An “Accord” without any semblance of consensus

Without a consensus,or a semblance thereof,the fortnight-long climate change conference ended with an “Accord” that was almost never agreed by thr majority of attending countries,who only “took note” of the said document .As it turned out to be ,the document was a mere political statement that was legally non-binding.Oddly still the deal was struck by US President Obama seizing the last moments of the conference with the BASIC four-China,India,Brazil,South Africa and a group of influential countries.



Contrasting with the outcome, the climate negotiators were labouring tirelessly under two tracks viz ‘Kyoto Protocol’ and “long term cooperative Action (LAC)” that required the parties to produce legally binding treaty before the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol ends in 2012 to fix the hazardous climate change .The previously mandated gas emission targets,ensuring commitments from rich nations on new or additional financial resources to fund adaptations and mitigations in developing countries,agreement over technology to developing countries, ambitions and binding targets for rich countries beyond 2012 did not find a place in the “Accord”. Instead rich countries will commit to provide US$ 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 for funding adaptation and mitigation efforts in the developing countries and that rich countries would set up a fund that would be able to provide US$ 100 billion per year after 2020.


But the most offending clause for developing countries ‘to allow international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines on their domestic voluntary mitigation actions’ was incorporated.This could cause misunderstanding and misinterpretation in due course .


Indian Prime Minister participated in the closed door meeting with Obama and India ensured it would sign on the accord. Many of the African and Latin American countries were critical of the accord which had no reference to any targets for emission reductions by the rich countries.


Back home, the Accord was strongly criticized in parliament with Arun Jaitely saying “This Copenhagen Accord is a global disappointment, it is a betrayal of the poor and developing nations and a premium for the default of the developed countries”.Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh admitted to deviation in India’s stand that had been insisting on finance and technology being made available by rich countries in order to take on major reductions in green house gas emissions .,

Likewise the consept of ‘Peak Year’ came in for strong criticism.To sum up the Accord only shows the way forward with much desired to be achieved in future meetings of the Copenhagen style conferences.

Further splintering of states--a political agenda

As the Congress bosses in Delhi were busy promoting the weak leadership of K Rosaiah in Andhra Pradesh (after the death of former Chief minister YSR),it provided an ample room to KCR of Telangana Rashtra Samiti to vigorously pursue his long pending demand for creation of a separate Telangana state by undertaking a fast unto death .With the fasting leader’s health suddenly deteriorating ,the centre guardedly agreed to the demand of bifurcation of Andhra state subject to state Assembly passing a resolution for creation of a separate Telangana.

Soon the state was plunged into utter chaos and, as the matters stand today,the status of more than 130 MLAs from Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra ,who submitted their resignations against the creation of a Telangana state,remains uncertain.Later with Andhra Assembly adjourned sine die and the centre leaving the issue to the state itself,the bifurcation issue has been put on the back burner..


But as a side effect of these happenings ,KCR’s son Tarakarama Rao has also prominently emerged on the political horizon of the state.

The issue of bifurcation prominently brings forth wider implications both at the State and national level that need deep study and appropriate action.

The Andhra’s Capital city of Hyderabad has already acquired a cosmopolitan status being a hub on international IT map,high growth of Real Estatae and location for a number of central defence and civil offices.Resulatantly the people of Rayalaseema and coastal regions have been seen as seriously resisting the merger of this city with the Telangana State though the city geographically and historically squarely falls in the Telangana region.From a reverse view,the merger of Hyderabad with the backward state of Telangana may dim the future growth of this city itself.A mechanism to promote the economic interests of the Telangana region could be a way out of the problem of division of the state of Andhra Pradesh .

At the national level various political parties have suddenly started a chorus for the creation of a number of smaller states stressing the development and regional interests of the concerned areas.Mayawati who otherwise comfortably rules the state of UP with an absolute majority still has written to the Prime Minister for four states to be carved out of Uttar Pradesh to speed up the development of this otherwise neglected and economically backward state.This move diminishes the political impact of development efforts recently launched by Congress led UPA government in the Bundelkhand area of UP.Creation of Gorkhaland for the Darjeeling and its adjoining areas alienated from the rest of Bengal both culturally and geographically raised by the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha.Since a mumber of years also resonates across the country.Similarly demands are being raised for bifurcation of Maharashtra and lately even of bihar.Statehoods are now being sought on the key issues of development and administrative imperatives.But raising the demands for division of states is primarily a political agenda.

Clinching the Statehood unilaterally

The Mid-East “peace process” continues to drag endlessly for decades. A bitter sense of desperation has already overtaken the prolonged frustration of Palestinians over non-realization of statehood for their territories. They have now begun to think radically for a unilateral declaration of a state of Palestine and seek recognition by the UN.


Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbbas thus disappointed over this has already declared on November 5,2009 that he would not seek re-election in general and presidential polls due in January next year. Likewise chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat recently declared in Ramallah “We have reached a decision to go to the United Nations Security Council to ask for recognition of an independent Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital and with June 1967 borders” adding “We are going to seek support from European Union countries and Russia and other countries.”

Commenting in a similar vein, Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad said “I know some people are concerned that this is unilateral but it seems to me that it is unilateral in a healthy sense of self development”. Elucidating further he remarked that it was the responsibility of Palestinian Authority to lay the ground work of statehood while it is upto Palestinian Liberation Organization to actually declare the state when conditions are right.

Hawkish Israeli Premier Netanyahu though issuing a stern warning of Israeli one-sided response to such a move simultaneously emphasized that path to peace was at the negotiation table adding negotiations must begin “ at once and in good faith”.But at the same time he remains unrelenting to a Palestinian demand to freeze all construction activity in the West Bank as a pre–condition to kick start stalled peace process.


The confrontation that thus persists can get worse any time. Israel’s ‘War Crimes’ in Gaza are already with the UN,four million people living in the West Bank and Gaza strip are to this day deprived of their most basic human rights.Jewish settlements expansion in East Jerusalem continues unabted in spite of US “dismay”.Such confrontational situations can anytime degenerate into armed struggle deteriorating further into a war over unilateral declaration of statehood. US, being already tied with uneasy situations in Afghanistan,Pakistan and Iraq,must effectively prevail over Israel to implement the ‘peace process’ urgently for creation of the state of Palestine.


Memories of Nazis’ atrocities though deeply etched on the Jewish psyche, do not appear to stir their feelings and enlighten their vision to live in harmony with others especially in their neighbourhood.