The New Nation - Internet Edition

Shekhar Mehra

Recently the rich nations pledged to reduce 50 per cent carbon emissions by 2050! Are the world leaders unaware or are they plainly insensitive to the plight of the poor who have had no part in global warming?

Today the spectre of unstable oil prices, food insecurity, global warming, nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism looms large over the world - and each major concern is, in one way or another, interlinked. To tackle these threats a collective will is needed, particularly on the part of the developed nations. These nations need to pool in their resources and put up a joint front in confronting these challenges that the world faces.

And so when leaders of the eight richest and industrially advanced nations converge at a spot to put their heads together, the rest of the world waits in anticipation of some pronouncements to ease its fears. But no such assurances were seen forthcoming from the Group of Eight (G-8) summit held in the Japanese town of Toyako in July. The rich man's club once again emerged as a house divided with members being too preoccupied with their own problems and interests rather than the larger global picture.

For example, the G-8 leaders agreed on imposing tough measures against the government of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, held widely responsible for violence during the last presidential election. Even Russia joined in the call for sanctions. But two days after the summit, Russia and China vetoed a West-backed draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council that would have imposed arms embargo against Zimbabwe and travel ban on Mugabe and his top officials.

The United States President George Bush, attending his last G-8 meet, also made no headway in ironing out differences with Russia over U.S. plans to place missile defence system in eastern Europe. The Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the American defence system 'deeply distresses' Moscow.

The G-8 leaders pledged a new resolve to hike annual aid to Africa by $25 billion, and to spend $60 billion for combating infectious diseases. At the 2005 G-8 meet it was decided to provide $50 billion annually by 2010 for Africa development and for fight against malaria, AIDS and other infectious diseases. Statistics, however, show that the grouping has so far given out only $3 billion of the overall aid promised.

On the issue of speculative funds, which is a major factor in the steep rise of fuel and food prices that have endangered the lives of billions of poor people, the G-8 and emerging economies found themselves at odds with each other. The G-8 statement on global economy had no mention of steps to monitor speculative funds, mainly on account of objections raised by the U.S. The emerging economies strongly urged the rich countries to restrict the flow of such funds but to no avail.

It was global warming, however, that emerged as the most contentious issue at the G-8 meeting. The leaders did hold out the assurance that the developed world would cut down on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. This was indeed a step forward considering that Bush has all along refused to set any limits on carbon emissions. In his first term the president had unequivocally disputed scientists' concerns over global warming. His welcome turnaround, however, amounts to too little, too late as he is on his way out and it will be left for his successor to take on from here.

Besides, the G-8 statement failed to mention any baseline year from where the reduction in emissions would be measured. This is a major flaw as it would be open to G-8 interpretation to measure it either from the 1990 level (as specified in the Kyoto Protocol) or from 2000 or even from the time when Toyako summit ended. While European leaders say they would like to bring emissions down to 50 per cent from 1990 levels, Japan would prefer the current level.

Therefore, even as Bush hailed their step as 'significant progress' made, Yvo de Boer, head of the UN-led negotiations to bring about a global climate change accord, was not so optimistic. 'I don't find the outcome very significant,' he said. The summit's 'vague' pledge to work towards slashing GHG emissions mentions no baseline, does not appear to be legally binding and is open to vastly different interpretations, De Boer said. Other critics too say that cutting down emissions by 50 per cent is no big deal and amounts to 'window dressing'.

The G-8 consists of world's major industrial democracies and includes the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia. President Bush's main demand in reaching a climate change accord was that the eight developing but 'energy guzzling' countries - China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa plus Australia, South Korea and Indonesia - be included in the deliberations and made to pool in efforts alongside the G-8.

That's what happened for the first time in Toyako where the 16 met in what was termed as an 'outreach session'. But in the end the battle lines between the developed and developing countries only drew sharper. The developing countries insisted that the developed ones, who are most to be blamed for global warming, should commit themselves to bigger and quicker emission cuts. The U.S., along with Canada, would have none of it. Hence, the developing countries did not agree to the G-8's target of 2050. The G-8, along with the other eight countries, is responsible for emitting 80 per cent of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

There is no denying the fact that China and India are big time polluters. In fact, last year China overtook the U.S. in becoming the world's largest carbon dioxide emitter. But the primary responsibility for GHG emissions that are already in the atmosphere and warming the earth lies with the rich polluters.

It seems the G-8 countries do not fully understand the urgency of limiting emissions. Limiting emissions will not be possible unless clear targets are set by G-8 for the year 2020, as the developing countries are clamouring for. According to R.K. Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that won the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace, 'Not taking early action in reducing GHG emissions would lead to severe impacts of climate change… Unfortunately, the worst consequences of these impacts will be felt by some of the poorest communities and countries who have had hardly any role in contributing to the evolution of this problem…To this extent at least the G-8 leaders have either proved unaware or insensitive to the vulnerability of the worst affected societies.'

All these discussions on global warming are in the run-up to reach a new climate change accord in Copenhagen in December 2009, which is to succeed the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. It is imperative all G-8 members realise that the time for righteous statements is over and show more commitment and leadership in reaching a new accord.

Apart from climate change another issue on which G-8 was found to be tentative is that of expanding the rich man's club. Early July the French President Nicolas Sarkozy had proposed that G-8 should add five developing countries - China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa - to turn the grouping into G-13 instead. 'G-8 needs to adapt to the 21st century,' he said.

Sarkozy's rationale is that these emerging economies must be entrusted with more responsibility in managing global affairs. Also, on one hand, there's a slowdown in the U.S. economy because of the turmoil in housing market and credit crunch and this slowdown is adversely affecting the European economies. On the other hand, Asian economies like China and India are growing at a faster pace. This transformation wherein China and India are contributing to global economy in a big way has to be taken note of and suitably accommodated. By denying them a seat at the high table, the G-8 could well be risking splitting the global economy into rival camps.

But some G-8 leaders have objected to Sarkozy's idea. One said it was important to have meetings among countries that share the same values of freedom and democracy, while another said it will be difficult to have in-depth discussions with too many participants. While there's some distant logic in these arguments, it's no denying that G-8 reflects the realities of an outdated international order.

(Source: Asian Affairs. Shekhar Mehra is New Delhi-based freelance journalist)