Press Briefings
Media Briefing by Foreign Secretary and Special Envoy of Prime Minister on Climate Change at L’Aquila
09/07/2009
Foreign Secretary (Mr. Shivshankar Menon): Since it is now almost 7:30 pm, I thought we would give you a run down on what happened today.
As you know, we started today with the meeting of the G-8 plus the G-5 and Egypt. The leaders at 10 am in the morning session actually discussed global issues, development policy. That was the main theme. After welcoming the G-5, Prime Minister Berlusconi mentioned to them what the G-8 had discussed the day before. After that he also pointed to the Joint Declaration that the sherpas of both the G-5 and G-8 had drawn up for the first time. He mentioned that this was a step forward where for the first time now in this Summit both the G-8 and G-5 were sitting and meeting for a considerable length of time. It was not just two hours of special session; it was all series of meetings. In fact, all of today they have been together and will be together tomorrow as well when the African countries join them. Then he gave the floor to the various G-5 and Egypt members who had just come to the meeting.
One of the issues that he raised was when he listed the issues at the beginning he listed global economic crisis, recovery, how to find sources of growth for the economy. He also spoke of the global warming and climate change as one of the big issues. Then he said that between the G-8 and the G-5 together - the G-14 is the word he used - we represent about 80 per cent of the world economy. He said that we might consider whether or not we should consider this a stable format for the future. Having outlined these issues, he then threw it open to a discussion.
There were certain common features to what India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Egypt and all. They all pointed out that the economic crisis facing the world today did not originate in the developing world; was not caused by us; but that the effects on the developing world and developing countries are really quite extreme; and that it is, therefore, important that we all take a coordinated approach. All of us spoke, PM as well, about the G-20 having taken good decisions in London but that there was an implementation issue which needs to be followed up before the next G-20 meeting in Pittsburg which will be in September, to which the US has invited all the G-20 members to come.
On the crisis itself, there was some discussion of what had been agreed in the G-20 but all the developing countries spoke very strongly of the need to resist protectionism. In this there was actually no distinction between what the members of the G-5 and the G-8 said. There was a common thread running through that the standstill agreement so far had not been reached in any way which threatened the international trading system, but certainly there had been regression from the standstill agreement, the agreement in London, not to have any fresh protectionist measures. There is a general feeling that this could be the most dangerous thing possible that it would prevent a recovery and would be very dangerous, if there were a return to protectionism.
The President of Brazil spoke about the idea of a G-14 and said that there is a need to review the entire question of global governance, it is not only just the G-20 or the G-14 or which of these. This was a theme that ran through the meeting in the morning, and at lunch there was considerable discussion on this, on global governance and how it needs to be restructured. The end result of that discussion, because most people felt that you do need to work with these structures, was that the G-20 is a good forum to do the financial, the economic issues, purely finance, Finance Ministers have developed the expertise over time to do that. But broader global governance issues, or what one might call political issues, other issues, are probably better dealt with in other fora. There was no conclusion that this has to be done in a G-14. There was no such conclusion.
As I said, this is an informal discussion forum where leaders can air their views, they share their opinions and then opinion forms, just like when the G-5 was first invited to such a summit five years ago. It was a very brief participation. It was more as an outreach. Now it is an actual discussion together of topics. But this thread ran right through of how we shape global governance to deal with the new situation today and to reflect current realities. You will see it in all the declarations.
There was mention not just of the G-20, of the G-40 but also of the MEF itself, of the need to reform UN structures at lunch especially because UN Secretary-General was there and so were the heads of the ILO, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank. There was a lot of talk of how they need to be restructured. The international financial institutions they said will be restructuring over the next two years. In fact, by 2012 they are supposed to restructure voting shares in the World Bank and the IMF. There was also talk of the UN Security Council. But, as I said, this was not a conclusive discussion nor was anything settled, nor was all that what was agreed is in the communiqués which you have seen already. But there was a considerable sense that global governance cannot go on the way it was in today’s situation. There were several alternatives mentioned. One of the strongest supporters of this idea of the G-14 which deals with larger governance issues was President Sarkozy actually in this meeting.
