US declassified diplomatic record shows ‘Paris climate deal designed to include, bind India’
By Anjali Sharma
WASHINGTON –According to newly declassified US diplomatic records released on Friday showed that the Paris climate agreement was carefully shaped with India in mind.
The deal was designed to bring India into a global climate framework, while at the same time limited New Delhi’s ability to rely on older distinctions between developed and developing countries.
The documents, released by the National Security Archive on the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, include internal US diplomatic cables, strategy papers and negotiating notes from the Obama administration.
It showed that US officials viewed India as indispensable to any global climate deal.
They saw India as a country whose negotiating positions could slow, reshape or even block talks if pushed too far.
A central US objective was to move away from the 1992 UN climate framework, which divided countries into developed and developing categories.
India fell firmly within the developing country grouping under that system.
In a February 2014 US position paper, Washington stated that it would “not support a bifurcated approach” in the new agreement.
The paper argued that the old categories were “not rational or workable in the post-2020 era,” given changes in global emissions patterns and economic growth. This language was aimed squarely at major emerging economies, including India.
This was a sensitive issue for New Delhi.
India had long maintained that developed countries should bear a greater share of the climate burden due to their historical emissions.
The US documents show clear resistance to allowing this principle to form the foundation of the Paris deal.
US officials acknowledged India’s leverage. Internal records show concern that India, working alongside China and other developing nations, could block consensus if equity concerns were ignored.
Washington backed an alternative structure. Instead of binding emissions targets, it pushed for nationally determined contributions, under which each country would set its own climate goals. These commitments would be reported and reviewed, but not legally enforced.
The approach suited US domestic political constraints and also made the agreement acceptable to India, the report stated.
In a March 12, 2015 cable, then Secretary of State John Kerry cautioned against publicly described the agreement as “legally binding.”
He warned that such language could be misunderstood and trigger the need for US Senate approval a step that, he said, would likely derail the agreement.
India also figured prominently in US trade-related concerns linked to climate negotiations.
The US State Department paper set a clear “red line” against allowing climate talks to restrict US trade actions. It warned that “India, Argentina, and other Parties” might attempt to use climate negotiations to push for trade rules favouring developing countries.
It made it clear it would not accept this linkage. The records show that climate policy, trade interests and development concerns were closely intertwined in Washington’s internal deliberations.
India’s role within negotiating blocs also drew US attention. The documents repeatedly refer to BASIC — Brazil, South Africa, India and China as well as the Like-Minded Developing Countries group.
US officials referred to the “emergence of G77 and China as a unified bloc in one late-stage cable, ”While parts of the passage are redacted, it underscores the collective leverage of developing countries, with India identified as one of the most influential voices.”
They closely tracked India’s actions throughout the process despite tensions.
Cables from Geneva and Bonn stressed the importance of major emitters submitting their climate pledges early. India’s planned submission by June 2015 was repeatedly noted.
India submitted its contribution it focused on reducing emissions intensity rather than committing to absolute emissions cuts.
The final Paris Agreement reflected these compromises. It set a global temperature target and established transparency and reporting requirements, but left emissions targets to national discretion.
India meant inclusion without legally binding emissions cuts. For the United States, it meant a global agreement that avoided congressional approval.
A decade later, the documents show that the Paris Agreement was not a simple victory for any side. It was a carefully calibrated outcome one in which India was accommodated because it had to be, and constrained by being integrated into a single global climate framework.
