Impact of declaration of Greece as a default country

"Now that Greece has been declared a defaulter, experts are citing that this might bring the entire country to a standstill.

Please help us understand the wider range of impact caused on any economy when such a declaration from the creditors/IMF"

Most important - the country’s exit from the euro area and—most likely—from the European Union

An exit from the euro would only compound the already adverse environment, as the ensuing acute exchange rate crisis would send inflation soaring.

All this would imply deep recession, a dramatic decline in income levels, an exponential rise in unemployment and a collapse of all that the Greek economy has achieved over the years of its EU, and especially its euro area, membership.

At larger level - A default will pose questions about the survival of the European monetary union and will also lead to confusion and volatility in global financial markets

Will it benefit if in some way, more to US or China?

Politically, yes, for sure....as it is a setback for d European nations to reassert themselves.

Even depreciation of euro is to the advantage of US/China.... but some initial volatility will be there.

But it is also expected that the "state will collapse"- what does that entail?

It refers to govt. As said above, inflation, unemployment, etc. would lead to that.

How is it any different from the present scenario in Greece? The country is already bankrupt, can't payback its sovereign debts, unemployment is 60%?

The terms of Greece's existing bail-out programme stipulate that a default to the IMF would automatically constitute a default on the country's European rescue loans.

Such a scenario would risk the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) cancelling all or part of its facility or even declaring the principal amount of the loan to be due immediately. Should the EFSF take such a decisive move, it could activate a range of cross default clauses on Greek government bonds held by private investors and the ECB. These clauses state a default to one creditor institution applies to all.

Also A wave of defaults may force the ECB into finally pulling the plug on the emergency assistance it has been providing in ever larger doses since February.

ECB has forced Greek banks to shut down, can you please explain what gives ECB that power? Because if banks are closed, I can see what they mean by collapse?

That’s one of d condition of previous bailout - The central bank (ECB) has kept Greek banks on a tight leash, maintaining that it would only restore normal lending operations to the country once "conditions for a successful completion of the programme are in place".

so such is the grasp of a lending institution that even private banks are not allowed to operate?

Greeks aam admi are anti EU becouse of these harsh terms & conditions of bailout. Even d referendum now is for –

1) to accept harsh terms for further bailout

2) dont accept d terms & dont pay

can you please tell why a creditor that has loaned billions of dollars allow a country to say "we're not going to pay"?

That’s all geo-political equations, what else can be done?

What u will get? Do they have anything left except probably gladiators?

Is all these happening because of not having set proper guidelines for a defaulter state during formation of European Union..

I’m sure there must be some guidelines. Now I do not know.... but it is very much likely. Will find out. (If I can give a guess - may be elimination from EU).

From what I've read, there has never been a scenario like this before. No state has ever been declared a defaulter within EU before. Hence the guidelines are made and adopted as things progress (heard this from the horse's mouth- Greek Finance Minister)

Secondly, the Greeks were given a bailout after 2009 which was unsustainable, especially on the condition of austerity that beats Keynesian economics. This is seen as muscle flexing of Troika and other lenders of EU and accepted by the then Greek government because some money is better than no money regardless of what measures one is put through (austerity, social cuts etc.).

The previous government was as much incapable of paying their debt back, as this govt. The only difference is that this government has challenged the lenders and hence ended up getting declared as a defaulter.

They are also contemplating to join Russia or China by exiting EU...I hope it is just a pressure tactic

Could be a tactic

United Nations- UN and its Mandate

"UN cannot have a mandate of its own"- sir please elaborate.

UN is a voluntary group of nations that have come together for common good, mutual assistance, security and development. The mandate of the UN is prescribed by the member countries. In an ideal situation, all countries agree towards a single goal and the capable ones help those in need, to achieve that goal. In reality, every country weighs the pros and cons of any resolution or a plan of action through the prism of self interest. Food for the goose is NOT food for the gander here! So, there are stark divisions amongst the countries and generally the stronger ones get their way through by cobbling up a majority.
 

It is that shifting majority that brings about the direction of the UN. Today's coalition for a resolution is not a guarantee for tomorrow's.

