In India, we call it “noora kushti” (fake wrestling). The posturing by developed countries as well as others in the days leading up to—and at—the Copenhagen climate change conference (COP15) was exactly that. Almost everyone knew, but pretended that they didn’t. Possibly because everyone was desperate—the people were desperate for answers, and the governments desperate to claim a deal in their respective favour. By coming up with hurried announcements on emissions and emission intensity cuts just prior to Copenhagen, the US and China thought the rest of world would be pacified. Somewhat taken aback, and not wanting to allow China one-upmanship, India’s announcement of its own commitment to emission intensity cuts was even more pathetic and servile.
In fact, the fate of no other critical global meeting has been foretold with such accuracy even before it started. Now, at the time of writing this piece, with heads of states flying into Copenhagen for the icing on the cake, bureaucrats have already started preparing escape hatches for their governments, should they on return face the inevitable question: “So what did you bring back home?”
Part of the reason why the Copenhagen talks seemed doomed from the beginning is that even though its agenda was clearly specified several years earlier, virtually none of the countries had done any homework on it, nor even firmed up their own independent positions. The only country that was clear on what it wanted was the US. It sided with its industries and corporations to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and lay on the table the ingenious solutions of Clean Development Mechanisms and carbon trading, which did not even claim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and only sought to add more to US coffers. As for the others (certainly the developing countries), all these years and right up to Copenhagen, they had their faces turned only towards the US and the G-8 countries. Almost like characters out of Waiting For Godot!
But if the script was already known beforehand, in the true spirit of Bollywood, COP15 had to provide some thrills and surprise twists and turns. These came in the form of the leak of the ‘Danish Text’, which Denmark, UK and the US had secretly prepared as the ‘outcome’ statement of the talks. This was enough to expose under harsh lights the fault-lines between the developed and developing countries, particularly from Africa. Poor Denmark, wanting to be a successful host, suffered from the heat! And India, trying to ride two horses at the same time, stumbled, fell, and found itself with a leg on either side of a widening chasm, as African countries delivered a warning not to take them for granted. If it hadn’t been for the real concern expressed by the African and other least developed countries to the Danish Text, we could have been witness to a runaway Bollywood thriller.
Police beating up protesters at the Bella Centre, Copenhagen
There has been a real loss of face for India. It seems to have fallen between two stools, and is seen as a victim of the classic divide-and-rule games of developed countries. While similar attempts have been made with some other countries like Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh as well, India stands clearly marked out because of its size and status. The Indian prime minister’s quick visit to the US just prior to COP15 sowed seeds of doubt among the G-77 countries. There is much that India has to answer to and work towards. New Delhi needs to do serious soul-searching on where it stands, and where it wants to stand. As of now, it does not have the trust of the developed countries, nor of the developing and least developed countries, and nor indeed of its own people on whether it can seek to represent their collective concern.
Elsewhere, outside the Bella Centre (where the main talks were located), things seemed more lively and real at the Klimaforum09 and the ‘Hopenhagen’ square in the city. These were where the ‘common’ people mainly gathered, looking at expositions, interacting with each other, joking, and also participating in talks and workshops that underlined the range of havoc climate crisis was wreaking on the world. Flipping through the programme brochure to decide on which talk or workshop to attend at these forums and open spaces, one also realises that climate crisis is not just about carbon emission reduction; that there are far more serious concerns of climate justice and historical debt that are not being addressed; that the fact that our food and agriculture issues and conditions of the world’s small food producers (who are in the majority) are most impacted by climate change is conveniently sidelined.
Indeed, in the entire build-up to COP15, it seemed the issue of carbon emission reduction by the developed countries was the only one that mattered. This is a happy situation for the US (for one), whose non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol actually engineered this shift in discourse. It (and other developed countries) do not want the Kyoto bindings; now, developing countries are haplessly and helplessly forced to beg for the implementation of Kyoto, which is essentially weak, and which they should otherwise have been seeking to make stronger, more binding and people-oriented.
But the imminent failure of the COP15 means that there is indeed life after 2012. Copenhagen has at least this credit to itself, that it has revealed that all governments—whether developed or otherwise—that are seeing climate change as only a deal are ultimately naked in the hamam. It is this realisation that is now empowering people to talk of an alternative “people’s protocol”, which emphasises the ground problems from the climate crisis and seeks to address it at their level. Look at the “People’s Protocol on Climate Change” that has been ratified by over 500 organisations in 14 countries across Asia, Africa and Europe.
While governments and organisations may feel that the post-Copenhagen scenario allows them one more chance to redeem themselves, the real fear is for the least developed countries, particularly the small island nations and coastal countries for whom time and options may have actually run out. We cannot allow a future without any of them. And we cannot wait for COP16 or COP17. The onus on India, with Maldives, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as its neighbors, is to seek a quick redemption. Along with other basic countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), it should firmly side with G-77 and demand a quick decision and action from the G-8. It is equally important that the basic and other G-77 countries also ensure that UNFCCC does not become a platform for trade, but redresses the concerns of climate justice, and ensures that food (our most basic need) and agriculture (our primary occupation) are returned to centrestage of climate change discourse.
Coming into the Copenhagen airport, I saw a Greenpeace-sponsored poster showing an aged Spanish president Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (in 2020) with a quote: “I am sorry. We could have stopped catastrophic climate change....We didn’t.” I understand there are more such posters with global leaders. I wonder if any of these leading political figures, or their entourage, saw them. One can only hope that this apology is not prophetic.
(Biju Negi, a writer on development issues and working with PAN-AP Malaysia, was in Copenhagen for the parallel summit)
