Author: Peter Drysdale

The global financial crisis reinforced reluctance in key developed countries (the US, the EU, and Japan) to take the lead in crafting new global agreements on climate change, with the newly emerging economies (China, India, and Brazil), that aspire to play a greater role in global governance, not yet ready to take on a greater share of the responsibility. As Hadi Soesastro points out in this week’s lead, they still align with the developing countries (G77) to avoid having to make binding commitments by appealing to UNFCCC’s principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’[pdf]. They are holding on to this as a first principle in the negotiations for fear that making binding commitments could obstruct economic growth catching up and poverty reduction. The US position is that all countries should commit to a common principle and targets. With four months to go, there has been some shift in these negotiating strategies, as Soesastro explains, but there will have to be a lot of movement to get a satisfactory outcome from Copenhagen. He sees a deal between China and the United States as key to a positive result. He also suggests that China could be part of an East Asian ‘game-changer’ in the negotiations in which Australia, Indonesia and Korea might also play a key role. Discussion of the options is urgent.

In the months to Copenhagen, the East Asia Forum will feature contributions to this discussion from around the region, and the October-December issue of East Asia Forum Quarterly will digest the key arguments. We welcome your input.