 However, when a majority is obtained, it gets the force of law and becomes the will of the nations. Remember, it is a voluntary group, so one abides by such resolutions. However, when some do not get that majority to proceed, they form their own coalition with a smaller group and go ahead. The action of such a group does not have the sanction of the majority and therefore lacks the sanctity and is not binding on all nations. Technically, this action is in violation of the collective principles, but UN can't take action here as it lacks the direction of the majority, who decide to not punish, not participate and ignore owing to their own self interest and the strength of the coalition of the willing. That is why it is said that the mandate of UN flows from the member countries.

Final question sir- as you said the membership to the UN is voluntary, hence its assumed that if one can't get majority and forms a coalition outside of the UN- that the 'mandate' of UN as for the current resolution at hand- is to refrain and not go against it.

Following the same, there should be a framework to 'impose' its 'resolution' on refraining such action, on its own member states? Because they're the one found in minority are UN members themselves.

Or should I answer my question saying that- the majority (say Russia, acting as a UN member state) wouldn't want to further spoil relationship on a bilateral level by enforcing sanctions (again, on behalf of UN or the majority coalition within UN) or deterrance in other forms- against USA?

 There is no such mandate to not go against it. Members who do not form part of the coalition, if they come together and get a majority, then the will of the UN is to oppose the action of the coalition of the willing. But countries chose not to press for such a decision for their own reasons. Spoiling relations is only one aspect that is considered.
 It is always a game of numbers. The more number on your side, the stronger you are. There of countries, by force of their economic and military strength and veto power owing to UNSC membership exhibit power and thwart a majority from being formed against it.
 

India-Maldives Relations, Intervention or Assistance?

India and its neighborhood- relations.

Amber India-Maldives relations:

India has in the past, intervened in the domestic polity of Maldives, on their specific request for India to do so. Whereas in 2015, another call has being made by ex-president of Maldives- Yameen to intervene in his allegedly political arrest which may see the country descending into chaos- which has been diplomatically avoided by India so far.

Question is- how do we interpret India's Interventionist stance earlier despite its adherence to Panchsheel's principle of Non-intervention?

My only take on this question is that I do not agree to the use of interventionist stance.

Every time India has gone abroad to support, it has been on the request to assist, not intervene.

Bangladesh, Maldives, Sri Lanka, To assist in their sorting out their problem.

so you're pointing to the fact that "intervention" is always voluntary, whereas on request- its said to be "assistance".

Yes there is that nuance.

Iraq Bosnia Afghanistan are examples of intervention

Our policy is to encourage dialogue and peaceful resolution of differences

Outer Space Treaty, Plots on Moon, Sovereignity

When According to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, no nation can claim sovereignty over any part of any celestial rock. Then

1. How they're selling plots on moon?

2. How are exploration, mining on Moon justified?

3. Where is India playing role?

Firstly, all of you should see the Outer Space Treaty, I will reproduce the first and second articles now

Article I

The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

Article II

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means

Yes sir, according to the articles you posted- it seems like Global Commons?

Yes

Who is putting plots on moon?

That is why i am asking? Where did that question come from?

Since 1967, the treaty has been in existence, there are talks of colonization of moon, mars, asteroids, exploration for mineral resources on meteorites and other planets. However, the main clause of the treaty - Article I stands without amendment.

All exploration will be for all mankind, no ownership, irrespective of economic or scientific development. While countries that are advanced in space technology can send exploratory missions, there is no ownership.

Till now, everything has been to quench the scientific curiosity.

Sir, its true that there are agencies which are offering estates up for sale, but those purchases are no more worth anything other than the paper it’s written on

Claims cannot be considered legal.

However like Antarctica, there will be a time in the future when sovereignty might be established based on presence. But as of now, no amendment to the treaty and so we all can claim ownership of all the universe and the Milky Way.

As regards India's role, we continue to explore in the spirit of the treaty.

Sir could you elaborate on the status of Antarctica a bit?

Presently all our exploratory scientific stations in Antarctica are considered sovereign. Only within the physical limits of the stations. Not beyond. There is nothing like EEZ surrounding the stations. All countries respect that.

Sir as far as the satellites are concerned.. Wat abt the path to be chosen for every country to be launched..can they claim particular band or something like that?

There are bands allotted by unoosa.

There is even a graveyard for satellites where all space objects will have to be pushed when their fuel is less than 5% or so. This is to avoid space debris.

