Washington, Dec 25 (LatestNewsX) Recently declassified US diplomatic documents reveal that the Paris climate agreement was deliberately structured to ensure India’s participation, while also limiting New Delhi’s ability to rely on the long-standing divide between developed and developing nations.
The records, made public by the National Security Archive to mark the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, include internal cables, policy papers, and negotiation strategies from the Obama administration. Together, they paint a picture of intense behind-the-scenes efforts to secure India’s involvement in a global climate framework.
US officials viewed India as essential to the success of any worldwide climate deal. At the same time, they were wary that India’s negotiating stance could delay, reshape, or even stall the talks if its concerns were pushed aside.
One of Washington’s key goals was to move away from the 1992 UN climate framework, which classified countries strictly as developed or developing. Under that system, India was firmly placed in the developing category.
A US policy paper from February 2014 stated clearly that Washington would “not support a bifurcated approach” in the new agreement. It argued that the old classifications were “not rational or workable in the post-2020 era,” especially given shifts in global emissions and economic growth. This position was clearly aimed at major emerging economies, including India.
For New Delhi, the issue was highly sensitive. India had consistently argued that developed nations should shoulder a larger share of climate responsibility because of their historical emissions. The documents show that the US strongly opposed allowing this principle to dominate the foundation of the Paris Agreement.
At the same time, American officials recognized India’s influence. Internal discussions reflected concern that India, working with China and other developing countries, could block consensus if issues of fairness and equity were ignored.
To manage this, the US supported a different model. Instead of legally binding emissions caps, it promoted nationally determined contributions (NDCs), allowing each country to set its own climate targets. These pledges would be reported and reviewed internationally but would not be legally enforceable.
This structure aligned with US domestic political realities and also made the agreement acceptable to India.
In a cable dated March 12, 2015, then Secretary of State John Kerry warned against publicly labeling the deal as “legally binding.” He cautioned that such language could trigger the need for US Senate approval, which he believed would likely sink the agreement altogether.
Trade concerns were another area where India featured prominently. One State Department document outlined a firm US “red line” against linking climate negotiations to trade restrictions. It warned that “India, Argentina, and other Parties” might try to use climate talks to push trade rules favoring developing economies.
The US made it clear it would not accept such linkages. The documents highlight how climate policy, trade interests, and development issues were closely connected in Washington’s internal debates.
India’s role within major negotiating blocs also drew close attention. US records frequently mention groupings such as BASIC — Brazil, South Africa, India, and China — and the Like-Minded Developing Countries coalition.
One late-stage cable referred to the “emergence of G77 and China as a unified bloc.” Although parts of the passage are redacted, it underscores the collective bargaining power of developing nations, with India identified as a key player.
Throughout the negotiations, US officials closely monitored India’s moves. Diplomatic cables from Geneva and Bonn emphasized the importance of major emitters submitting their climate pledges early, repeatedly noting India’s plan to do so by June 2015.
When India submitted its contribution, it focused on reducing emissions intensity rather than committing to absolute emissions cuts.
The final Paris Agreement reflected these carefully balanced compromises. It set a global temperature goal and established transparency and reporting mechanisms, but left emissions targets to national discretion.
For India, this meant inclusion in the global climate framework without legally binding emissions limits. For the United States, it meant securing a worldwide agreement without requiring congressional approval.
Ten years on, the newly released documents show that the Paris Agreement was not a clear win for any single party. Instead, it was a finely tuned compromise — one in which India was included because it had to be, and constrained by being folded into a unified global climate system.
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.