The Prime Minister spoke also in some detail about how to get the global economy going. President Obama said that the world will not go back to what it was before the crisis hit; that US consumers will change their habits; that the kind of excessive consumption which was fed by the rest of the world and actually helped to create growth in the rest of the world is unlikely to return any time soon. So, there was some discussion about the alternative sources of growth, where to look for growth in the world economy over the years to come, and what kind of new equilibrium to look at.
Prime Minister made the point that economies like India, even though they might be poor, have a savings rate of 35 per cent, an investment rate of 37 per cent, and are basically domestically driven. Of course, each country will do what it can to generate its own domestic recovery through stimulus packages. He also said that in order to make this sustainable and to make recovery, make the sources of demand to substitute for what was a support of international environment in the past, it is very important that the poor, the young should be empowered and - he used the same phrase that he used yesterday - be made bankable in a sense. He said, if they are trained, if they have the skills, if they are educated, if they have the jobs, then you create this virtual cycle where they themselves the consumption which drives the economy; and that the time has come to look at putting the poor first in development policies and in giving them the skills and the tools, this would lead to a much more sustained and sustainable growth proposition than what there was before. He also spoke about the dangers of protectionism and so on.
Towards the end of the discussion, President Obama also briefed the meeting about his plans to hold a nuclear security summit next year. He said he would be giving more details to the countries which were around the table. He said they were all invited to that. He also spoke about the US assessment of where the recovery process is. He said that certainly there is much greater stability in the financial markets than was expected in April at the G-20 meetings, and the banks have been recapitalized. But there are still weaknesses in the US and the global economy, he said, which we will need to deal with and over the long run we will have to look at stabilizers for job losses and so on which have already taken place, and look at how to boost demand in the global economy. As I said, that was part of the discussion - where to look for growth. Some of the European members spoke of using climate change, green industries, as a driver for growth creating a whole new industry and of using technology and climate change financing to try and generate growth in the global economy.
Formally speaking, the lunch was supposed to be the discussion of future sources of growth. Much of it had already happened in the morning. So, when they came to lunch actually there were differing estimates of when exactly recovery would happen. Some said it is not imminent, some said end of this year or early next year. So, obviously each country depending on their own situation had their own view of how it was going. Then there was a considerable discussion on how the international organizations need to be restructured to try and help to deal with these issues - with food security, energy security, recovery of growth - and to say that as presently structured they not only do not reflect where growth would come from, but they also do not have the capacity to actually monitor what is happening in the world economy. So, there were some suggestions. Some of the European members said that the IMF’s surveillance needs to be strengthened. This is a point that PM had made actually in the Washington G-20 summit that the IMF’s surveillance of the world economy has to be much more efficient so that we see the warning signs of what is happening much quicker, and that leaders then have some warning before this happens.
In the afternoon, there was a meeting of the major economies. They first met for about forty minutes where they discussed the Doha Round and trade, and reconfirmed their commitment to fighting protectionism. Many of the speakers spoke of the credibility of leadership itself because the Doha Round has now taken so long, almost nine years, of negotiation. It was decided to start a process of negotiating in the hope of concluding the Round in 2010. This was followed by a considerable discussion in the same forum, the larger MEF forum, with the addition of Denmark because they are the hosts of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change. That I will leave to Shyam to tell you about.
In terms of bilateral pull-asides, Prime Minister had a bilateral meeting with Chancellor Merkel. During the meeting, while they were in the same room, he had pull-asides with Prime Minister Rudd of Australia, with President Obama of the US. They spent considerable time. He spoke to Mr. Sarkozy and also to Mr. Medvedev. They covered the bilateral relationship and of how we plan to take it forward. He had a good conversation with President Obama. Both of them spoke of Secretary of State Clinton’s visit to India later this month. They also discussed the situation in the region and how we want to take our bilateral relationship to an enhanced level of partnership and the kinds of elements that we are looking at, that we are working on as we lead up to the Clinton visit.
I will leave climate change to Shyam.
