Washington, Dec 25 (NationPress) Recently revealed US diplomatic documents indicate that the Paris climate agreement was meticulously crafted with India as a focal point. The accord aimed to integrate India into a worldwide climate framework, while also constraining New Delhi's reliance on outdated distinctions between developed and developing nations.

The documents, made public by the National Security Archive on the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, comprise internal US diplomatic communications, strategic papers, and negotiation notes from the Obama administration.

These records reveal that US officials considered India essential to the success of any global climate pact. However, they also viewed India as a nation whose negotiating stance could potentially delay, alter, or even obstruct discussions if pushed too hard.

A key goal for the US was to move away from the 1992 United Nations climate framework, which classified nations into developed and developing categories. Under that system, India was firmly categorized as a developing country.

In a position paper from February 2014, the US made it clear that it would “not support a bifurcated approach” in the new agreement. The document argued that the previous classifications were “not rational or workable in the post-2020 era,” in light of evolving global emissions trends and economic expansion. This language was specifically directed at significant emerging economies, including India.

This was a delicate topic for New Delhi, which has long asserted that developed nations should shoulder a larger share of the climate responsibility due to their historical emissions. The US documents illustrate a clear resistance to allowing this principle to underpin the Paris agreement.

Simultaneously, US officials recognized India’s significant influence. Internal records indicate concerns that India, in coalition with China and other developing countries, could block consensus if equitable considerations were disregarded.

Consequently, Washington supported an alternative framework. Rather than imposing binding emissions targets, it advocated for nationally determined contributions, where each nation would establish its own climate objectives. These commitments would be reported and reviewed but would lack legal enforceability.

This strategy aligned with US domestic political limitations and also made the agreement palatable to India.

In a cable dated March 12, 2015, then-Secretary of State John Kerry warned against publicly labeling the agreement as “legally binding.” He cautioned that such terminology could be misconstrued and necessitate US Senate approval, a process that could jeopardize the accord.

India was also a central figure in US trade-related issues tied to climate discussions. One State Department document established a firm “red line” against allowing climate negotiations to restrict US trade policies, warning that “India, Argentina, and other Parties” might seek to leverage climate talks to advocate for trade regulations favoring developing nations.

The US clearly indicated it would not accept this linkage. The records show that climate policy, trade interests, and developmental concerns were closely interwoven in Washington’s internal discussions.

India’s participation in negotiating blocs also garnered US attention. The documents frequently mention BASIC—Brazil, South Africa, India, and China—as well as the Like-Minded Developing Countries group.

In one late-stage cable, US officials referenced the “emergence of G77 and China as a unified bloc.” While parts of this passage are redacted, it highlights the combined power of developing nations, with India identified as one of the most significant voices.

Despite these challenges, US officials monitored India’s actions throughout the negotiations. Cables from Geneva and Bonn underscored the necessity for major emitters to submit their climate commitments early, with India’s planned submission by June 2015 consistently noted.

When India finally submitted its contribution, it concentrated on reducing emissions intensity rather than committing to absolute emissions reductions.

The final Paris Agreement encapsulated these compromises. It set a global temperature goal and implemented transparency and reporting requirements, yet left emissions targets to national discretion.

For India, this resulted in inclusion without legally binding emissions cuts, while for the United States, it meant a global agreement that skirted congressional approval.

A decade later, the documents reveal that the Paris Agreement was not merely a straightforward victory for any party. It was a meticulously balanced outcome—one in which India was integrated because it was necessary, yet constrained by its inclusion in a singular global climate framework.