suffer with increased climate extremities, droughts, floods, cyclones, storm surges, threat of submergence and other natural calamities.

The world leaders need to emphasis and render incentives for not only for preservation and conservation of natural forests but also for increasing the area under dense forests. It is a tragedy that climate sensitive sectors like forestry, mining and fishery are wrongfully placed under Non-Agriculture Market Access (NAMA) ie industrial goods in the WTO. This encourages more deforestation to meet the greed of timber trade and more depletion of natural mineral and marine resources. Forestry, mining and fishery need to placed under Agriculture negotiations in the WTO.

Negotiations in the Seventh WTO Ministerial in Geneva and the Copenhagen climate conference are closely inter-linked. It is not surprising that the trade in green goods and services may figure in the Geneva talks ahead of the Copenhagen meet.

In today’s unipolar world, the US holds the key to the success or failure of any international negotiations. Badly stung by the global financial crisis and in a frantic bid to save its ailing economy, it is in search of allies in the emerging economies. The US has, however found two such allies – India and China. The US President Obama has recently offered strategic bilateral partnerships with India and China – two emerging economies that have the capability to influence other developing countries.

Brazil, which is an emerging economy and aggressive in trade interests, may not be vocal in protecting the defensive interests of the farmers in developing world.

The US-India Joint Statement signed on November 24, 2009 has said : “Prime Minister Singh and President Obama recognised that the India-US relationship is important for managing the challenges the world will face in the 21st century.”

Recently, The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Michael Rudd and the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh struck a Strategic Partnership for comprehensive cooperation in almost all sectors including defence. Australia has an ambition to emerge as a leader in the Asia-Pacific region and intends to sign free trade agreements (FTAs) with India, China, Japan and South Korea. Australia is aware that India is forging closer links with US and is leaving a larger footprint across the Indian Ocean. Rudd has described Asia-Pacific region where the big power relationships most closely intersect – the crucible where the relationships among the US, India, China, Japan and Russia are forged and the template for the emergence of US-China relationship and where the complementary and competitive interests of the major powers would need to be managed, harmonized and reconciled.
The advocates for trade and climate justice on behalf of the developing world should study the fine fabrics of the changing geo-politics and how the developed countries are ganging up and forging alliances with the emerging economies to save themselves from the adverse impact of the global financial crisis.

Majority of G-20 finance ministers are in favour of strengthening the sagging US dollar so that it continues to act as the global currency reserve. Less than three weeks after India stunned global markets with its decision to buy 200 tonne of gold from the IMF for $6.7 billion as a hedge against the weakening US dollar, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in an interview to Newsweek of US said : “I have heard many times before. When I was in the US in the late 1960s there was Prof. Robert Triffin at Yale who wrote a famous book – Gold & the Dollar Crisis – saying the dollar’s role as a reserve currency has come to an end and the US must recognise this. That was said in 1968. Then of course came 1971 when the US went off the Gold Exchange Tender. But the US bounced back. I hope the same thing will happen once again.”

On the issue of negotiations for climate justice, the Indian Prime Minister in his recent address to the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations, however, said : “The negotiations heading towards Copenhagen are proving more difficult than we have liked. There is disagreement among industrialised countries and between industrialised and developing countries.” In an interview to the US press he categorically said : “I know there are difficulties. But without the US giving a lead I do not see a deal at Copenhagen can become a reality.”

With a view to strengthen India-US Strategic Dialogue launched in July 20 2009, India and US signed MoUs for cooperation on energy security, energy efficiency, clean energy and climate change, agricultural cooperation and food security, counter-terrorism. MoU on energy cooperation and the India-US civilian nuclear pact signed earlier would give access to American companies and India would gain in terms of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows, but the quantum of benefits to the Indian power sector needs to be assessed in this context. The US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture and the recently signed MoU on agriculture cooperation are likely to give greater control of US seed multinationals over Indian agriculture and pave the way for imposing genetically modified (GM) crops on Indian farmers. Bt brinjal developed by Monsanto’s Indian partner, Mahyco is on the verge of commercialisation and is being resisted by many farmers’ organisations and civil society groups.

The deals at Geneva and Copenhagen are likely to be on the expected lines. The negotiations at both these venues are likely to be largely influenced by the changing geo-politics with the developed countries in the lead and the supporting emerging economies in the backdrop of the global financial crisis. The advocates for trade and climate justice on behalf of the developing world should better lobby with the least developing countries (LDCs), small and vulnerable economies (SVEs), CARICOM, African Group, Cotton-4 and ACP countries so that real justice can be achieved. Many of these countries are already being allured by developed countries and emerging economies for bilateral trade and cooperation.#