Sir, on a lighter note- the situation like Gravity (the movie) is probable?

Science fictions have always pushed the envelope and have propelled inventions and discoveries.

So who knows? We may have gravitates and Aliens and warp travel and what not?

2014: On 9 February, NASA accepted applications from companies that want to mine the moon for rare materials such as Helium-3 under a program called “Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown" (CATALYST). The Outer Space Treaty prohibits any country from claiming property on the moon, but lunar mining has sparked debate over lunar property rights.

US recognised owning of land though it is still controversial, this was my doubt sir?

but you have cleared it! its illegal, to claim on any land on moon.

The issue is about unilateralism versus multilateralism.

Treaty exists unamended.

Any kind of exploration is for the benefit of mankind and not for countries or corporations, as of now.

Comparison of Indian And Developed Countries principle of Tort Law

It is said that Indian tort law is fairly new. It does not give as much freedom as developed country's tort laws. Eg USA.

Are all the tort laws based on the common principle of seeking remedy

Although this is a legal or a lawyerly issue, we can discuss the construct of the issue. as it involves international understanding to some extent.

Laws are born out of cultural and historical experiences of every country.

We cannot import laws made in one country to another without modification

Social issues, historical experiences, cultural context, economic status, religious background and so many other things go into making of a law.

While the general definition of TORT law would be to provide succour to the afflicted, it works differently in different countries.

Now a days you get luke warm coffee in Starbucks because a women driver spilled hot coffee on her lap while she was holding it between her thighs when she was driviing a car!

The pharmaceutical advertisements in the US nearly discourage you from taking the medicines as theyy list out all the sideeffects including death, basically because they want to bring the fine print in front to avoid compensation claims

Surgeon General insists on gory photos and statutory warnings, not only to protect the population, but also the companies!

LGBT issues get prominence in some countries, while in some it is still not accepted.

So, coming back to the question, I believe law is an evolving creature, made for the good of the public and hopefully will be used so by the public for benefit rather than to misuse it.

We cannot actually compare laws of one country with another

So, the laws are differently made, understood and implemented in each country?

Sir, considering the points mentioned... do we think patent law will be successful in India?

On Patents, I have an ambivalent view. Again I am not a lawyer, you see!

I am not sure whether it is good or bad in its entirety. It is like examination, both needed as well as a devil.

While it encourages innovation, R&D, by providing incentives to the innovator.

It also proves to be a dampener of human rights when it can be made universally available.

So a balance is required on patents, particularly for developing and poor countries.

Effect of change of government on India's foreign policy

Can there be any change in foreign policy if a single party comes to power?

All governments exist to ensure security and development of their country. Rarely do we see a complete shift in foreign policy. There can be course corrections, but not 180 degree turnaround.

Foreign policy generally is a constant for every country. Very predictable.

Foreign policy is one of the areas where there has been a consensus among the various political parties. Indo US nuke deal was the one which broke this consensus for the first time in a big way. In this scenario, it is necessary to put important foreign policy issues on the floor of the parliament n discuss them n achieve consensus so that it remains intact even after an opposition comes to power. Generally if there is a consensus created among the ppl before taking a major decision, this consensus can't be broken even if a different party comes to power.

I n our country too, there is a general consensus amongst all political parties on the course that we take.

123 Agreement was also, but by the Communist parties, opposed by the opposition for the sake of opposing.

Even with change in government, the policies continue. Because the foreign policy that we have adopted has generally been serving the interest of our country.

Especially in foreign policy, there is not much petty politics n overall interest of the nation is always the only consideration. So it is easy to arrive at a consensus..

Sir in case of our neighbours like Bangladesh n Sri Lanka, their foreign policy towards India depends much on the party/leader in power?

Foreign policy remains the same, the events change and course corrections are done.

Initiatives differ.

New ideas and old ideas some time wax and wane, but the course is the same.

Sir can we tell the present govt as a more or less a single party kind and "Make in India" concept as a moderate change of foreign policy?

Make in India is a domestic policy nischita. Attracting investment is not foreign policy, it is economic policy. And foreign policy assists the country in achieving its domestic policies.

Sir, currently govt in Bangladesh favours close ties with India?

Yes you are right. Sometimes countries choose their self-interest also!

