Washington, Dec 26 (IANS) Newly declassified US diplomatic records show that India played a decisive role in shaping the Paris climate agreement. The documents reveal that New Delhi helped force a non-binding global deal. They also show how India preserved room for growth while joining a universal climate framework.

The records, released by the National Security Archive, early this month, on the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, include internal US cables and negotiating papers from 2014 and 2015. Together, they show that US officials viewed India as both indispensable and difficult.

Washington believed that no global climate deal was credible without India. At the same time, US negotiators were determined to weaken the old divide between developed and developing countries that India relied on in climate talks.

A February 2014 US position paper stated that the United States would “not support a bifurcated approach” based on 1992-era categories.

It argued that such divisions were “not rational or workable in the post-2020 era,” citing changes in emissions and economic growth. The formulation directly affected countries like India, whose climate diplomacy was rooted in equity and historical responsibility, according to these declassified documents.

India pushed back through coalitions. The documents repeatedly refer to BASIC — Brazil, South Africa, India and China — and to the Like-Minded Developing Countries group. These blocs resisted legally binding emissions targets and demanded stronger recognition of development needs.

US officials took these groupings seriously. In internal strategy notes and cables, they warned that India and China, acting together, could block consensus if pushed toward a binding treaty. One late-stage cable referred to the “emergence of G77 and China as a unified bloc,” highlighting the negotiating leverage of developing countries.

That leverage shaped the final outcome.

Instead of a treaty with binding emissions cuts, the United States backed a system of nationally determined contributions. Under this model, each country sets its own targets. These targets are reported and reviewed, but not enforced through international law.

For Washington, this approach avoided the US Senate, where any binding treaty would likely fail. For India, it avoided mandatory emissions caps that could restrict development.

A March 12, 2015 cable from then Secretary of State John Kerry made the US position clear. Kerry warned that publicly calling for a “legally binding agreement” could be “misunderstood by countries” and would trigger Senate ratification. He said such an outcome would doom the deal.

India used this constraint to its advantage.

By resisting binding obligations and holding firm with China and other developing countries, India helped lock in a flexible structure. That structure allowed India to submit a climate pledge focused on emissions intensity, not absolute cuts.

US cables tracked India’s moves closely. Officials repeatedly noted the importance of India submitting its intended nationally determined contribution by mid-2015 to maintain momentum toward Paris. India’s timing and content mattered because it signaled that major developing economies would join the deal — but on their own terms.

The documents also show that India was not just a climate actor. US negotiators feared India could link climate talks with trade demands. One State Department paper set a clear “redline” against allowing climate negotiations to limit US trade actions. It warned that “India, Argentina, and other Parties” might try to leverage climate talks to push rules favorable to developing countries. Washington said it would not accept that.

Despite these tensions, the final Paris Agreement reflected India’s core priorities. The deal set a collective temperature goal. It required transparency and reporting from all countries. But it avoided legally binding emissions cuts and preserved national discretion.

For India, this meant entry into a universal climate regime without surrendering development space. For the United States, it meant a deal that could be signed by executive action.

A decade later, the declassified record shows that Paris was not imposed on India. Nor was it a simple concession. It was a negotiated outcome shaped by India’s resistance, coalition politics, and strategic patience.

India helped make the Paris Agreement possible. It also ensured that the agreement did not come at the cost of its growth trajectory.

--IANS

lkj/rs