New Delhi, September 28
US President Barack Obama sprinted through three days of international diplomacy at the United Nations General Assembly vowing to re-engage the world body and pushing through a UNSC (United Nations Security Council) resolution that inched him closer to his dream of a nuclear weapons-free world. The resolution aims at deterring countries from withdrawing from the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and preventing civilian nuclear programs from being diverted toward the development of nuclear weapons.

This is not the only engagement that India has with the United States. Being an emerging economic powerhouse, India is also engaged with the US in signing the WTO agreement and the engaging in climate change negotiations.

What really will be critical for India is the bargain that the US will drive against the civil nuclear agreement. Will India compromise on issues in WTO ? Will it compromise on the climate change initiative that starts next week?

Expert quote

Non-professional conditions within the deal are slowly coercing India into adhering to the terms and conditions laid down under the NPT regime without actually being a formal signatory to the agreement — Prof Brahma Chellaney

India made sure to revive the stalled 153-member World Trade Organisation (WTO) formal talks at its headquarters in Geneva this month to conclude the Doha round of trade talks. Most of the blame for the stalled talks lay on India’s door for being a spoiler as it did not agree to opening the agriculture markets and eliminating industrial tariffs.

Being a primarily agrarian economy, does India have the basics in agriculture to throw the markets open? Is this the question most agriculture and trade experts argue? However, others say initially the same apprehension was voiced for industry, in the 90s, but Indian industry emerged stronger and is growing strength to strength. On reduction of industrial tariffs , India is faced with opening sensitive and small players to the world who have been insulated as yet.

Union Commerce Minister Anand Sharma has already stated that flexibility in negotiations is the key to moving forward. How is the word ‘flexibility’ interpreted is to be seen. Does it mean that India dilutes its position and gives in to opening the agriculture markets?

However, India and other countries like China and Brazil have also to bear in mind that the developed countries are faced with a growing domestic demand for protectionism while they seek higher openings in the developing country markets.

Though it is evident some key differences remain in defining a clear path to conclude the multilateral trade talks, at the same time there was also a realisation from all quarters that such differences needed to be resolved for a healthy multilateral trading system. As also because of the 2010 deadline for Doha round. Another area where India has been blamed by the world for being a deal-breaker instead of a deal-maker is the deadlock in climate change. Defending India’s stand, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said India would like to be part of a solution to hammer a new global climate pact. He said the present crisis on climate change was the “inability” of the United States to put on the table credible emissions reduction targets for 2020.

India’s stand is that developing countries should not be expected to agree to absolute cuts in their gas emission levels. India is also opposed to accepting any internationally binding norms for reduction in gas emissions in different industries, although it was open to accepting the norms for best practices in energy use in various sectors. At the same time, India stood by its commitment that its emission levels would not cross those of the developed countries, thereby putting on them the onus of determining an effective cap on emissions for all developing countries.

India is also of the view that a special financing agency should be created within the ambit of United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), which, however, could receive funding from multilateral financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The funding requirement for such an initiative was estimated at anything between 0.5 and 1 per cent of the gross domestic product of the developed world.

India has 16 per cent of the world’s population and produces less than 5 per cent of the word's greenhouse gases, while China has 17 per cent of the global population and produces 23 per cent of the greenhouse gases. Whereas, United States, which has 5 per cent of the world's population, produces 22 per cent of the global greenhouse gases. Though Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said US-sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution, asking non-NPT states to sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), was not directed against India, and also that the US would fulfill all obligations with regard to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.

Last year, at the international meet held at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, India managed to wrangle special status for itself from the Nuclear Supplier's Group as well as the IAEA. This, of course, left the well-funded and very influential non-proliferation lobby around the world, and particularly so in the United States, seething with anger and frustration. Will getting special preferences and exceptions by the Obama administration for being a non signatory to the NPT mean that we have to give in to opening agriculture markets and compromising India’s stand on climate change pact remains to be seen.

According to Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research, non-professional conditions within the deal are slowly coercing India into adhering to the terms and conditions laid down under the NPT regime without actually being a formal signatory to the agreement.