Special Envoy of Prime Minister on Climate Change (Mr. Shyam Saran): I presume that all of you have a copy of the MEF Declaration. This declaration has now been formally adopted by the Major Economies Forum, which was the last meeting that was held today. I will start by giving you some background to this particular document and then get on to what exactly happened during the MEF meeting itself.
This particular declaration is, as I mentioned to you earlier, in the nature of a political document whose objective is to try and give a major impetus to the negotiations that are taking place under the UNFCC. If you look at the Declaration, it in fact follows very much the kind of language that we have had, for example in Hokkaido during the last G-8 plus G-5 Summit, but there are a few new elements which I would like draw attention to. In the negotiations that we were having on this declaration, as you would expect perhaps the most difficult paragraph was the one on mitigation, which is paragraph one. Here, essentially what developing countries like India, China, Brazil, and South Africa were stressing was that while it is very worthwhile to talk about a long-term goal for 2050 - and we of course welcome the fact that developed countries are willing to sign on to 80 per cent or 85 per cent reduction in their emissions by that time - for this to be credible, it was very important that there should be very ambitious and robust emission reduction targets for the interim period also, that is, for 2020; that if particular figure was not there, then to talk about something for 2050 would not really be very credible to the international community.
Sometimes I think an issue is raised that the developing countries were not willing to sign on to a more ambitious document. But the fact is that that was a very big sticking point that we said that we need to see a very credible mid-term target. As you know, the developing countries themselves have put forward a proposal that there should be at least 40 per cent reduction in the emissions of the developed countries by 2020.
Again, a question was raised that we have to be pragmatic, we would need to follow science. We agree with that. But we also believe that one needs to be, therefore, consistent throughout because science is also saying that unless you make 25 to 40 per cent cut in your developed country emissions by 2020, we may not be able to avoid irreversible climate change. So, in terms of the science again it is very important that there should be interim targets. We were not able to get a figure for the interim targets which is the reason why that particular aspect has been in fact left open.
It was important to give you this background because I think that there has been some misunderstanding about developing country positions with regard to climate change action. One very important step forward is the recognition that there should be every effort made to keep temperature rise within two degrees centigrade by 2050. That is something new. We do not regard this as an arithmetical target; we regard this as a political decision because, as you know, there is a great deal of uncertainty with respect to what would be the actual rise in temperature which may take place, what would be the consequences of that rise of temperature. The IPCC itself has in fact stated very clearly that there is an uncertainty about this. But nevertheless we believe that it is worthwhile, in recognition of the IPCC report, reflecting this as something which we should aspire towards. That is an important step forward in this particular document.
The other aspect which is worthwhile looking at is that we have also a much stronger paragraph here on technology partnership. This I regard as one of the more important forward-looking results of this particular summit because here we have a clear recognition that technology is going to be a very key component of our fight against climate change; and that we should create a platform where not only do we come together to diffuse climate-friendly technologies, but much more important, can we also work together on a platform to create transformational technologies for the future.
As you will notice here we have in the section on technology there are some very specific projects which have been identified. These include solar energy, smart grids, carbon capture, use and storage, advanced vehicles, high efficiency and lower emission cold technologies, this is something in fact which India had recommended. There are a number of very specific projects on which there is now agreement amongst the major economies to work together. That is an important positive outcome.
On financial resources, while there is recognition that no Copenhagen outcome will be successful unless there is a considerable amount of resources which are mobilized for meeting the requirements of developing countries, not only for the mitigation action but also for adaptation, there would not be a successful outcome. So, while the need is recognized, the document itself does not go into any great detail as to how these resources are to be mobilized, but it does mention possible sources including public sources, including market mechanisms. So, this is something which will need to be obviously fleshed out. The only specific reference here which has been made is to the Green Fund proposal of Mexico and I will have something more to say about that.
But in sum, we believe that given the current state of negotiations what we have been able to achieve in this declaration is a forward-looking document. It does represent an advance, a positive advance, on what we have been able to agree upon in the past. Will it give a fillip to the negotiations? I think it will, modest as it may be.