Let me word it like this, sometimes some countries decide to choose what is in their interest, thus moving away from their spiteful policies

India And WTO

Why has India taken this stance at the WTO?

Why does the west object to Indias stance?

What is the bone of contention between the two? What are their individual concerns?

Please provide more clarity on the DOHA rounds of negotiation and why they have been a failure.

Simply put, we have a huge population to feed. 27% are BPL. We need to ensure food security.

The countries demanded that no stocking of foods were to be permitted as it would affect the world prices. Within 3 years, all stocks to be reduced to allow market pricing of food items.

This was not in our interest. So we objected to it, including on the baseline principle and asked for more time.

TFA was important for other countries as India offers a huge market. In addition, since it is by consensus.

Our vote was important and so we played the card.

On the issue of why Doha has still not been able to reach a consensus is because all countries have to agree on all things.

Food for the goose is food for the gander does not work in IR. My interest and your interest varies. So finding common ground is very difficult. Particularly if the topic is so complex as trade and food security

How public stock holding will affect the world price sir?

Thailand, Vietnam and India are the three major rice exporting countries.

Last to last year, a scheme was brought in by Thailand to acquire rice, well above the market price and stock it to be released into the world market at the time there was much demand by fixing price at a higher level.

It is a different matter that it did not work out completely as planned by some, as after some years, we had excess production and Indian rice came into the market, bringing the price down.

So stocking can at any point affect world prices

Another example is OPEC countries.

They decide how much to pump to manage world prices

So many countries opposed stocking and we opposed their opposition on the grounds of self-interest.

Sir Doha can never ever reach consensus rite sir?

I would not say so, negotiations are on and am sure there would be a solution.

As long as the agreement serves the countries' interest, consensus can always be achieved.

Negotiations are required to arrive at that. The sooner the better

What could be pragmatic solution should we give while answering Sir?

Doha round is a packaged round of talks.. "Nothing is agreed till everything is agreed"... So due to difference in opinion on some issues, the entire Doha round is getting delayed.

Sir food security act provide rice wheat at so cheap prices to large population, isn't it against development as it is provided almost at free of cost?

The fundamental duty of any country is to ensure development, provide food and security for its population. We happen to be a huge population country and so our problems are large. That should not deter us in accepting our responsibility and explaining it to the world.

How we manage it domestically is another issue all together

We justify on the basis of rights of a human being to food

India's Self Interest Principle in relation to Srilanka

"if self-interest is the guiding principle," why there was not much action was taken in keeping up the relation btw srinlanka?

Interesting question.

But why do you think we did not use the self-interest principle in SL.

Because the world might eventually point fingers at us- considering our own weak human rights record.

Exactly.. If we support international intervention in SL, the same card might be used against us in Kashmir.

I say that we used self iinterest principle with SL always.

When domestic politics get intertwined we take some stance. That need not necessarily be the correct one. But it is to decide between what was the bigger headache and which is to be attended first.

Yes! Often, domestic n foreign policies are closely related. SL issue is an example where our domestic situation dictated out foreign policy. On the contrary, indo-us nuclear deal was where our foreign policy dictated our domestic politics (UPA almost lost majority due to the withdrawal of support by CPI)...

Sir, I agree however the silence of self-interest gave way to open doors to China and PAK

After having sorted out the internal headache, even when china and pak had come in, the current situation in SL and relations vis-a-vis us is not too far off the radar that it cannot be salvaged.

There are various weapons in the arsenal. Different pressure points are used at different times. Sama Beda Dhana Dhandam.

We have to play with the cards dealt. And make the best use of it keeping self interest in mind. Rationalization of decision as Herbert Simon said.

Latest regime change coupled with paradigm shift (project Mausam) could help us regain lost grounds in SL. Am I right sir?

Yes Pradeep. Cooperation in all areas is always good.

As a big country, we should always be ready to give disproportionate responses, without exactly expecting full reciprocation. This has been our position in the SAARC.

Exactly what Gujral doctrine says... Help our neighbors without expecting reciprocity

When India always opposed partition of Palestine then what made India to recognize Israel and support partition on basis of religion?

When India always opposed partition of Palestine then what made India to recognize Israel and support partition on basis of religion?

India has friendly relations with both Palestine and Israel. Both these countries understand our position pretty well. We support the cause of Palestine. We have excellent relations with Israel and cooperate in various strategic places.

