Mr Shyam Saran, Ladies and Gentlemen, and all the distinguished and very eager public gathered here today; Good morning;
I was going to give a general speech which was tailor-made for today. But…I should congratulate the chair. It is amazing what he has just said. I have been listening to Mr Saran for a number of months now. He is an excellent negotiator and one of the best that India had produced. Of course, they have safeguarded India’s position and then, have poised the whole climate change issue to become what it is now. And therefore, has been able to bring India to the centre stage of it – which is all very good.
In my mind, we are asking nothing short of saving the world and I would rather ask India to do that instead of asking anyone else to do it.
Now, as Gandhi put it ‘an eye for an eye will make the world go blind’. So if we are going to conduct negotiations in the fashion that Mr Saran has just pointed out, like a war has just ended and we are going to split the spoils – is that what we are trying to do now or is there a bigger global picture that we should be mindful about and see where we are going?
If we believe the science, if we believe that this is happening – I believe everyone here actually believes in the science – if we believe that 2 + 2 is 4, then we have to believe that this is happening. Now, if we believe that climate change is happening, we believe that the world is going to end. We believe that this whole thing is going to stop and the world is going to end. If we also believe in that, then go into negotiations and talk about all these things, I think it is in a sense rather silly.
We have to be able to find a mechanism, a way of getting out of this impasse and try to find an amicable, a just and politically acceptable solution to the whole issue.
The topic today is climate change and conflict resolution. By definition, I suppose conflicts arise because of scarcity of resources and by the idea that I have to have more than my neighbour, or I need as much as my neighbour.
Climate change is going to induce a situation where resources are going to be far less than what we have now. Then of course, there will be a conflict arising from that, in trying to find mechanisms and ways to share the available resources. We are already sensing this. We are seeing this. For instance, the glaciers meltdown and then the dry seasons bring more drought.
This would of course have implications on food security and many issues such as that. Water depletion and especially with sea-level rise, whole series of other issues relating to that would mean that the whole eco-balance, the whole nature of this planet would change. Now, if resources are going to deplete, then by definition, of course we are going to see more conflicts arising from that.
So in my mind we should be very mindful of what might happen if sea-level rise and climate change is left unchecked and if we do not find solutions to bring the situation to a balance, it is very clear that we will have a number of issues, more issues to fight about than what we have now.
What we seem to be fighting about these days is more on ideology. More on nationalistic superiority. More on imposing your culture on someone or imposing your religion on someone or also very much so on trying to get someone else’s resources.
Now, if what is available in terms of these resources is far less than what is available now of course, we can see that conflict would increase and people would be very stressed on that.
There are a number of already established, clear facts on what is happening to the world because of climate change. In a 2007 report by the Pentagon, they very clearly spelt out that climate change can be a serious sparking point for conflict in the future. Now that’s on resource allocation and in trying to find more resources than the next person.
In terms of how many refugees this issue is going to create, how many more people will be made homeless by the situation – Kofi Annan recently came out with a figure from some group saying that it can produce something like 300,000 refugees every year. You can see how badly we are with whatever refugee problem that we have now. For instance, in Maldives…we have lived in these islands for the last 5,000 years and we have a written history of more than 1,500 years and for us to leave that and go into a refugee camp will be very difficult. But there will be a serious issue of refugees and people would be crossing borders and running around from place to place, unable to settle down on dry land. So we are talking about lack of dry land and people would move to places where there is land, where there is resources and where there is livelihood available. We are talking about a billion or so people, especially around India, in South Asia and in Asia that would have to be moving from place to place.
You would agree with me that it won’t be the rich countries who have the refugee issue but more so in the developing countries. So we should be mindful of a serious refugee issue. Many islanders now have to move their home from one island to another. But you would finally have a situation where we have to move from one country to another. So, there would be a refugee issue arising from there.
