Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping was the poor country's hero at the Copenhagen climate summit of 2009. The permanent representative of Sudan at the United Nations, and heading the G77 at Copenhagen, Di-Aping has made headlines worldwide for his description of the Copenhagen Accord as a suicide pact for Africa. In a frank encounter with Nitin Sethi, Di-Aping reveals why he thinks Jairam Ramesh is the "ultimate strategic maverick" who gives nothing on the country's economic interests. 

Last year, you raised questions about whether emerging economies were acting like the leaders for G77. Would you review your opinion now? 

What I said last year was that India China Brazil and South Africa are going to pay a price for accepting that deal. In fact, my view is that China buckled, India took a different perspective, that they prioritized what they considered to be their national interest. Brazil was not clear to me why President Lula (Da Silva) accepted the deal, given the fact that he argued very much for an equitable deal for better financing for poor countries. 

And South Africa? 

South Africa followed BASIC countries... The reality is that of the mass economies, South Africa is not that large. It's an economy of 40-60 million people. It's big enough in the global scale of things but you can't compare the Brazilian, Chinese or Indian economy with the South African economy. What I can tell you equally, (is) that it has become clear to me that the group that really had a very clear strategic view was India. 

Explain that please... 

Let me put it this way. Minister Jairam Ramesh, in my mind, is the ultimate strategic maverick. He is a leftie on the right, he is a global nationalist and at the same time, he is unaccountable to anyone but to the pursuit of the national economic interests of India. That is the only thing that shapes his ultimate strategy but he does not follow any conventional wisdom on that. And, let me give you how. 

India has effectively joined the master's club. So what he does in these negotiations is to ensure the expansion of that not only in climate change negotiations but at two other important subsets. First is the global political security council agenda. The second is the economic developmental agenda and then climate change. 

His position on MRV (measurement, reporting and verification of climate actions), for example, cannot be explained unless you know the fact that it is almost near impossible for anyone to MRV india. The Indian industrialists and bureaucracy would not allow a foreign state or group to intervene in an area that it considers at the heart of its sovereignty. That is one consideration. 

India knows that it has a colossal intellectual economic strategic advantage. There is no nation on earth that has its (India's) intellectual and its business innovative abilities. The issue in India is how is this colossal group of the super-rich going through the reflect as part of their agenda, the interests of the poor which is huge. 

Another side is that Ramesh is incredibly flexible but movable. One, no politician can dismiss him. He is not elected by any sector of his community. What he does is, he works so that the economic interest of the country is untouched and that means with the populist Left positions he takes and the support of the business community he has ensured his survival under all circumstances. 

Does India's position on the high table then come at the cost of forsaking the interests of the poorer countries and stop playing guardian or is there some middle path to it? 

No, there is no midway. This will definitely be his Achilles heel. If Ramesh doesn't embrace the fundamental concerns of LDCs (least developed countries), Africa and small island states, then he would have done incredible damage to the interests. Because these nations will call for reclassification of India into Annex 1 country. And that is why the thing to watch is what is he going to do in two areas. The issue concerning the 1.5 degrees C and the peaking (suggestion to developing countries to cap emissions at a peak level by 2020 or 2025). 

He has started to address peaking by coining this new phrase 'equitable sustainable development'. What is missing there is 'for all'. On the second, (he) is still far from taking a very strong position with Africa, LDCs and SIDs (small-island developing states).