Now let me come to the MEF meeting itself. The meeting was opened by President Obama. He very much emphasized the importance of action on climate change as being one of the main challenges that is facing us. He said that we need to do all that we can as leaders of the major economies to give a major political push to the negotiations. So, he recognized that this is not the negotiating forum. It is important that that particular point has been acknowledged because this is something which we have been saying all the time that the negotiations are to take place in the multilateral forum.
In terms of what could be the political message which would emerge from the Major Economies Forum, he said there are three or four things that we need to do. One is, it is extremely important that we should come out clearly with a long-term aspiration goal. He also acknowledged that coupled with this there is need to also come out with very clear intermediate course. So, that particular aspect which we have been talking about has been recognized. He also said that we acknowledge that there is a historical responsibility and that whatever package that comes out from Copenhagen must take this fact into account. That is an important element.
Secondly, he also said that between now and Copenhagen we need to find how we are going to mobilize the very large amount of financial resources which would be required, and what would be the possible sources for these financial resources. Not much clarity on that yet, but something that we need to look at. In this context he mentioned two proposals on finance. One was the Green Fund proposal of Mexico, and the other was the proposal which has been made by Gordon Brown of the UK on how perhaps by 2020 a sum of 100 million dollars could be raised using both private as well as market sources of finance.
Lastly, he said that obviously we need to take into account the fact that while the lead has to be taken in terms of mitigation by the developed countries, unless there is also a contribution made by developing countries whose emissions are likely to rise much faster in a business-as-usual scenario, we may not be able to really tackle the challenge of climate change. So, this is a reality which has to be faced. This is basically his opening remarks.
After that we had a number of interventions. I may not go into much detail but I would like to mention here the Green Fund proposal of Mexico because the President of Mexico explained this in some considerable detail. The key points in the Mexican proposal are - which we believe are positive - he says that if you want predictable and stable sources of finance, one of the best ways to ensure that is an assessment principle. That is, if there are assessed contributions of various countries, this could provide a predictable source of finance and that is a principle we agree with.
On the question of what should be the basis of this assessment, again there are elements which have been mentioned by the Mexican President which also seemed quite attractive to us. For example he has mentioned that the element of historical responsibility should be taken into account. The overall emissions of different countries, the total volume of emissions should be another factor. Individual per capita emissions could also be taken into account. There could be also some weight given to the overall GDP of a country or the per capita income of a country. Perhaps you could have some special arrangement for least developed countries or the small island developing states. Again we have problem there. I think the two areas where we need some further clarity is, what is the weight which is going to be given to each of these criteria, and do the other countries agree with these criteria which have been mentioned.
In the discussions that we have had so far, there has been some cherry-picking that maybe this particular criteria is more important, another criteria is less important. So, we need to have a total picture as to what is the weightage which is going to be given to the different criteria. The other element is that this assessment principle as the Mexicans see it will apply to all countries; that the division that we regard as fundamental in the UNFCC between developed and developing countries, that particular principle is in a sense being set aside here. That has its own implications. This is something which will require a very careful consideration not only just by India but by all the developing countries in the negotiations. So, what we have agreed to do is to look at this proposal and discuss this further.
The UK proposal is, of course, mainly drawing the funding from market mechanisms, that is, the setting up of and the expansion of carbon markets and some proportion of those carbon market proceeds then being made available for developing countries. There is some role given to public finance but only a limited role, a limited role in terms of meeting the requirements of the least developed countries, meeting the requirements of small island developing states. But in fact very little has been said about the adaptation needs of other developing countries. So, there are many questions of that nature which arise from this.
We had also a presentation by the Australian Prime Minister mainly on the issue of carbon capture and storage. As you know, Australia has taken the lead in setting up an institute for carbon capture and storage in Australia. We have also agreed that this is an initiative where we can be an active participant although we have, of course, serious doubts about the applicability of a CCS in a country like India. But he has made this proposal inviting all the countries to join in this particular initiative and this is something again which we are willing to look at. This is essentially the sort of presentations which came from mostly developed country partners.