In short, basically, what we are trying to suggest is that Maldives is a frontline country. If it was important for western countries to defend Poland in the 30s, it is important to defend the Maldives now. Here is a battle, here is a very clear conflict and the Maldives is in the frontline. You have to protect your infantry and if you cannot do that god help your cavalry! And you will have difficulties later on if you do not take this issue seriously and if you are actually thinking that this is just a Maldives issue, you cannot be so wrong about that. This is not a Maldives issue. Maldives simply is in the frontline and from the frontline, we are trying to tell the others that if this is happening to the Maldives today, it is going to happen to you tomorrow. Now, it is happening to the Maldives today, so therefore we would suggest that you give more attention to the frontline states as intelligent people in the past has done so.
I gave the example of defending Poland during the Second World War. We want better peace in our time. And we don’t want this Copenhagen to come out with this empty piece of paper as Chamberlain was holding. We don’t want to go there. We would rather if there was a more solid piece of paper where our security is guaranteed, where the world security is guaranteed and climate change is checked.
Now, I fully agree with the Indian position. It is not that we are not on the same page. We have a similar narrative. In my mind, what we are trying to say is India has 300 million people without electricity today. Now when you give electricity to them, why do you want to go into yesterday’s diesel when you can go for tomorrow’s renewable energy? Why not go into new technology.
So the issue therefore, then comes to technology transfer and so on. Now, in my mind India has a lot of technology and India is very clever at it. But of course there is a lot that can be imported but when you import it is not the technology that you want. One good example is that there are more developed windmills than we have solar panels, because the western countries don’t have the sun. The Prime Minister pointed this out to me yesterday that because they don’t have the sun, they have not found it so necessary to invest more on solar energy as much as they have invested in wind.
Now what we are suggesting is for the 300 million Indians and also for the growing energy demand here, it would be best if we try to seek out a manner in which electricity is used and supplied through renewable sources. In my mind, winners of this century would be countries that are clever enough to switch this technology. We are going to see a major breakthrough. I feel we are on a threshold of a major breakthrough in technology. There is going to be a major shift in technology. And when that happens, the winners would be those who are at the forefront.
I will also use another example. It is difficult to get mobile connections in the United States because during the 20s they had connected the whole country with landlines. But it is very easy to get mobile connection in India because the mobile companies didn’t have to complete with the landline companies. Now, when you again go into or when you shift technology usage it would always be best and more advantageous for people who come afresh. The 300million Indians who would be supplied with electricity would be best if they are supplied through renewable means.
Now, I understand that most countries have very centralised ideas or plans on supplying electricity – huge grids and big power supplies. Now we come from a very small country and we see the advantages of being small. I would like to see, for instance, India as…we breakdown India into small 50,000 people. So in my mind, India is also a combination, an amalgamation of a lot of smaller units. And these smaller units can be supplied without such a huge grid. So populations or groups of 50,000 people can be supplied locally with smaller utilities companies run and owned at village or town level, instead of going to the huge multinational…you know, it is good in many ways. We are a centre-right party and we believe in the market mechanism. There is no doubt in my mind about that. But these smaller units probably would be able to give a more efficient service to the wider, biggest Indian context.
Mr Saran certainly agreed. We are trying to establish one such unit in the Maldives, where about 300,000 people can be supplied with renewable energy of all sorts – hydraulic, solar, wind – whatever is available. If these models can be made to work … I have faith in humanity.
We have fought against odds many times and we have succeeded. And I am sure there would be many ways through which India can succeed and India will have the moral authority to stand out and say that we want to save the world. We can’t see anyone else doing it.
Just before I leave you to raise your issues, I would say there is no one else I would like to say that to either that there is the need to save the planet. This is our common asset and this is in danger and we need to do something. Climate Change is going to have an effect on all sorts of security issues.
In this regard, I have also argued that India needs to be in the Security Council. The Security Council should be reformed. Now, if everyone is asking Indians to do all sorts of things because of climate change that of course is a serious security issue. And therefore, I believe that India should be represented and Brazil from the developing countries should be permanently represented in the Security Council because this is going to be a more a serious threat to international order than Islamic radicalism or piracy. I don’t want to go on and on but would like to engage in your questions.
Than you very much.