I recommend that all of you visit www.mea.gov.in and go to the country briefs to learn more about our relations with any country you want. That would give you a lot of clarity.

It is a perfect example of India's policy shift from idealism to realism.

As i said earlier, nothing is a constant in IR. If it is in my interest, I will change. Self-interest rules, Simple. We all subscribe to universal goodness of Human Rights, humanitarian assistance etc. we have continued to support Palestine, provided it with assistance and support even in the UN.

That does not stop us from developing good relations with Israel. We always support dialogue as a process for resolution of any crisis, we do not support violence and war. When there is a humanitarian crisis, we have always intervened to provide succor. So we should not confuse between our positions and events.

Right from Balfour declaration (when UK promised the Jews to give them a separate nation of Israel) to the current day, India's support for the Palestinian cause has remained a constant.

The way in which we have supported Palestine has changed over the years.

Earlier, we used to strongly condemn Israel when it attacked Israel. But now the tone has become softer, for practical considerations. Israel has become the largest arms supplier to India. Especially after kargil when Israeli help came in handy to India, we have moved closer to Israel. That is why when opposition parties wanted to move a resolution in the parliament condemning Israeli raid on Gaza last year, our government refused. We still advocate Palestinian cause, but we don't want to offend Israelis either.

India supports a united, independent, viable, sovereign state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, living within secured and recognized borders "side by side" at peace with Israel

Yes.

In diplomacy- neutrality is still a very much potent tool than pro and against

That was the bedrock of non-aligned movement.

Neutrality is not the word!!

More than neutrality strategic national interest!!!

U r right!

Neutrality is non participation in world affairs, like the swiss. Non alignment is a positive concept where we take a stance based on the merit of the issue, without fear or favour.

Sir but isn't it being hypocrite for rejecting two nation theory at home and recognizing in international affairs by recognizing Israel?

Hypocrisy is the breakfast for IR, sometimes also becomes the lunch and dinner.

Let us not bring morality into IR. Self-interest is the guiding principle.

While we would never openly admit it and always wax eloquent about morality, decisions are always taken on self-interest.

As Adam Smith said, if everyone looks after their self-interest, then the world's interest will be looked after, provided, certain basic international norms are followed.

And that is where the universal mechanisms come into play to keep all the nations in check.

While answering Q's on India stance like Palestine or patent laws pressure by US... what kind of approach would be suitable in our answers?

While i would leave it to you to formulate, just remember that self interest guides, we are a responsible country with great traditions and continuity in foreign policy has been the hallmark of our IR, although from time to time we need to adjust it to suit the situation

Zero Sum Game in Todays International Politics

Sir with reference to your latest point "In this scenario, not always will all countries win."- is that what is being referred to as the ZERO SUM GAME?

No zero sum game cannot be generalized, depends on situation to situation. Almost every time, somebody gains and somebody loses the degree only differs. When you confront an IR problem, apply those points mentioned above.

In that case- please enlighten us as to what is referred to as the zero sum game in present times?

Zero sum game is when a situation provides solutions in which all the parties stand to lose substantially. Rarely do we have that situation in IR.

Theory is far from practice.

Especially in the current scenario when economic diplomacy gains prominence, positive sum game is the norm rather than the zero sum game.. If trade relations are established between India n pak, both stand to benefit..

In the same context- the loss faced by European nations forcing sanctions on Russia- is that as near to zero sum game as economic diplomacy can get?

In the age of global village.. IR with countries is NON-ZERO SUM- game?

In a way, yes.

Isn't that contrary to utilitarian theory? Maximum benefit to all (parties)? or self-interest theory over-rides Utilitarianism?

in the same context- the loss faced by European nations forcing sanctions on Russia- is that as near to zero sum game as economic diplomacy can get?

Russia Europe problem is purely economic

Problem comes when politics is combined with economics. Which almost always happens. Powerful nations try to impose their views and morals on others.

When the opposite side cannot stand up to them, issues occur

Earlier, both US and the USSR used to encourage terrorist groups against each other.. For eg, Lebanese Hezbollah by USSR against USA n mujahedeen by USA against USSR.. Now, even terrorism has become globalized thus posing a common threat.. So intelligence sharing n cooperation has become all the more important, even among enemy countries like USA n Russia. This is one example of positive sum game..

corrrect. That is why, I said, there is rarely zero sum game in IR.