Prime Minister Singh made a statement in which he did respond to some of the issues which were raised by the other speakers. In the intervention that he made, he praised President Obama for making very explicit the link between energy and climate. As you know, this forum itself is called the Energy and Climate Forum of the Major Economies. In short, of course, it is known as the Major Economies Forum. He said that really energy and climate are two sides of the same coin. That should be fairly self-evident; sometimes it is not. But if we wish to bring about a change in the pattern of economic development, economic activity from what it is currently, based essentially on fossil fuels, to one whish is based on renewables and cleaner sources of energy, then unless the issue of energy security is addressed, how you really move towards dealing with climate change. So, it is extremely important that this particular link between the two should be recognized. So, he welcomed the fact that this particular link was established very clearly.
He also stated the point that we as developing countries have a much greater interest in action on climate change because we are the ones who are most impacted by it. The notion that somehow developing countries are less serious about climate change, or the notion that we are complacent about climate change, nothing could be further from the truth because we are the ones who are going to be impacted most. Therefore, if there are countries who have a maximum interest in a successful outcome at Copenhagen, it is countries like India. So, he set at rest that particular notion.
Secondly, he said what is it that we need to put in place in terms of this outcome at Copenhagen. Here he said, of course we recognize that this is a common challenge; of course we recognize that we have to do whatever we can as developing countries in order to address the issue of climate change; but there has to be a recognition that action on climate change cannot be built upon the perpetuation of poverty. So, this is a fundamental issue because it does impact on our developmental prospects. He hastened to add that we in India have done a great deal on our own without any assistance from outside, whether it is in terms of improving energy efficiency, a target of 20 per cent increase in energy efficiency in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, we have put in place very ambitious national action plan on climate change which includes a great deal of action on solar energy, on use of other renewable sources of energy. We have ourselves committed India to a path of sustainable development. So, we will do whatever we can within the limitation of our resources. But what we really need is the creation of a supportive international climate regime which will enable us to enhance, which will enable us to upscale whatever efforts we are nationally making. That is really the expectation that we have from what must emerge from Copenhagen.
In this, of course, is embedded the issue of equity. Equity means that there should be an acknowledgement by developed countries of their historical responsibility. So, the outcome in Copenhagen must be ambitions; must be very comprehensive because it must include all the different elements which have been identified; but above all it must be equitable. So, the principle that every citizen of this globe has an equal entitlement to the global atmospheric space is something which must be recognized.
In this context, Prime Minister also talked about the emission reduction targets. He did say that while we need to have very ambitious targets for 2050, it is as I mentioned earlier very important that they must be backed by credible and also ambitious targets for the interim. In that context he did mention that at least 40 per cent reduction in current emissions of the developed countries would indicate that level of credibility.
With regard to what countries like India would be prepared to do, we have already indicated our willingness to diverge further from business-as-usual. In fact Prime Minister said that the actions that we are taking are already leading us to a diversion from business-as-usual and we will be able to do more provided supportive financial resources, technology transfer is made available.
President Obama asked the Prime Minister to say a few words specifically on adaptation. Here Prime Minister made the point that while the focus is on mitigation we must not forget that adaptation is an equal challenge, if not even a bigger challenge. Therefore, any action on climate change must take the aspect of adaptation into account. He mentioned that if you are looking at the future, even if emissions were drastically reduced in the near future, climate change will continue to take place because it is taking place not because of current emissions but it is taking place because of accumulated greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. So, that will only come down gradually. In the meantime the impact on climate will continue and the maximum adverse impact will be on developing countries like India. He pointed out that in India itself we are currently spending about two per cent to 2.5 per cent of our GDP on adaptation because we are already facing extreme climatic events. We are facing national disasters which are traced to changes in climatic patterns. There is impact even in urban areas. As you know, there is flooding. The storm drainage systems are being overwhelmed by very heavy incessant rain. These are things which are a reality to us already. This uncompensated burden on us is going to only increase. So, unless there is recognition of this challenge of adaptation - which is almost equal to, if not more, with regard to mitigation - we will not be able to get a very successful outcome at Copenhagen.
He also made a comment on the proposals which were made by Gordon Brown and President Calderon. I have already mentioned to you Prime Minister’s willingness to look at the proposal but making the point that this would, as currently formulated, go against the UNFCC principle of a clear divide between developed country obligations and developing country obligations. But we have said that we will look at this.
On Prime Minister Brown’s proposal, while Prime Minister welcomed the fact that a figure had been put on the table, he did say that how the fund is constituted is going to be very important. The reliance on market mechanism is something that we have some reservations about. That is because there can be changes in the market conditions. He pointed out to the fact that only recently in the wake of the economic and financial crisis the price of carbon in the European market fell from something like 30 Euros to less than 10 Euros. Even now it is only about 13 or 14 Euros. On the basis of this kind of volatile market it may be very difficult to get the kind of predictable, stable resources that are required to enable countries to do long-term planning on climate change. So, he did mention that we need to perhaps look at this aspect a little more carefully in the ensuing months.
It was agreed that work continues in the Major Economies Forum. President Obama has said that he will come up with ideas with regard to how the work could be continued. Of course, we look forward to receiving proposals in that respect.
I think I have covered more or less everything. Thank you very much.
Question: Could you please confirm if India is willing to host MEF Ministerial meeting in September this year?
Special Envoy of Prime Minister on Climate Change: The only conference that we are holding with respect to climate change is a meeting in October – 22nd and 23rd October – which is on climate change, technology development and transfer.
Foreign Secretary: I think he means the meeting of Trade Ministers which is going to be held in early September, the meeting of a group of Trade Ministers to discuss how to get the Doha Round negotiations started. That is probably the one that you are referring to.
Question: Will it be in Delhi?
Foreign Secretary: Location is not decided. It will be in India in September.
Question: Mr. Menon, anything more on bilateral meetings? With President Obama? Can you tell us something more?
Foreign Secretary: I told you what they discussed. They discussed bilateral relationship; they discussed how to enhance partnership; what we will do; how we are preparing for Secretary Clinton’s visit. We are now at the stage where frankly we do not have issues that divide us. We have issues that we are working on together to try and take them forward. So, it is very hard to give you that kind of story.
Question: Pakistan?
Foreign Secretary: Pakistan was mentioned but very briefly.
Question: Nuclear cooperation?
Foreign Secretary: Nuclear cooperation, not between them. We will discuss it when Secretary Clinton comes.
Question: Will the Prime Minister go on a bilateral visit to the US?
Foreign Secretary: Nothing was decided. There is an invitation for him to go. There is also an invitation to President Obama to come to India. Both have been accepted. PM has also been invited to the G-20 in Pittsburg also. So, let us see. There is talk possibly of an MEF meeting. The UN General Assembly is holding a special session on climate change also just before the General Assembly session. So, there is a lot of possibility but nothing is certain right now.
Question: This …(Unclear)… Doha Round talks …(Unclear)… in Pittsburg in 2010. Will it be the first half or the second half? Anything specific?
Foreign Secretary: No, I do not think so. I think until they get the negotiations going again they …(Unclear)… It also depends on how comfortable they are at home. Each one will have to work with their own industry.
Question: The G-8 plus G-5 Joint Statement took more than the expected time today. Was there any dispute?
Foreign Secretary: No, none at all. What you have is what was done earlier. Maybe it is just photocopying machine. I do not know.
Question: Most of the Joint Statement was …(Unclear)…
Foreign Secretary: Thank you. Frankly, we are dealing with the same issues here. We are dealing with climate change; we are dealing with restructuring of international organizations; we are dealing with recovery from global crisis. So, it is not as though we will cover completely different topics. Some difference in emphasis you will see.
Question: Some of the international media agencies, particularly …(Unclear)… talked about differences, even differences between G-8 and Russia …(Unclear)… on climate change. A reference has been made that Russia has been differing with the rest of the G-8 countries.