EU sanctions on Russia is not a zero sum.., there are rarely zero sum situations in IR.. For example, India defeating pak in a war n occupying its territory is zero sum. India '+1'... Pak '-1'..

But in case of EU sanctions, both EU n Russia get a '-1' .. It is negative for both.. So it's not zero sum

Right sir, that is why- Diplomacy steps in as an alternative to war- to ensure that net result is NOT a zero sum game.

Yes.. So better coop is always positive to both sides, esp in the long run

Fundamentals of International Relations

Some basic fundamentals of International Relations.

1. Sovereignty of any country is inviolable, unless they voluntarlily give it away

2. Self interest is the primary basis on which all countries decide

3. Nothing is a constant in International relations

4. Today's interest may not be tomorrow's interest and so, I have the full right to change my position. Corollary to that is that today's friends need not be tomorrow's also

5. International standing of any country depends on its domestic strengths and its relations with other powers.

6. Every country, therefore, tries to manipulate others to secure maximum benefits while at the same time giving away as minimum as possible.

In this scenario, not always will all countries win.

Based on the above, look at each issue and come to conclusions. these are not exhaustive, but generally illustrative. in IR, there are never simple and straight forward answers. Situation and domestic requirements decide our responses.

Having laid down those fundamentals, there is also accepted International law that governs IR

Typically, if domestic laws are in contrvention to international agreements, the domestic laws are to be suitably altered.

provided we had agreed to the international agreements.

Domestically, we have worked out various provisions like negotiations, internal consultations and finally ratification of international agreements

when we follow these processes, then we are bound by it and will hve to adapt our domestic laws accordingly

To recap, multilateralism is voluntary, we have a choice every time, but once agreed, we follow the universal mechanisms for common benefit.

Multilateral organizations and Sovereignty of the Country

One of the first questions posted is about multilateral organizations and sovereignty of a country will be affected by multilateral organizations like the UN?

Every country voluntarily joins any International organization and accepts a common code of conduct as long as its primary interest is not affected, for benefitting from universal mechanisms. Universal mechanisms provide stability, predictability and rule of law. For example UNCLOS – the UN law of the Seas which defines the territorial waters, continental shelf and governs movement of vessels in high seas, where no country’s jurisdiction is. In the absence of such common laws, it would not be possible for smooth conduct of business.

However, every country had a say in the formation of the UNCLOS, They had the power to negotiate

They had the opportunity to put forth their view points

They understood the whole concept and made compromises to the extent that their sovereignty is not eroded.

We always have a choice, no universal law is forced upon us.

India is not part of NPT, because we chose not to. We are one of the only 3 countries that did not sign NPT.

Didn't we ourselves agreed to the international arbitration wherein we lost to Bangladesh?

You subject yourself to international arbitration based on a mechanism that you agreed to

Isn't a choice to let go of our sovereignity- sovereign choice in itself?

Yes. but you should see when we go to arbitration and how we approach it.

The Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan was worked out by the World Bank. we are party to it and there is an arbitration clause when the two countries are not able to come to a conclusion on any issue. We have used it twice already, let me correct myself, Pakistan has used it twice already.

sir ... certain multilateral organisation works on concenses basis.. Like example of WTO, it’s very hard to bring conclusion.

Doha is a long story and coming to a least common denominator amongst all the countries is the result of negotiations. The reason that it is not yet concluded is because the countries exercise their sovereign power to ensure that their interests are protected. Ultimately, even when you are part of a multilateral organization, you retain your choice of joining or not joining an Agreement.

Every country weighs the pros and cons of every negotiation and concede to enjoy the universal benefits that accrue out of such agreements. if the country feels that the benefits are not worth it, then they decide not to join it.

Moreover, in WTO, everything is decided on consensus. Even if one country refuses to sign, the whole deal stands dropped. Then it should be taken to other multilateral fora which makes it even more difficult.

Sir, then why was it feared that if India chose to walk-out of Bali agreement- the agreement stands failed for all countries?

Because India is a huge market.

Sir, in case of environment related issues a country doesn't have many choices

On environment, it is also in our interest to see to it that the carbon emissions are controlled.

We are not climate change opposers.