Foreign Secretary: I think make up your own mind. Read the documents yourself. You have heard us. We have told you in great detail what happened. Make up your own mind. There is a lot of spin going on. I find the international channels are busy saying developing countries refused. Where did we refuse? In fact, you have just heard how there has been progress. So, do not go by what other people say. You make up your own mind. You have been told in great detail. You have the documents yourselves.
Question: The Statement is more or less what you have been saying.
Foreign Secretary: Thank you.
Question: This is on climate change again. …(Unclear)… One of the major points that you were all trying to make was that you really needed strong interim targets for the developed nations and that was one reason why you did not feel that you could agree to anything concrete particularly for 2050 until you have had interim targets from the developed countries. Is that what you were saying?
Special Envoy of Prime Minister on Climate Change: What we said was we would need to be convinced that there is a credible pathway. So, whatever is put forward for 2050 must be backed by credible interim targets. It was not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with a particular figure, but pointing out that we have to carry credibility with the international community. We also would be signing on to that document and so our credibility is also important. So, we need to be able to convince the international community that we are really looking at a realistic pathway which is backed by not only ambitious targets for 2050 but shows how we are going to get to it. To our mind, supported by science 40 per cent reduction by 2020 is really what is required.
Question: One of the major stalemates for Doha Round of talks was between India and the US. So, what must have provoked …
Foreign Secretary: We do not think that we were the cause of the stalemate. Yes, we were not happy with the state of the negotiations at that time. We still did not have enough in there for us to agree. But neither did some of the others. So, it is not an India-US negotiation.
Question:: No, of course, not. India was kind of representing the developing countries.
Foreign Secretary: No, I think we had issues with where it was. But you will notice from the documents it is quite clear. What we are all saying is that the 6th December documents on NAMA, on agriculture, we need to use as a basis to carry the negotiations forward. On services we still expect more which is why a negotiation is necessary in all three of these big areas. It is not as though everything was settled or everything is ready. So, we will have a meeting in September which will start up the process and there will be discussions, whether bilateral or in Geneva through the WTO.
Question: The last paragraph of the joint statement talks about commitment to advance reform processes in international organizations. We saw the PM speak about this as well. Are you satisfied with the statement that has come out? Is there future scope for more reform? What is the status?
Foreign Secretary: I think it is important that this group of countries - 14 countries and important countries if you look at the membership of this group – actually could make such an unequivocal statement. For me the other impressive thing - and this is partly a result of the economic crisis of the changed situation in the world today - is that there is broad recognition that we really need to work these institutions, we need to change them. There is already a commitment to change the international financial institutions and to restructure them, to change the voting shares, to do that at the G-20 in London. You will see this is a much longer list. In fact, there were other countries who wanted to add more and more but we said a general reference is good enough. You do not need five pages of names of sixty odd international organizations. Apparently there are more than sixty.
Question: It was a shot in the arm for your hopes of changing the UNSC.
Foreign Secretary: This is an expression of will. Ultimately we will have to go out and actually work in each of the organizations, in the proper fora. This is not the place where you negotiate. This is a place where you gather opinion when you get leaders at that level committing, and presumably you can take that to the fora and get it done. But yes, certainly it is a step forward and it is a big step to get such a clear statement. But it is because everybody feels that we need to do better.
Question: We have seen, as you said, Gordon Brown endorsing Britain’s support to India as far as joining the UNSC is concerned. With this particular statement, what are India’s hopes? Is this a step forward in any way?
Foreign Secretary: We still have to do the hard work in the UN. For the UNSC, we will have to do it in the UN. We have brought it in the UN to the stage where for the first time this year actual negotiations are taking place. It is not just an open-ended working group where opinions are aired. Now there is actual negotiations under the President of the UNGA from April this year. This is one more step. All five of the permanent members have signed on to this. So, we take it one more step at a time and we hope we can carry it through.
Question: The G-8 has made a declaration on terror yesterday in the statement. Did you take this opportunity to discuss terror in Pakistan in detail in the bilateral meetings?
Foreign Secretary: It was not discussed in the big meeting. In the bilaterals, certainly it was mentioned.